< 28 August	30 August >

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kobus Van Rensburg[edit]

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

Per source searches, this televangelist fails WP:BASIC. Coverage found is quite limited, with very little information available in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting character, a "prophet" who claimed to have risen from the dead and made miraculous cures. However the sources given are mostly not independent, and although I can find a few sources - [1][2][3], in particular this- [4], I don't think they are significant enough to qualify under WP:GNG. A marginal delete, perhaps more will turn up later to save the article Hzh (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few news articles have minimal depth. The HTS article mentioned as most significant by Hzh appears to be a different person. Daask (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it is a different person, my mistake. Read too quickly and didn't notice the the biographical details do not match. Hzh (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of indepth independent sources, even of other people with the same name. Now if he were also this guy, … --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kerney Thomas[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this televangelist does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Coverage in reliable sources is limited to fleeting quotations and passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Ensign, an official Mormon publication, has what appears to be an official biography. Otherwise, I see no sources with even moderate depth. Daask (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find indepth coverage, not even the one Daask mentions (why would an LDS mag have his official biography, anyway? Our article doesn't specify, but doesn't seem he was LDS?), even the official website is down. --GRuban (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Gay[edit]

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

No evidence of notabilty of this actresses article. Sheldybett (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found sources for some roles of her and added them. But I can't find a biography. It may be in German, however, and I'm not using the correct search terms to turn it up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try here - http://www.friendsconnectionberlin.de/megan-gay/ NealeFamily (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can find nothing that brings her up to WP:GNG - lots of sites with her career data, but nothing in mainstream media that I have been able to source. She has been a fairly large number of productions - stage, movie, and television - which makes the lack of commentary odd. NealeFamily (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did find comment that she is a producer at Deutsche Welle TV. NealeFamily (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the sources Megalibrarygirl provided would be beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indepth coverage by independent reliable sources, sorry. --GRuban (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kube Publishing[edit]

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

Article about a book publisher which has been sourced only from its own website since the outset. An attempt to speedy delete it was challenged by an