< 18 December	20 December >

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

The result was delete. The strongest argument for keep simply says that his combining his contributions to many fields may lead to sufficient notability, if someone wants the page userfied to them in order work on and establish clearer notability I would be happy to do so. J04n(talk page) 18:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Olshevsky[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nn "freelance editor, writer, publisher, amateur paleontologist, and mathematician" tagged since 2010 Staszek Lem (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Olshevsky is a stated "freelance editor, writer, publisher, amateur paleontologist, and mathematician", the article has many problems, is perhaps also a platform for a bird-dino-hypotheis, which is, say, not mainstream. I understand the nomination. Things may not be so simple though.

Google Scholar searches are diluted with a physicist, but the search string "George Olshevsky -"A Olszewski"" yields a number of publications, one cited by 35. The folks citing him are themselves highly cited, e.g. S Chatterjee - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of …, 1985 -which is cited by 193. Olshevsky's contribution to name some dinosaur bones are recognized by Smithsonian https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/b-is-for-becklespinax-85813988/ . Olshevsky may an amateur paleontologist, "fan" or whatever, but whose contributions are recognized by the scientific community.

Math lectures at universities cite some of Olshevsky contributions to "polyhedreality", or something, e.g. Yale http://users.math.yale.edu/~is362/Polychores_en.odp , or here https://library.ucmo.edu/faculty/walker/limbonaut_1.htm and here https://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/junkyard/polymodel.html .

And he is a prolific writer of Marvel Comics, at list of 12 books are here. https://www.librarything.com/series/The+Marvel+Comics+Index

I managed to locate some media mention: " At a 1984 conference on polyhedra the Boston Globe reported (29 April 84) "Polyhedra can become as complex as the spectacular 'yog-sothoth' constructed by publisher George Olshevsky and mathematician Bruce Chilton. A yog-sothoth (named for one of the most powerful demons of science fantasy author H. P. Lovecraft) is the most complicated uniform polyhedron. The model displayed by Olshevsky and Chilton consisted of 3060 pieces and took 11 years to build." [1].

In conclusion, Olshevsky doesn't fit easily into standard boxes and labeling, but I wouldn't be surprised if in depth coverage or a bio could be found somewhere in these highly specialized fields/communities where he spends time. I have no interest in the subject myself. FHHedlund (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olshevsky represents a very strange case, one for which the guidelines do not offer any easy solutions. He does not hold any academic position but has made important contributions to mathematics and paleontology. These contributions are in some fields so crucial that about a hundred of our articles cannot avoid mentioning his name as he is the discoverer of many mathematical objects as well as the naming author of several dinosaur genera and species. Our List of dinosaur genera has as its only comprehensive source Olshevsky's on-line genera list — no other published list is available about genera named since 2004! So, if we are forced to mention much of his work in many places, it seems bizarre that we should be somehow forbidden to provide information about the man himself. Indeed, one could plausibly argue that the reader likely wants to know who this person is and that we have a duty to grant that wish. If you are bound to be noted, you have notability!--MWAK (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked through the first dozen polytope articles that show up when I put the name "Olshevsky" into the search bar, I do not think the claim that those articles "cannot avoid mentioning his name" stands up to scrutiny. In 3/4 of the articles I visited, his name appears only as the author of an externally linked webpage (i.e., the article content would be unchanged by deleting mention of him). In the remaining articles (where he is actually mentioned in the body), the only mentions are of the form "Olshevsky has proposed a name for something." None of this has any value; it certainly does not indicate personal notability. --JBL (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My impression is that his inclusion in our mathematics articles (chiefly concerning his own idiosyncratic nomenclature for high-dimensional polytopes, and chiefly consisting of citations to an unpublished and now-offline AOL page) is fancruft and a violation of WP:OR and WP:RS. The page itself viewable in archive states "Many of these terms were recently created ... and do not yet appear in standard geometry texts." i.e. they also violate WP:NEO. Olshevsky is mentioned in 240 or so of our articles on polytopes, but only because of the efforts of a small number of enthusiasts; he has made little or no impact on mathematics research or pedagogy. Searching Google scholar for his works and factoring out similarly named people [2] finds citation counts of 35,16,16, and then single digits for his paleontology (too little for WP:PROF#C1), and nothing for his mathematics. His article asserts that his paleontological work is WP:FRINGE (as it appears to be) but it does not appear to have the mainstream attention needed to source its description as fringe and satisfy both WP:BLP (controversial claims about living people must be sourceed) and WP:NPOV (all material must be treated from a mainstream point of view). And our article is essentially unsourced; if it weren't too old, it could be BLPPRODded. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DE. (I would also support removing most of the links to his work from polytope articles, since my perusal of a dozen articles suggests they rarely have encyclopedic value.) --JBL (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joel B. Lewis: I've been slowly doing some of this, but encountering pushback from the aforementioned enthusiast: [3] [4]. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the pushbacker. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Liles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage or reliable independent sources. One of them is lieterally a list created on Reddit compiling other social media posts for a draft of a failed league (and is essentially a reprint of the since deleted draft primary source page). Another is a source from the apparent article creator User talk:Agencyath. He got mentioned in a list and a regional report (which was a brief blurb). He is also far below the standards of WP:NGRIDIRON. I actually get far more news hits on him because he appears to have worked as a sports writer for the Fort Worth Star Telegram covering high school football. I can't find any reports that says he ever played a game or a try-out with any of the NFL teams, or even the arena teams, listed. Yosemiter (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My preliminary searches aren't turning up enough to pass WP:GNG. The most in-depth article I found is at NewsLibrary.com: a 676-word article behind a paywall titled "Liles leads by example" from The Coolidge Examiner of June 22, 2011. I don't have a subscription, so I can't review it. I'll hold off on voting to see if others (User:WikiOriginal-9?) turn up more significant coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cbl62: Would not most articles about his school play in Coolidge not be de-barred by clause 2 in WP:NHSPHSATH (The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability)? This article seems self-published or by an agent as I can find no records of NFL try-outs, which at least nominally gets mentions, or of his supposed play for the AFL in the LA KISS. Yosemiter (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb at NewsLibrary.com suggests that the article was significant coverage, but it's hard to say without reviewing the full article. NHSPHSATH was intended to set a higher bar for high school athletes; if the article deals only with Liles' high school period, NHSPHSATH might apply but, again, hard to say without reviewing the article. Cbl62 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears (based on date and publisher) to a run-of-the-mill fluff piece on a former local high school player doing well in a NAIA college. We've discussed this before, but I still firmly believe any coverage by a local paper, especially smaller ones, is questionable in its independence as a source. Local papers need to sell papers, and locals will buy papers about local news; however, smaller cities don't have much relevant on-going local news, so they fill it with local interest articles (as in run-of-the-mill or routine), which includes people. Every small paper does this and the sports section is no different (especially if it was in June when there are no other local sports to actually cover). That is why I like to see far more wide range of coverage in at least one other non-stats source. Yosemiter (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts as to whether W:GNG is satisfied here. But your dismissing a source as "a run-of-the-mill fluff piece" without even seeing it is questionable. Cbl62 (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out small papers have to fill their paper with articles to sell it, hence fluff it up, when nothing else is happening. I have lived in towns between 1,000 and 10,000 pop. my entire life and they literally have 1-5 articles every week in their papers about locals, whether it is the business pages (shop owners, restaurateurs, managers, etc) or sports pages (interest pieces on high school, former high school, skiers/snowboarders, etc.) relevant to the area. 99% of the people being discussed in those articles would be considered routine in any other circumstance, yet you have repeatedly claimed that once a high school player has graduated, any coverage, whether or not they were only being covered again because they played high school there, is now deemed non-routine. That is what I have a problem with as I see it as no different than a local chef getting an interest piece. We clearly have different opinions on the matter, and it is what it is. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have grossly misstated my position. I have never, let alone "repeatedly", claimed that "once a high school player has graduated, any coverage ... is now deemed non-routine." What I said in this case is simply that I would need to see the actual article in question to evaluate it. You, on the other hand, claim to have the remarkable ability to evaluate articles without even reading them. Cbl62 (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this piece is significant coverage, but I'm not familiar with UKEndzone and have doubts as to whether it's a reliable source. Cbl62 (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in-depth as an interview; however, in the About Us it does they are/were a blog based in the UK (hence the description of college football levels before the interview in the notes). It should also be clarified that the site linked did not actually perform the interview, it was done by another blogger on another defunct blog and re-printed with permission/partnership. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [5][6][7][8] From nl.newsbank.com, The Madison Daily Leader ("DSU's Liles named to 2011 BSN All-American Football third team", "DSU's Eric Liles earns football preseason honor", "Hertz and Liles participate in 2013 USA Freedom Bowl All-Star game") The Coolidge Examiner ("Liles leads by example") WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the sources provided in the article and those found in the discussion above, it seems that the subject does not pass WP:GNG or any other measure that I can find. Subject might achieve notability in the future... perhaps in the near future, so no prejudice toward re-creation of the article. I would change my position if other sources are found and presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Liles played at an NAIA-level school; this is the lowest tier of college football (below NCAA Divisions I, II, and III). It would be rare in the extreme for a player at the NAIA level to receive the type of coverage needed to pass the WP:GNG bar. I agree with Paulmcdonald that there's just not enough coverage revealed to this point to pass that bar. Also, most of the coverage that has been found is from sources (e.g., UK End Zone, Keloland Media Group, SD Sports Buzz, Blog Talk Radio) that may or may not qualify as reliable sources. If additional sources are brought forth, I'd reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Khandakar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer with no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Two third-party sources provided by page creator either did not mention the subject or were WP:USERG. PROD removed by article creator without comment. This article has been recreated multiple times and I have tagged it with a recommendation for deleting administrator to WP:SALT. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC); edited 21:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect from creation - lack of notability is clear and apparent, and just re-writing the article under various aliases is not a helpful contribution to the encyclopedia, or a good use of our time. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of a link to a Spotify listing by the "musician", coupled with the general tone of the piece and the intimacy of the uploaded image, as well as the repeated attempts to re-pen the article, scream to me that a WP:COI violation is afoot here also. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found nothing in Bengali also. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To follow up on User:Stormy clouds' note about potential COI, I had also opened a case at SPI about the repeated recreation of this article by multiple accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soltumia123. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 22:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the contributor I'm a new contributor and I wanted to start creating articles by writing about Saad Khandakar who is a young artist and popularly known as the Justin Bieber of my state. He recently won a national award for a soundtrack of a tv drama. As a new contributor, I might have a lot of confusions and difficulties but I can assure that I'll keep improving the page . Thanks to wikipedia to give me the chance to work . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sazzadhassan (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — Sazzadhassan (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Soltumia123 (talk • contribs). [reply]

@Sazzadhassan: - If he won a national award of any merit, it was likely reported in the media. Finding such reports from reliable sources and using them to reference the article would be a good start towards improving the page and demonstrating why we should keep. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Academic Challenger (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Hemsley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails core content policy WP:V and therefore it may be original research and so fail WP:OR too. Article is a BLP so verification is essential. Notice served September 2017 requiring citations has not been acknowledged. There is a subscription site given as an external link but that is not a source. Regards, Waj (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many similar cricket biographies where the subject made a single top-level appearance have been nominated for deletion on the grounds of dubious notability. That is subjective and notability is only a guideline. This case focuses on verification which is a core content policy and not so easy to argue against unless adequate sourcing can be provided. It is believed that large numbers of cricket biographies are unsourced so this one is the tip of an iceberg. Regards, Waj (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - sorry, but this is very different to the articles recently debated - this is, for a start, an English cricketer about whom I am certain there is enough material to make an article if we are prepared to research further. As it is, he has made a List A appearance and is therefore notable. This is precisely why we don't make our guidelines to read 2, 3, 5, or 500 List A appearances. We've had over ten years to change these guidelines to read this way and we still haven't done so. Sending articles like this to AfD straight away is not the answer - let's at least send them for possible cleanup and/or expansion first. Bobo . 21:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been sent to AfD immediately because notice was served in September that citations are required. This has not been done and it fails WP:V (a core policy) and WP:BLP (a fundamental policy). Notability is not an issue at this time. It is dependent on verification and can be assessed after verification has been provided. Regards, Waj (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is unfair to the guidelines of our WikiProject Cricket as these notable cricketers are either nominated for PROD or AfD discussion. Colin Hemsley is much more notable than other Sri Lankan and Indian cricketers which were nominated for AfD. But the nominator has nominated this for an AfD without quoting the notability issues. Then what's the issue with the article? Abishe (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe. Sorry, but that is unbelievable. Until action was taken by User:Jevansen, and not by the article's author as should have been the case, the article had NO CITATIONS AT ALL and was therefore in breach of WP:V, one of the core content policies. Verification is all the more important because Mr Hemsley is alive and so the article was also failing to comply with WP:BLP, another key (though not core) policy. Notability was not the issue. Regards, Waj (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for indirectly naming me... sure, the article had no citations, but it had external links which I always used because at the time, that was the template I was working towards. No references? Turn the external links into references. Exactly the same thing. Job's a good 'un. Just like with others, I find it disgusting that it's taken nine years for someone to decide they have an issue with an article and, instead of bringing it up with the article's creator or those who may be interested in fixing it, sending it straight to AfD. If the main complaint is, "change external links to references", this is a job which can be done quietly and successfully, not having to do it this way. Bobo . 08:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo192, I cannot access that site and I could not know if the link is a valid citation. Obviously, Jevansen does have access and has checked it. There is nothing "disgusting" about raising a BLP issue and it has not taken me nine years. Regards, Waj (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memo to closing administrator. I raised the nomination because the article at the time had no citations at all. In my opinion, this meant that it did not comply with either WP:V or WP:BLP. In secondary terms, WP:V failure creates the risk of non-compliance with WP:OR and, possibly WP:NPOV also. As such, the article must be deemed unacceptable as it failed the core content policies. I have been accused by the article's author of "sending articles like this to AfD straightaway" (instead of taking alternative actions) but I contend that a "citations required" notice was served on the article three months ago and was not even acknowledged. Therefore, AfD is logically the next step.

Next, I am accused by another cricket project editor of being "unfair" and failing to "quote the notability issues". There were no notability issues because there was no verification. There might be a notability issue now because "Cricket Archive" is controversial (see the other cricket-related AfD discussions) but I am not pursuing that.

Would you please let me know if I have acted incorrectly? For example, have I gone outside due process or missed any key steps? If not, then can you please carefully explain to each of User:Bobo192 and User:Abishe – (a) the importance of WP:V and WP:BLP; (b) the difference between verification and notability; (c) the difference between citations and external links; (d) anything else you can think of.

I have only been a member for a few days and I feel weary. I think I should take some time out and perhaps forget all about membership. I used to enjoy using this site before I became a member. Regards, Waj (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the fact that you think, after 13 years of membership, I need to be "carefully explained" anything. The only thing which needs to be "carefully explained" is why our project is being destroyed. Bobo . 17:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will address this more at AN where this was brought up, however I need to point out here that an article with no citations in it does not "fail WP:V". Citations do not have to be included in an article to pass WP:V, they only must exist. BLP is the only policy that requires citations to be present in an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger. I apologise for not mentioning the challenge earlier in the nomination so my opening sentence is unclear. I believe the article violated WP:V because citations were not provided after a challenge was made. As you say, it certainly violated BLP. Regards, Waj (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wajidshahzeed: - you do seem to know alot about WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:OR, AfD, etc, for a user who has been here four days. Have you edited before, and if so, under which account(s)? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also have such reservations as they never looked WP:NEWBIE. Don't know they are WP:SOCK or not. Störm (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, def. going down the WP:SOCK route, per WP:DUCK. 10 edits in and they're dropping in to random AfDs. And this personal attack directed at @Störm: too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts Don't know who is missing in our AfDs but surely he has participated previously in cricket-related AfDs or is concurring. Störm (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame Lugnuts and Störm for casting suspicion. The user's "signature test" on their sandbox, starting threads at WT:N and WP:AN, long rants about WP:V, frequently "quitting" the site (in four days!) etc, all look very familiar to the average WP:CRIC member. Dee 03 14:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They have 100pc 'edits with summary' which is comparable with Bobo192's 98pc. Störm (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting off-topic a teensy bit but are you referring to 98 percent of the history of the project? I've had "Make sure I always add an edit summary" clicked on for heaven knows how long. But this isn't really relevant to the current conversation. I'm just demoralized at the fact that our project is being destroyed. Bobo . 17:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! This again? I have used the site for several years but not as a member. I am seriously beginning to regret I ever decided to try membership out. The site is full of suspicion, politics and recriminations. As for my ability to understand the policies and spot irregularities in their wordings, I am by trade a legal practitioner, so it comes easy to me. Also, I have asked a lot of questions – at the help desk, for example, and on policy talk pages.

In fact, spur of the moment, why bother? Regards, Waj (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original issues of failing WP:V/WP:OR are not valid deletion requirements in themselves, and have both been addressed via sourcing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concerns about notability have been addressed and WP:NCRIC has been satisfied by added citations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as meeting WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nom started this AfD but he himself is no more on WP. Störm (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC. Johnlp (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Gerling[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot see a plausible claim of notability: the refs being in German I cannot read them but I suspect run of the mill coverage of a bloke doing a job. TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see the subject's activity in the family insurance firm as providing biographical notability. While he does get mentioned relative to the Herstatt Bank in which he held the largest interest, it is notable more in its failure than anything else and the subject's role there is covered sufficiently in the article on the bank and also doesn't provide individual notability here. AllyD (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- substantial German entries as well as mentions in Fortune Magazine, NYT and WSJ in English. Why such a hurry to delete a new article on the CEO of a major company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.86.59.98 (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheLongTone, It's true that a lot of the coverage is in German, but Hans Gerling was important enough to be inducted into the Insurance Hall of Fame (just added - source in English). I think the biggest problem is that the huge company he ran - Gerling Konzern - doesn't have a wikipedia page in English. I'll create one based on the German (which has 19 sources and other authorities). Please don't delete my future attempt to create a Gerling Konzern page. I'll try to find English sources. Improvements and additional sources much appreciated. Thank you Xmastree75 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep while many of the sources are in German, Hans Gerling is a notable business man in the early days of the Federal Republic of Germany. He has been subject of TV documentaries such as this, contemporary reviews about his legacy such as this - in which the authors consider him "king of the city of Cologne" in this days or this biography on the website of regional communities association in the section of important personalities in the state. On a separate note, I don't think I have ever seen an AfD nomination which is based on not being able to read sources and mere assumptions what may be written in them. This alone shows the arbitrary frivolity of the nomination. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But unsourced and/or NN entries should be removed Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of steelbands[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails GNG, INDISCRIMINATE. South Nashua (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not provide any evidence to support its assertion. In fact, the topic easily passes WP:LISTN as steel bands are notable individually and collectively. Here is a selection of sources. Andrew D. (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steelpan Ambassadors: The US Navy Steel Band, 1957–1999
The Steelband Movement: The Forging of a National Art in Trinidad
Steel Drums and Steelbands: A History
Forty Years of Steel: An Annotated Discography of Steel Band and Pan Recordings
Pan, the story of the steel band
The Steel-band: A New Dimension in Music in the Twentieth Century
History of Steelband Panorama of Trinidad and Tobago, 1963-1990
The Origin, Development and Diffusion of the Steel Band in the Caribbean and Beyond: The Historical Geography of a Musical Instrument
Unheard Voices: The Rise of Steelband and Calypso in the Caribbean
Invaders Steel Orchestra: The History of a Legendary Trinidad Steelband

Are these books? Magazine articles? Are they reliable? And in regard to the bands themselves, where is the line on what would be included? The topic is so broad that it can't avoid being a generalized directory of random steel drum bands. South Nashua (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NMUSIC. The above sources provided by Andrew.D only validate notability for Steelband (the target article is a redirect to Steelpan), it doesn't for a list of non-notable musical groups. Ajf773 (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Look at the first item in the current list. It's the Invaders. Next, notice one of the sources I listed above: Invaders Steel Orchestra: The History of a Legendary Trinidad Steelband. This is a substantial book of 700 pages and it's not the only one about the band -- there's plenty more sources out there for it. So, this band is not just notable; it's famous. The fact that we don't have an article for it yet is a travesty but is no reason to delete this early attempt at listing the key players in the field. Andrew D. (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good case for creating an article for Invaders. But isn't really sufficient if it's the only notable entry on a list. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously more than one notable steel band. For example, see the first entry in the list of sources that I posted above. That's an entire book devoted to the United States Navy Steel Band. And that's an existing article. That article is not yet in the Category:Steelbands which leads us to yet more articles. And so we see further evidence that this list has lots of potential. Our editing policy is that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome". Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to steelpan (where steelband presently redirects). The sole question that I see is whether there are enough notable groups to merit a standalone list (Category:Steelbands has six, there may be more), a question that really should have been left to editors to discuss, not deletion processes. I do not see a valid argument presented that we shouldn't list steelbands anywhere. Please do remember WP:ATD is policy before you jump to deletion as a solution to a question of editing. Further, if steelband is a notable topic, as the deletion !voter has conceded above, then LISTN is necessarily satisfied. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support moving the specific content from steelpan (which is an instrument) and moving into a steelband where the article can be established. Then merge or redirect this list into there. Ajf773 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. However all red-link/unlinked entries should be sourced. Pburka (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each entry should pass WP:NMUSIC. Ajf773 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pburka (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the current article is a mess, and always has been (even when I created it, 11 years ago), there are plenty of bands that could meet NMUSIC. Scholarly works like Shannon Dudley's Music from behind the bridge discuss the origins and histories of many bands, while regular newspaper pieces discuss the performance of steelbands in the annual Panorama competition, and occasional profile pieces delve into many bands in depth. It needs lots of work, and I'm guilty of creating and abandoning the article. But I believe it's a perfectly viable list article. Guettarda (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Other than the article's author (who has a very limited editing history), unanimous consensus to delete for lack of WP:RS and failure to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An Empty Hug a love story[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. If there was an appropriate CSD cat I would use it. TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published book, no coverage on it Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author, Abhijeet Sarswat, is clearly non notable....the more things a person is described as doing (entrepreneur, musician, chicken-sexer and saggar-maker's bottom-knocker) the less likely I am to suppose they can do any of them.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Books fails WP:GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBOOKS. Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of reliable sources coverage and did not find any Atlantic306 (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This has news coverage in India reffer the link - ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphicbaba (talk • contribs) 06:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that looks like coverage, though I can't tell how much/what it is about since it is in hindi. Also, need more than one piece of coverage, and the entire article is completely poor in tone/content - compare with any other article on a book. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This book has more news coverage in India also the famous Indian classical vocalist Pt. Raghunandan Panshikar talked about book refer the link http://zunjarneta.com/date/20171225/page/7/ ^[2]Abhijeet G. Sarswat - Animator cum Designer 04:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphicbaba (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Getting more news coverage about the book in indian newspapers https://web.archive.org/web/20171226033212/http://parshvbhumi.com/date/20171226/page/6/^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphicbaba (talk • contribs) 04:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--All sources are non-RS.Promo-spam.Winged Blades^Godric 15:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stephenson (curator)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Medium level public servant. Is an archivist at some govt agencies, was a state-level branch manager of a few govt bodies. No achievements disclosed ADS54 talk 11:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in no way meets our notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – does not meet WP:GNG. Kb.au (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable at governance and management level of museums and galleries in three states for twenty years. Castlemate (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think this one falls just on the side of notability between his quite public National Trust roles and his other quite senior positions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of their National Trust role and other senior roles, notability still requires reliable independent sources to covered it. I'm stuggling to find any of significance, and the main ones cited are primary and not independent. Kb.au (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the posts are significant-ish, but I've not been able to find the coverage to back up WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not voting due to a COI (as a member of the National Trust of SA, I've met Ian Stephenson), but I have to dispute the AFD nominator's description of Stephenson as "a state-level branch manager of a few govt bodies". The National Trust bodies (NSW and SA) are in fact separate, autonomous NGOs (although they are both member groups of the National Trust of Australia). Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your integrity and background knowledge of the subject. Castlemate (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider ~~Amar Pandit~~ the CEO of the National Trust in South Australia. as sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think you've responded to the wrong AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amar_Pandit. Kb.au (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

actually it was a copy-paste error--i thought I was pasting the name of his organization, but I had the previous name in my clipboard. thanks for spotting it. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have to agree with TDW that this one falls just on the side of notability, per their extensive career. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 20:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many prominent national posts demonstrate sufficient notability. SunChaser (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Nazrul[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability. Sources are found mostly from the events. There are thousands of academics in Bangladesh. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing enough to suggest any sort of notability. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 20:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to warrant notability. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Academic Challenger (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Millner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN person from Newington College who inherited the family business. Half of this stub is about his high school activities ADS54 talk 11:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- He is a billionaire CEO, Google News brings up a lot of hits.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is not "cover the details of every house lived in at Newington" -pedia. Inheriting a lot of money does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A hugely important company director of many notable companies and often covered in the financial press. Castlemate (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of significant coverage here (including [9], [10], [11], [12] and more). Easily clears WP:GNG. (As usual, it's a pity this clear notability is not reflected in the article itself.) Frickeg (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and doesn't seem to qualify for a bio based on available data. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has passes WP:ANYBIO point 3 solidly by having biographical entry in Who's Who in Australia. It is academic reference material and peer to UK's Who's Who and Dictionary of National Biography. The WWA book is used by academics and historians and its entries are. people [who] have significantly contributed to Australian life on a national or international level. Add to the sources provided by Frickeg above and the ones already in the article, he clearly passes WP:GNG also.–Ammarpad (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Clearly notable. Multiple significant independent sources from major news organisations over a number of years that talk specifically about the subject and are not mere trivial mentions. Kb.au (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I would remind editors that it is up to the page creator to ensure that the page is able to justify itself on a notability basis, and should be strengthening the page with sources accordingly, it isnt just up to us to do it! It brings no credit to the creator that potentially notable individuals (like this one seems to be given his positions and the coverage found) that they are even being considered for deletion.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parichay Times[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citation, no reliable source information against the notability of this newspaper. Wikilearn2017 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Wikilearn2017 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Moreover, a sock. Matthew_hk t c 16:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No result in WorldCat, https://onesearch.library.uwa.edu.au, https://trove.nla.gov.au. Don't know any Indian library databases, but either the newspaper is non-notable, or just bad search word (a English translation of the proper name of an Indian-language newspaper) Matthew_hk t c 15:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a newspaper with circulation in multiple Indian states and has government accredited journalists working for it.[13] Pratyush (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Indian folk dances. J04n(talk page) 13:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Folk dance in India[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced except for the first line. There exists a much detailed article on the same topic, List of Indian folk dances. MT Train^Discuss 17:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Indian folk dances. Ajf773 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Yes I agree with Ajf773. It should be redirected to List of Indian folk dances. Anmolbhat (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Indian folk dances.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ganess Paudel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria of WP:NAUTHOR, he's only published one novel. The novel has been reviewed, but that's par for the course. A search of his name (including in Nepali) brings up mainly things that he's written. ... discospinster _talk 17:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New article about a Nepali language journalist and first time novelist with a new book out. while I am willing to be persuaded by editors who have a reading knowledge of Nepali, the first of the external links below - an interview about the new that ran in the English language The Kathmandu Post, is all I can find in a language I read and it is not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough rd-party source covering of him to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Pontrelli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage of the person (likely neither of the company, but that hasn't been tried yet). Apparently good for soundbites in interviews, which the majority of the given sources pertains to, but I doubt that constitutes notability. (However, feel free to tell me otherwise,BLP notability is not my forte) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks to be self-promotional/conflict of interest: Seems the creator of the article was also the creator of Lausanne Business Solutions, whose president appears to be Pontrelli. Eric ^talk 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete lacks sufficient coverage in RS to meet notability requirements. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- it's a puff-piece. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically per everybody else; it is a promotional article whose subject doesn't have enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources, meaning that the content of the article cannot be adequately verified. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 04:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Rohrer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

was WP:PROD, tag was removed by USER:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). fails WP:POLITICIAN, unsuccessful candidates are not usually notable. Can't find much on this guy outside of his donation to Rowan University. Rusf10 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- His contribution to Rowan University was made posthumously, so I don't know if he is really a philanthropist as the article suggests or he just left the university some money in his will.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The quality and quantity of the references meet GNG. --RAN (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Sorry, I accidentally delsorted this to history, although it is not a terribly good fit. In any case, I agree that there is sufficient coverage that this article passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did a little WP:HEYMANN sourced to long obit in the Philadelphia Inquirer. I wish to add, as I have seen some highly-regarded editors say on other AfDs about politicians in the last few weeks, that Nom, User:Rusf10 needs to slow down and WP:BEFORE bringing so many politicians to AfD so rapidly. In particular. It essential to search a news archive when trying to determine notability for public figures whose careers are pre ~2000. And it is often better practice to tag an article for sourcing and notability and leave the tags in place for 6 months or a year as an act of WP:AGF on the part of the editor who wrote the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I will withdraw as per WP:HEYMANN, although I respectfully disagree with you on some of my other nominations. Also, in this case, the author who wrote the article has not been active in almost two years, so I doubt they would come forward with more sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boca Grande Bike Path[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage. This bike path exists and that's about it. Occasional mention in a blog or e-zine that it exists or is scenic, but not the significant coverage needed to pass notability. Although WP:LOCAL is an essay, it does seem to address the issue pretty well. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, local trivia. Kierzek (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Florida's first rail trail ([14]), it has some notability that reaches a statewide audience. Sounder Bruce 00:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly being first at something doesn't make it notable. Most bike paths are not notable in the first place, so being the first in a field of non-notables is not much of an achievement. What does make it notable is significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Failure of WP:BEFORE D1 on Google books. Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- passes GNG. I tried to find some sort of guideline on trails but there doesn't seem to be one. I think we usually keep this stuff though. Regardless, I was able to find a non-local source for this. From the travel section of a newspaper in Cleveland:[15]--Rusf10 (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Others report it meets GNG. Also "rail trails" are sufficiently rare as to make them all notable. Definitely all can be listed, e.g. in List of rail trails in the United States, and one could possibly be covered as a list-item rather than a separate article. However again this apparently meets notability standards. --Doncram (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barely enough to pass GNG, but "barely" is "enough", and there is enough here. We also need to remember that Wikipedia is not paper and thus we can cover things that our dead-tree-honed instincts go "well that wouldn't be included-" in many cases. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. You will need to improve the sourcing before this will merit an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coram's Fields User Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small local group dedicated to a small local park. Already speedied once and recreated, so I suppose we'll go for a full discussion. There's basically nothing available as far as sources go, and the closest thing to to a claim of notability is their 53 followers on facebook. I'm not entirely sure the organization is notable enough to make it a plausible redirect. GMG ^talk 13:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coram's Fields user group represents approximately 500 local members and approximately 1000 followers, working on long term issues relating to the development of Coram's Fields. Coram's Fields is a notable park of historic significance in England, and one of the largest in London. Its cultural importance stems from it being on the location of the Foundling Hospital, which spawned several significant charities, some of them amongst the oldest in the world, and all related to children (e.g. Thomas Coram Foundation for Children, Great Ormond Street Hospital. The Facebook membership for the group is less relevant as a statistic as it appears not used for exchange. The group has been officially recognised by the Council ^[4] User:Pavic 14:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

I don't doubt that the park itself is probably appropriate for an article, as many physical locations are, with at times an overall lower standard for notability in practice than other subjects. The question is whether the community organization simply exists, or whether it has received sustained in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, usually things like newspapers, magazines and books, and explicitly excluding things like their official wordpress blog, and passing routine coverage like a registration with the city counsel. GMG ^talk 14:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The groups seems quite vibrant with activities. Here are additional references. Second AGM with lecture, Guest Lecture: Girls in Sport: Hafiza Patel & Yashmin Harun (MSA) ^[1], or the reference to the first AGM in 2016^[2]. The group posts regular Newsletter to approximately 1000 addressees ^[3]. There is an interesting article in the local Camden press by the group, prior to the actual formation ^[4]. Some of these references may prove of value? User:Pavic 15:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://allevents.in/london/second-agm-corams-fields-user-group/165477273991696
^ AGM 2016https://marchmontnews.wordpress.com/2016/06/14/children-at-kings-cross-new-independent-grassroots-user-group-for-the-betterment-of-corams-fields-kings-cross-environment/
^ http://mailchi.mp/09c53a2d544a/cfug-half-term-newsletter-bloomsbury-festival-corams-fireworks?e=4855871818
^ http://archive.camdennewjournal.com/letters/2015/oct/what’s-going-behind-closed-doors-coram’s-fields

Delete The group is a year old, it has apparently tiny membership, and the references are highly local. I speedied this before reasons other than notability, but if this gets an article, every tiny local organisation will qualify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. As explained above the group is quite significant, with close to 1000 local followers and a significant membership. The key to the group's importance is the importance of the park itself. The location is a "Foundling hospital" location, which has undergone changes several times in its history, but represents one of the first charities in the world and derives from Thomas Coram. In 1935, the local residents (in a similar fashion) created a major fundraising effort to buy the park from a property developer. This is a landmark community action, which has historic importance. The User group continues this heritage. I.e. without local grouping of residents the park would not exist either. Hope this helps? Pavic - Happy days! 14.51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Pavic, I expect it may be helpful to review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which is the standard by which articles such as these are kept or deleted. GMG ^talk 15:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo, Thank you, reviewing. I understand this might be neither here nor there in terms of obvious notability, it is a young organisation, which would become of more importance if it had more media coverage for example (e.g. Greenpeace moving from obscure to well known). One element that is particularly worthy however, is the strength of local community action as exemplified in the Fundraising for the park preservation in 1935 and now, as well as presence of Thomas Coram as a guiding light, which spans a whole range of significant children organisations in the UK. Happy days! 16:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo, Some more editing. I expect this historic link is very valuable, I have added some basic info and a poster, which links these two communities. The link is in the spirit of the preservation of the park, and it partially provides an argument about historic continuity and historic mission. Hope this will be appreciated in correct light. Thank you. Happy days! 17:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that notability is not inherited. It really doesn't matter how historic the park is, or how many people have written about the park. What matters is whether there is sustained in-depth coverage of the group itself, written in reliable sources that are independent of the group. GMG ^talk 17:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point. Some articles are relevant in that sense, such as the Camden New Journal - did you see that one? If that is not enough, I suppose they will become notable when and if the local media such as Camden new Journal or Evening Standard start writing about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavic (talk • contribs) 18:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand some articles in media are planned for the end of the year/beginning of the new year. Would that help? Happy days! 18:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local group lacking notability. They run a park. Refs are routine in nature. Article should not have been recreated after speedy delete. Szzuk (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2017 (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 speedily deleted (G11). fish&karate 10:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Botmetric[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG due to lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Thoroughly promotional and unencyclopedic in tone. Rentier (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh god no. Barely even have to look at the references when they have "indianprwire" as a name..NOTPROMO too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; corporate spam on nn company with overload of puffery, external links and buzzwords. I requested a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kong Hon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: not particularly notable supporting film actor. Quis separabit? 01:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Like Quis said, the actor is not notable. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 90 films and 100 TV series to his credits. Please refer to the other Wikipedias. Timmyshin (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator gives no reason why he considers a prolific actor who appeared in 200 films and TV dramas over a career spanning 60 years as not notable. His recent death is reported in Chinese-language media worldwide, including Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Singapore, and Canada, see Google News. -Zanhe (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Treysand who has expanded the article with many sources. -Zanhe (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Sources about his 7 December 2017 death include this article from Apple Daily, this article from Ming Pao, this article from Wen Wei Po, and this article from World Journal.
For coverage before his death, see this detailed 2008 profile from Apple Daily. There is more information about his extensive nearly 60-year career at zh:江漢.
Cunard (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks all for bringing this article about this late Hong Kong actor up to standard. Deryck C. 13:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and permit recreation. Is promotional in tone and appears to be close paraphrasing so this is clearly not to our standards but the subject is clearly notable. Therefore removing this to make room for a new compliant article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthie Collins[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Reads like a promotional piece. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the only coverage I can find are reworded press releases. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree much of her coverage—especially those with CMT website—is lazy paraphrasing of press releases. But at least one performance review in a major metro daily (http://beta.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-stagecoach-ruthie-collins-backstage-20160501-story.html) isn’t too shabby. So is being name checked at least on three separate occasions by Rolling Stone. Add those with a release on an established independent label, it’s enough to qualify per wikipedia criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's good coverage of her and her work as ShelbyMarion pointed out. Here's some more: CMT 2017, CMT 2016 and Huffington Post. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does read like a promotional piece and fails WP:MUSIC but it does conform to GNG. Hence, I propose cleanup for those sentences and parts written like an advert. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Covg is pretty shy of what is usually reqd for performers. Article is all OR and somewhat PROMO in nature. Agricola44 (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gosaku Ota[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable anime designer. Only notable lead work is Groizer X, otherwise just another robot anime supporting/episodic artist. Recommend redirect to Groizer X. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to provide some information: it seems both the article and the nominator might not be best characterizing the artist's work. He is less a designer than a manga artist with a number of works under his name. According to the Japanese Wikipedia, his most representative work is Tsuribaka taishō ja:釣りバカ大将, which ran in CoroCoro Comic to a total of ten volumes (a sequel ran for 5 volumes--both are now available at Comic Park [16]). He is thus known for his original fishing manga. Otherwise, he is known for his manga versions of famous anime (searches of his name in Japanese produce quite a number of blog articles on his manga on Mazinger Z: [17], [18], [19], [20]; or on Getter Robot: [21], [22], etc.). I am not sure this is enough to save the article, but I wanted to make sure there is no misrepresentation. Michitaro (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying he's better known as a manga artist of manga adaptations of anime series? Why isn't that in the article? The way it is stated now he appears to be a minor anime character designer. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never having heard of this guy before, I can't say why the article was written the way it was. I just checked on the Japanese Wikipedia page and then did independent searches and reported the results here. He seems to have both produced his own original manga (especially about fishing, one of which seems to have been reasonably successful) as well as did manga adaptations of successful anime.Michitaro (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the articles on Japanese and French Wikipedia have hardly any references as well (JA Wikipedia only shows 1) so it would have a hard time passing WP:GNG. The independent searches sound promising. As with others, if you'd like to move this over to Draft and work on it so that it can pass notability, then that could work. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find much in the way of RS on the net, though I am less familiar with where to look for them in the case of manga (though I know they are just not as available compared to those for other media). But I do know a couple of good printed reference books for manga artists (basically biographical dictionaries), so I can check those to see if he appears in those. Michitaro (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 19 December 2017 (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 merge to PLOS. It's a stretch to say there's an actual consensus to merge, but it was mentioned a couple of times and WP:ATD argues for it. This should be a limited merge, just enough to give a redirect some reasonable context. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PLOScast[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing much WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT for this podcast, as it is very specific to PLOS and has not been reviewed outside of the PLOScast blog. News articles listed are primarily announcements of academic guests on the podcast. Recommend redirect to PLOS, the company that makes the podcasts, and make it a section. The specific titles for the episodes are not needed either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep So "very specific" applies to ORCID, but not (as ever) to DC and Marvel? We have the most trivial of podcasts and vlogs covered, but if they're on a serious topic, then they're 'too specific'? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that the sources provided are affiliated with the PLOS organization. Any organization can put out podcasts, so what makes this one generally notable that it needs a fully detailed episode list? I'm trying to figure out how it is more notable that Jay_Mohr#Podcast or Pat Monahan's Patcast, both of which get mentions from their guests. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent sources. Not even sure it merits a mention in PLOS.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It seems reasonable to have a paragraph or so at PLOS though. Gnome de plume (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing significant independent coverage. PLOS itself is notable, but that is not an argument PLOScast is by default either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. It was already deleted by DGG as G11 –Ammarpad (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Canary[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A small private company founded in 2013 that fails WP:CORP. A startup company that may achieve things in the future but may not. Won a 2016 North America Red Herring award but there is some doubt as to the validity of these awards. Created by a single purpose editor and provides free advertising for the company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; strictly PR-driven / WP:SPIP sourcing and content. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Observer Media Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was nominated for speedy deletion as A7. I declined the speedy, but I think it would be good if it has gone through AfD since the notability is not obvious. Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:Corp; not notable, local trivia and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep after additions and cites added by SVTCobra. Kierzek (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe it does meet notability standards. This is the parent company of 13 newspapers, at least three of which have their own Wikipedia articles. Many of these newspapers are being used as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Also, I find it extremely harsh that an article gets nominated for speedy deletion within 30 minutes of creation. It survives the speedy, but nominated for AfD within 8 hours of its creation. Other editors have not had a chance to contribute yet! How do we expect people to create new articles if they get deleted right away? Do we expect new articles to be FA-class right away? BTW, I have added more history and secondary sources since Kierzek voted. Cheers, SVTCobra (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources were put in after the hasty 20 (!) minutes after creation A7 was slammed down for this; notable community publisher. @Reddogsix:, please give an article creator some wiggle room before a SPEEDY tag is put down on an article being built up. Nate • (chatter) 00:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy Analytics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find in depth coverage (more than a sentence) that isn't a press release or based off of one. Fails WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources are reliable of significant. - Mar11 (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; borders on G11 with WP:SPIP sourcing and promo content. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Promotional content no longer an issue. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Eastern Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional content which should have been removed a while ago. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:RS. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor admits to it here: [23] iczero (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned it up a bit, it's clearly notable in its field. It needs a full rewrite and research from scratch by somebody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAPS diet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A diet that makes a lot of fringe medical claims not supported by WP:MEDRS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability in terms of reliable source coverage (i.e. in WP:MEDRS compliant sources). Seems to be just a pet/fad diet pushed by one doctor. Everymorning (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete This should have been speedied. Horrible FRINGE promotional nonsense of the most damaging kind; one self-published book and 2 books by publishers that do not specialize in health. No way jose. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it met WP:G11; if you disagree (or feel there's a different deletion reason) feel free to tag it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It has lack of notability, it's promotional and stubby. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All three references are for book listings at the French Google Books, though the titles and summaries are in English:

A book by the author who developed the GAPS diet, “Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride”, for which we don’t have an article.
A GAPS cookbook by two proponents of the diet, Pamela Jenkins and Donna Gates.
Another book about the diet, this time by Hilary Boynton and Mary G. Brackett.

All three books unambiguously serve to promote the diet (WP:REFSPAM). The diet itself claims to treat various mental disabilities at opposite ends of the autistic-psychotic spectrum as well as autoimmune disorders not related to these conditions, and appears to be a carbohydrate-free diet that is ridiculously high in fat. It is an advertisement for a fraudulent fad diet. 108.210.216.95 (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

like you want. "that is ridiculously high in fat" that is not an argument it is like paleo or cetogen. If you think it is promotion, okay you can delete. I am not saying this diet make miracles or other. But just it is known and i thinked because of that it could have 3 lines.

there are many sources on internet really http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/07/17/gaps-diet-to-cure-what-ails.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3590555/So-Hemsley-sisters-fans-deadly-diet-guru.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/bake-offs-ruby-vs-the-hemsleys-the-bad-science-behind-clean-eati/ but okay it is not ncbi. (just mentionned in some studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23375414 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5512334/#B28) . I thinked it was sufficently covered on internet. If you think it is not. do like you want. --Vatadoshu^french 12:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Whist. (non-admin closure) !dave 10:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call-ace whist[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced game guide. Coin945 (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Whist. Pagat says Danish Whist, which exists in two forms: one with fixed partnerships, and one in which partners are chosen by calling an ace [24]. I've played Sheepshead (game) with this rule for partner selection, and have no reason to doubt the game is played in that fashion. However, there are no references (and I found none), and there's unlikely to be content to justify a stand-alone article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greenland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greenland-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 13:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far West (comics)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles (some of which have been unsourced since 2006), appear to have no independent notability. While Antarctic Press as a whole does appear to have enough coverage to justify an article, these should all be closely reassessed. Coin945 (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Gold Digger (comics)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gold Digger characters
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight X
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninja High School
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warrior Nun Areala
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warrior Nun Areala characters (2nd nomination)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The mainstream press has regrettably not devoted much time to covering these comicbooks, as they tend to spend all of their focus on superheroes, but Gold Digger in particular has been running for almost 250 issues, and the creator Fred Perry has even received an inkpot award for his work. Losing their Wikipedia articles could seriously damage the sales for the comicbooks in question, and the livelihood of the creators. David A (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As heart-breaking as it may be to say, Wikipedia is not concerned with the livelihood of its articles' subject matter. Sure, a Wikipedia article may boost sales, but that would be considered free advertising, and Wikipedia is not an advertising service. These articles can be saved through the addition of third party, reliable sourcing. However as intimated above, I think the best bet is to merge all this content into the Antarctic Press article to make one comprehensive and well sourced article that stands up to scrutiny and clearly outlines the entire catalogue. I encourage you to be WP:Bold and hit the edit button. :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, I am constantly busy running one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis, and am not a very competent Wikipedia editor without spending considerable amounts of time, but I did add some mainstream press coverage references to the regular Gold Digger article long ago. David A (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Antarctic Press per Coin945. Article is all cruft with primary sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there are also other Antarctic Press comics not listed in this AFD. I am quite happy with them too being merged into the Antarctic Press article.--Coin945 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gold Digger per this and this. Keep Warrior Nun Areala per this, this, and this. The others can be deleted/redirected as appropriate. I'm not sure these were all similar enough to warrant a merged nomination. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Argento Surfer's sources, with no prejudice against speedy renomination or merge discussion for the less notable articles included here. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Recommend independent relisting - the articles are of differing notability and require independent analyses with differing conclusions. Far West, for example, should be deleted, but Gold Digger should not, as the first one does not have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources whereas the second one does. These nominations being merged is only going to be a clusterfuck. Cjhard (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Gerntrash (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles are notable. Fortunatestars (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. The article itself may need some structural editing, RE: WP:LGL. Merely cosmetic. Ventric (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Zanker[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, Fails WP:BIO. Rusf10 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A founder of The Learning Annex is a credible claim of notability and there are sources in the article, yet all he nominator can come forth with is an assertion of "Not notable. Fails WP:BIO." I knew about Zanker, but anyone who didn't could look at the line that says "Find sources" and click on "news" or "HighBeam", both of which bring up dozens of articles about Zanker -- a serial entrepreneur who's been in the press for decades -- in reliable and verifiable sources. This is one more in a string of AfDs by a nominator who appears to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of WP:BEFORE. Based on this pattern of evidence, I think it's past time to topic ban User:Rusf10 from AfD, and certainly from nominating any further articles. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on the Learning Annex that covers this. There are some legitimate problems with this article. His various side projects/websites are not notable. And please stop the personal attacks. Wikipedia:AFDEQ I could fill in the sentence "If it was up to me Alan Sohn would be...", but I'll refrain from doing so.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have an affirmative obligation under WP:BEFORE to check for notability and to see -- among other steps -- "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." and that "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects."

It doesn't appear that you have done that here or for any of the other articles you've nominated for deletion. My argument that you should be banned from nominating articles for deletion is bade on that premise. Feel free to shae with us your analysis of the sources about Zander and to show how you followed WP:BEFORE. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is making you upset here is a conflict of interest WP:COI. I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey probably should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Refs only seem to be tangentially about him, the fact that he's created a notable organization doesn't infer inherent notability on him. If there are some more refs out there specifically about him, I'd change my mind. I'm near the fence. South Nashua (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Seems to be notable for the learning annex, various activities with Trump (including writing a NYT bestseller), and a number of other activities. There is some coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand references clearly notable. Again a Rusf10 vs. Teaneck deletion, as I said before, this appears to be a personal issue between Rusf10 and Teaneck, New Jersey in that we are now at 8 deletions of articles related to Teaneck, New Jersey. --RAN (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing personal with Teaneck, you're the one making this personal. Its just that there are an absurd number of articles about people from this town that are clearly not notable. Many of those have been written by you, so you obviously have some connection to Teaneck.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else wants to see how ridiculous the number of articles are, they should just take a look at this page List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey. Over 250 people that are supposedly notable from a town of 40,000 people.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the magic ratio of notable to non-notable? --RAN (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Again a Rusf10 vs. Teaneck deletion". This is an example of an editor who does not contribute to the encyclopedia, but feels entitles to be judge, jury and executioner of any article to satisfy any whim or grudge; heck the last 400 edits (!!!) of an editor with just over 2,000 edits are all related to AfD. As pointed out above, this type of non-contributing editor who refuses to comply with WP:BEFORE should be topic banned from XfD before some other editor becomes a target. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When all other arguments fail, attack the nominator. I will again direct you to WP:AFDEQ. If I were "judge, jury and executioner" as you say there would not even be a discussion here. But rather than participate in a civil discussion you'd rather attack me. If anyone should be banned, its you for being uncivil.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a founder of The Learning Annex is not a credible claim of significance, because notability is not inherited. Sourcing for stand-alone article are weak. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Failure of WP:BEFORE D1 on Google news, as suggested by User:Alansohn. [25] is a full in-depth article I found there. I also note in those snippets ongoing attention to his role in ghost writing for Donald Trump. Unscintillating (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries that border only one other country[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic certainly don't feel encyclopedic. This kind of list would never show up in any paper book about nations of the world or other factual work. An article about countries with ZERO borders would maybe-probably-not-but-maybe be of scholarly interest, but nothing would beat an article such as List of countries by number of bordering countries - if anyone so desperately must know these things. This article is simply "hey look what I figured out" in my eyes and contains zero academic value. I say delete and then maybe create this one as a replacement if anyone believe that it is wikirelevant. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 16:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this gets mentioned on the Wikipedia Facebook page as a fun article to check out (meaning that, you know, PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF WIKIPEDIA want to highlight as something noteworthy enough that they POSTED IT TO THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE), and almost IMMEDIATELY gets flagged for potential deletion. Typical freakin' Wikipedia for you. Keep and I'm so over this impulsive behavior from zealous editors. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia probably shouldn't be promoting articles with 0 sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going, Jimmy Wales??? I'd assume from that cocky, self-congratulating tone that could only be you, since you appear to speak so definitively about what Wikipedia can and cannot do! Fireflyfanboy (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Note: the behavior of the user that made the comment above mine doesn't seem exactly right...) Drow (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding so much to the conversation! The implication by not saying anything except "delete" and calling me out for disobeying one of your bureaucratic rules is that you're literally saying "delete" out of spite! That's fun!Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please! Just because the admin of the facebook page (which might be anyone for all we know, a shoddy intern at wikimedia communications) likes this article, that doesn't mean it is good. This only means that someone thought "hey, look at this crazy piece of facts I found on wikipedia LOLZ". Just because facebook brought it to my attention don't make my arguments less valid. Everyone calm down and start discussing facts please!! I rest my case: delete. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 11:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing buddy. Please stop playing the victim and holding on to your role as some kind of IAR-police. Please think about what IAR doesn't mean before you call us out for being blind rule fools. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 11:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to projecting a LOT ("a shoddy intern at wikimedia communications... thought "hey, look at this crazy piece of facts I found on wikipedia LOLZ") based on very little evidence. To me, that runs completely contrary to the ideals of Wikipedia. People should be held accountable for their biases. No listing off inane bureaucratic rules excuses that. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying it COULD be so, you don't either have any evidence for your assumption that "WP Facebook page is run by deadly serious people who only share the very best pages". Speaking of which, you have not either come with any evidence for your "keep" other than name-calling and pointing out to other editors that their arguments are invalid because you dislike them. So let's both stop this nonsense and do this like adults:
Fireflyfanboy, do you have any factual and objective arguments that the article is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? And can you understand why I think that it is not? Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 15:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an inclusionist, pure and simple. The article is here, it's accurate, it doesn't do anything wrong (except any arbitrary broken rule you want to throw at it, which makes the case for improvement more than deletion). Let's talk about improving, or even modifying, rather than deleting outright. This should have been a topic for the talk page. But discussions like these, where we are talking about deleting a innocuous article, is a big reason why some people hate this website and the associated bureaucracy. Moreover, while you are so quick to dismiss the Facebook post "oh, it was on Facebook, but it's probably an intern that posted it so let's delete this puppy," to me, you can construe it any way you want, but basically, SOMEONE at the higher ups believes this article is worthy enough of recognition. You can try to project whatever you want or dismiss it all you want, but them's the facts. That, to me, tells me that deletion is foolhardy at best and obstructionist at worst. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, PLEASE stop bringing up Facebook. How is the method through which I found this article relevant? Does that gives it some kind of immunity, and me some kind of evil-label? Second of all, "doesn't do anything wrong" is a completely substance-less argument. The reason that I nominated deletion was that I think it is an arbitrary list with very limited academic use. Consider WP:NOTCATALOG which mentions "Simple listings", and WP:INDISCRIMINATE aka WP:NOTSTATSBOOK which deals with "unexplained statistics". This article, and especially its stated purpose, feels like an output from WolframAlpha and not something you would find listed in - for instance - the appendix of a paper encyclopedia of geography. I agree with your point about improving however; I believe we should change the article and recreate it titled List of countries by number of bordering countries. If this gets deleted, I will personally write that article. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 20:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anything more. You are the equivalent of a political radical: nit-picking, obsessive and spouting out BS justification through BS rules and regulations you've memorized. You think all this time you've spent memorizing various talking and policy points makes you better than me, just like every other editor like you that I've encountered. But honestly, I think people like you are the reason why Wikipedia can be such a pain in the ass, and also the reason more people don't edit for this website. And if this article is deleted, it serves as nothing more than a testament to all of that.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, right now you are doing nothing but namecalling. And why are you talking as if remembering policies and guidelines are a bad thing? I consider this conversation over, Fireflyfanboy, and I won't reply to your comments anymore. If you want to keep shouting insults at me, please do it on my own talk page. Let this page be for people actually discussing deletion. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 23:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add sources. A fine subject for an article that I'm sure people are interested in, but it does need improvement. - SimonP (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SimonP. There should also be an article about countries with zero borders, I may create one myself if this article is not deleted Mparrault (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand to include descriptions of the kinds of single-border relationship involved. There are generally three possibilities. The first is a split island like Haiti/Dominican Republic or Ireland/United Kingdom; the second is the peninsular relationship, where the first country borders the second and is otherwise surrounded by sea, while the second borders other countries, like Portugal/Spain, Denmark/Germany, and Canada/United States; the third is the circumstance where the first country is a small country that is landlocked and completely surrounded by the second, larger country, such as The Vatican/Italy and Lesotho/South Africa. This should all be explained and the type of relationship should be identified for each country listed. bd2412 T 01:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source it. Needs improving not deleting. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i was surprised that an article thats been around since 2004 remains unreferenced (actually im not that surprised, this is wikipedia after all), although this looks likely to be kept through consensus, i have some comments/questions that i hope will be answered by the keepers, this appears to be a case of original research as there are no references cited, just wondering why none of the keepers above have referred to any books/articles about this subject? the lead states "with only land borders being counted.", why? whats wrong with counting sea/water boundaries?, none of the "keepers" above have stated that this article meets WP:NLIST nor WP:GNG or have backed their "keep" with references, at the moment it looks like a case of WP:ILIKEIT. (i admit this is quite interesting, oops another argument not to use.:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it could be argued that this sort of information is what wikipedia as a gazetteer should contain...but im also concerned about the arbitrary nature of the inclusion criteria ie. why not two or three or four boundaries? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Yes, maybe there is some academic interest in this article. However, as people have already stated, the list feels very arbitrary in its inclusion criterion and leaves one wondering "tsk, okaaay?" like one don't understand why this is an important step towards all-encompassing knowledge for humanity. So I say delete and create this instead. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 11:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Correlates of War Project has a data set that mostly agrees with the list in this article. I've added it as a reference.Mparrault (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Mparrault has already (somehow) noticed, I have started a replacement article at Draft:List of countries by bordering countries. If we get this complete, this article becomes completely obsolete - all the more reason to delete. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 23:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mparrault: There is already List of countries and territories by land borders, to which the draft appears to be redundant. I do not consider that to obviate the utility of having List of countries that border only one other country as a subtopic. bd2412 T 00:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - BD2412, thanks for pointing out List of countries and territories by land borders. I agree that the current article still adds detail that isn't in List of countries and territories by land borders. By the way, I think it is possible, at least in principle, for a country to have multiple types of single-border relationships, if it has multiple parts. For instance, consider Indonesia's border with the rest of the world. On New Guinea, it has a split island relationship, while on Borneo, it has a peninsular relationship. This problem doesn't occur for any of the current single-border countries, but it easily could. Mparrault (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, there already was one?? Well, as every search clearly states, consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered, I guess I'm guilty as charged.
Back on topic however, I now suggest delete and merge to here for the article in question. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 09:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme clarify since I didn't made a point: List of countries that border only one other country is a redundant list since the exact same information are available at List of countries and territories by land borders. You just have to sort the table descending. If it contains any information that the other one does not, we should simply copypaste it and then delete it. I don't think a subtopic about "1 border" is notable enough when the general list covers "n borders". Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 09:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for this article has academic interest and significance. It redirects from landlocked country article on wiki. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Thanks to User:Coffee for relisting. I really wasted some bandwidth here by going in a insult war with someone else, and then trying to create an article that already exists. So let's sum up my opinions so far:
I think this list is too arbitrary, it makes one wonder if we are going to write separate articles listing "countries with X borders. And, since we already have an article called List of countries and territories by land borders, this one feels redundant. Policies applicable include WP:NOTCATALOG, which mentions "simple listings", and WP:INDISCRIMINATE aka WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, which deals with "unexplained statistics". As of yet, I can't see any editors coming here to refute these two points, and thus no consensus have been formed. So my case is still either delete or merge into here and turn into redirect here. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 09:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gaioa: Please only have one bold-faced !vote in the discussion. As it stands, it appears that you are trying to vote four times. bd2412 T 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing as how it's been improved and sourced. Mitch G 74 01:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Would be happy to userfy the contents to anyone who wants to keep it until more information is available J04n(talk page) 16:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Formula E season[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, cannot be entirely sure that this season will happen. Titanium Wolf (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. It would most probably take place (as have the past five seasons), but that's no reason to forecast and keep a non-notable topic. Fails GNG. Lourdes 03:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous discussion was closed as no consensus, but had two well-argued keep !votes and one !delete that was an "I'm not bothering to read your refutation" !vote. There is no reason now that this is any more deletable than it was then; with the information and references that are available, this is not WP:TOOSOON; you could make the same argument as the nominator with regards to United States presidential election, 2020, but I don't think we would say that article fails WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's still too soon. Industry-wide trends about Formula E can still be discussed in the Formula E article. I didn't feel qualified to respond to speculative statements like All of this has triggered a wider discussion about what the future of motorsport is going to look like as Formula E is becoming manufacters' preferred test bed, nor did I feel it necessary to do so to !vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Sport/motor-sport leagues have folded before - particularly when very young (as here - founded in 2014). League bankruptcies tend to be pretty sudden. Formula E isn't terribly long as it is - there is no particular reason to spin out crystalballish future seasons.Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP: CRYSTAL. Vorbee (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Shuford[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of the executive director of a state-level chapter of a national organization. As always, this is a claim of notability that can get a person into Wikipedia if he's shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, but not one that automatically guarantees him an article just because he exists. But four of the six sources here are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, and another one is a Q&A interview (which isn't a GNG-assisting source because it represents the subject talking about himself rather than being written about by other people) on a podcast (which never count as notability-supporting sources at all) -- which means there's only one source here that actually counts for anything at all toward getting him over GNG, and one source isn't enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some additional sources that are not (yet) in the article Philly Mag profile Local TV news profile CSPAN Appearences Billhpike (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those links are to the same article, and that article is another Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself rather than being objectively written about by other people. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected link Billhpike (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the corrected links bolsters anything. "Local TV news profile" is the Q&A interview on a podcast that I already addressed in my nomination statement because it was already present in the article, and a directory of C-SPAN appearances is not a notability-assisting source either. A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage about him, not by speaking about other subjects in video clips or about himself in any context, and podcasts are not reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a profile should be disallowed under WP:GNG because the subject cooperated with the journalist and provide quotes. Similarly, I don't think that there should be a bar on using profile to establish WP:GNG just becuase the author chose to present the profile in the form of an editted interview.Billhpike (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not available online Nark, Jason (September 15, 2014). "Chilln' wit' Reggie Shuford – The freedom to leisure – ACLU boss breaks from making and taking calls". Philadelphia Daily News. p. 19. Billhpike (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am happy that we are debating the reasonably high standard for justification of inclusion of a BLP. Before we dissect the merits of the individual sources, let's look at the man who is the subject. He graduated a previously all-white high school -- mildly supportive, but not conclusive. His appearances have met the standard for coverage by C-SPAN since 2000 -- strongly supportive, but not conclusive. Appointment to Exec Director of a state ACLU (likely one of fifty-one similar organizations) -- strongly supportive, and in my view, sufficient for inclusion. His participation in (and press mentions of) debates over national matters of equity -- strongly supportive, but not in themselves sufficient. He is thanked in ten academic articles -- supportive. His awards are supportive, but not conclusive. My personal view: Shuford is notable in his position as Exec Director of this organization. The debate might better be framed generally: is his role notable? In my view it is as notable as a full professor, elected official in a municipality of over 100,000, or named character in a TV show.
As to notability generally, Shufurd seems to meet the requirements: the reader requires no synthesis to conclude the subject is notable. Shuford has been in the public eye for seventeen years.
The KYW profile is a straight-up analysis by the writer of a recognized outlet. Interviews by Wee and Philly (Philadelphia Enquirer) include no analysis, but the city editor's choice to send a reporter to interview him is indicative of notability. It appears that the gist of the argument to delete is that we have only one analysis that is not an interview transcript. A Philadelphia Daily News profile may be found on the talk page. Subject meets. Rhadow (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by being the subject of coverage written in the third person by somebody other than the topic himself. It cannot be supported by interviews (whether in video or print) in which he's talking about himself; it cannot be supported by television appearances in which he's speaking about something else; it cannot be supported by glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage about someone or something else; it cannot be supported by being "thanked" in the acknowledgements section of academic articles; it cannot be supported by podcasts regardless of who the podcaster is or isn't. And there is no notability claim that any person can make that exempts them from having to have reliable source coverage just because it's been claimed — even a president of the United States wouldn't get to have an article if he somehow managed to hold the role without ever actually being discussed in reliable sources. Notability can be established in only one way: by showing that he's been the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources, written in the third person by somebody other than himself, to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat says, "Notability is established by being the subject of coverage written in the third person by somebody other than the topic himself." The Philadelphia Daily News article and the KYW piece meet that standard and the requirement for multiple reliable sources. A third person profile piece does not preclude the use of quotes, as long as the entire piece is not a transcript, no? Rhadow (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The KYW piece plainly identifies itself as a transcript of an interview on a podcast. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me we are splitting hairs here. The KYW piece appears as a standalone piece written in the third person. Yes, it includes quotes. Does the existence of a 22 minute video interview that was background negate the written piece? Is your objection to the article based on the intrinsic notability of the subject and his role, or is it procedural, based on the voices of the references? Rhadow (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete state directior of a national organization is not notable. We need substantial, widespread coverage outside the local market. PDN is local to this individual. The KYW piece is a transcript.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Just so I understand -- if the same standard for sources were applied to Virgin Islands Daily News, then the article about Danny Cevallos, another Philadelphia lawyer, would also be a candidate for deletion? Rhadow (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And similarly for another Philadelphia lawyer, Judith Chomsky, the unattributed reference from the Asha Centre would be discounted, and the reference from Philadelphia Weekly would be discounted as a local source?
I anticipate a pointer to WP:OTHERSTUFF, so I ask you to read OTHERSTUFFISBULLSHIT. Rhadow (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and similarly for the notability of a single store hamburger stand in Wall Township NJ Circus Drive-In which relies on New Jersey Monthly and the Asbury Park Press. Rhadow (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shuford appears to have significant coverage in numerous independent reliable sources, and unless I'm reading it wrong, that automatically qualifies him under WP:GNG. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shuford has written several articles in law reviews that have received a significant number of citations.[26] Billhpike (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that Shuford's legal writings, which have recieved significant citations, combined with his activism, which recieve significant press coverage, are sufficient to overcome WP:GNG Billhpike (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: BLP, therefore another week's discussion is reasonable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think Rhadow made a good argument on this one.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, including the Philadelphia Enquirer, a regional newspaper which, according to its Wiki article, has received nearly 2 dozen Pulitzer Prizes. Philly magazine, which is now a ref in the article, published a Q&A profile. The subject also received a Harvard Law School award as well as a second award from academia. Clearly passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2017 (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 merge to Flight of the Old Dog. Originally closed as delete but after communication with other editor and further reflection changing to merge per WP:ATD-M. J04n(talk page) 14:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Dale Brown novels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:GNG, when the article about the novel that these characters are featured in doesn't even clearly justify its own notability. Coin945 (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per nom. The article appears to be about characters in one particular novel at the moment, so it may be possible (pending references, of which there presently are none) to merge anything relevant to the article on the novel in question, if it's notable. Otherwise, a straight-up deletion is the best course of action. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Flight of the Old Dog, although it appears these characters appear in subsequent novels as well. On first blush, that book appears notable. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unmaintained/unmaintainable fork that contains only unverified content. Ergo, there's nothing to salvage. The whole thing could be a hoax, for all this reader knows. If cited, merge to Dale Brown or Flight of the Old Dog as appropriate. (Notably, this article has already found a more appropriate home.) -- Visviva (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flight of the Old Dog. These characters do not warrant a stand-alone article by itself as they are part of the novel. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sourced content is merged. And this article is just paragraphs of synthesis and OR. And for first suggested merge to Dale Brown, how is it reasonable to merge characters of fictional novel in a Biography of living person? This is very weird. Second merge target is also very unsuitable and we shouldn't accumulate another unsourced content in it.–Ammarpad (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content is clearly original research and there haven't been substantial alterations to the article in a decade. Nothing worth keeping. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & oppose merge. There's nothing to merge as the article lists no sources. Uncited original research that lacks encyclopedic notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Data binding. Will leave history intact in the even anyone wants to merge any of it J04n(talk page) 16:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bound property[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition. Appears to fail WP:GNG upon an internet search. As a sidenote, also unsourced since 2006. Coin945 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No longer an unsourced dicdef. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to data binding - same subject, even if the presentation is a bit different. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to data binding as per Tigraan. A search of the two sources only reveals the briefest of passing mention of this technical term - insufficient for an encyclopaedia page. Other Google results just define the term. Declaration: The topic is beyond my skillset, so the destination might turn out not to be the most appropriate. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glamtron[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the artist is clearly notable with much coverage in reliable sources, I'm not sure if that extends to this mixtape. I couldn't find any coverage about this mixtape at all in any reliable source. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many albums and EPs of various artist are as such on wikipedia. Since there isn't much coverage from reliable sources, I would go with deletion. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied this last time out, promo for non-notable mix Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be honest, I'm not even sure if this mixtape even exists; a comprehensive search failed to find any hits at all for this release. While the songs mentioned in the article do appear to exist, I can't seem to find anything at all that suggested that Honard released a mixtape with this title. About the only hits related to Honard I could find that mention "Glamtron" suggest that that's part of his stage persona or a name used by him, but nothing about the CD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no claim to notability that would meet WP:NALBUM. Even the article references don't suggest that it actually exists. PriceDL (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HDD Utility Disc[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software program, could not find sources other than specialised/niche communities, absolutely no reliable source coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to PlayStation 2 Expansion Bay#Hard disk drive It's at least an official product but can be better summarized in the main article for the device. However, HD Loader, another product of the same ilk, is pretty much cruft in itself (plus zero-sourced) and I would suggest that itself get its own AfD as not-notable and sued out of existence by Sony. Nate • (chatter) 05:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would be too vague as a redirect, fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not cite any references and fails WP:GNG also fails WP:PROVEIT Hagennos (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but merging is a possibility. – Joe (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantes a palo seco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced dic def. Doesn't even have an article in Spanish language Wikipedia which sets off alarm bells. Coin945 (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep/merge? GBooks produces lots of good hits, but it's possible that this should be merged into cante flamenco given what little there apparently is to say. Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Mangoe's suggestion. I propose a clean-up to further expand and polish this article rather than a delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bács-Kiskun county government[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. No independent notability from Bács-Kiskun county. Content fork. As a sidenote, also unsourced since 2006. Coin945 (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Duplicates info in Bács-Kiskun county. MB 20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is irrelevant as this is a WP:SPINOUT of a larger topic. A certain amount of duplicated material (I only see one sentence) is required in a spinout. That leaves the problem that the article is unsourced. Since we don't have sufficient editors to source the page, it should be Redirected back to the main article for now. Unscintillating (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unnecessary spinout article.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would normally be a merge, but this article is a subset of another already. —cnzx 03:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the other megyéks of Hungary have a corresponding government page, except for Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County (Government of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg), and the latter article suffers from the same problems as this article and should be deleted as well. 130.126.255.11 (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg. —cnzx 00:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, and agreed above, this is a spinout article. Ventric (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter C. Elco[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:POLITICIAN, can't seem to find anything on him beyond local newspaper coverage. The NJLM awards seems to be given to all mayors that have achieved 10 years of service. Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything substantial on Google to justify the politician here. Would be in favour of a delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only due to lack of WP:GNG material. There seems to be an indication that he may meet the WP:POLITICIAN standard, but there is not enough information. The profile, otherwise, is rather lacking. I doubt this meets WP:SIGCOV. Ventric (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Craig Roberts[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure conspiracy theorist, former officeholder and minor journalist; sourced mostly to his own publications Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can't build an article on somebody out of their own writing about their opinions. I don't believe independent sources establish notability in this case. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- my thinking exactly. I posted on the topic at Talk:Paul_Craig_Roberts#Major surgery needed?. Deletion, with a good doze of WP:TNT, seems like the best option for this BLP: insufficiently notable conspiracy theorist and does not meet notability for fringe topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral -- In an attempt to save this article, I spent about an hour on each of two days searching for RS that supported notability and found nothing. Appears to be another person that wants to be famous for being famous. O3000 (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With 45 refs and 60% of the text trimmed, the article doesn't look as bad. Don't know if it's notable. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa I never heard of this guy, bit before my time, I suppose. But the gap between the impressive credentials/claims to notability on the page and opinions of editors is alarming. I started with the book. I like to assume good faith, but all I had to do was key "The New Color Line" + Roberts into a news archive search and up popped a book review in pretty much every major publication in the country, Washingon Post, ]]; Wall Street Journal, New York Times and many more, plus opeds by people who feel about Roberts more or less the way the editors weighing in above seem to feel. IJUSTDONTLIKEHIM is NOT a policy-based reason to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. As a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Reagan, he may have enough coverage in 1980s news stories to pass WP:GNG and qualify for a basic bio. But someone will have to do that digging and research. The article (as it is) mostly uses Roberts himself as a source. That will have to go. And the WP:OR in the conspiracy theories section needs severe trimming. Roberts crank ideas don't get much notice by independent objective sources, aside from one or two mentions, like Salon. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not very much digging, actually. Simple searches for "Paul Craig Robert" at WashingtonPost.com or NYTimes.com provide ample sourcing form which to build an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly the self-sourced material needs to be removed. He looks to have been a mainstream, right-of-center guy who went off the deep end into conspiracy theories. However, that does not expunge his earlier career. Sourcing a better article can start with the long profile the New York Times ran in 1984: GADFLY WHO BITES PRESIDENT ON SUPPLY SIDE, Peter Kilborn, 6 March 1984. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As per WP:POLITICIAN, he's held a national office. Assistant Secretary in the United States federal government is nothing to sneeze at. He was also an associate editor for The Wall Street Journal, contributing editor for the National Review (not a "minor journalist" [27]), and, according to Woody Klein in this book published by the University of Nebraska, is considered "the father of Reaganomics". This book calls him the most ardent supporter of supply side economics in the Reagan administration. That's pretty significant. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep #1 and #2 of WP:POLOUTCOMES seems to cover a person in this position rather squarely. Inherent notability for any of the 13 United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury positions. TheValeyard (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per recent article improvements and the removal of self-citations. I still have some concerns that the article would revert to the prior, WP:FRINGE cornucopia over time, but hopefully there will be more eyes on the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A weak example of a politician who meets WP:POLITICIAN; however, it meets the threshold, imho. Ventric (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2017 (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.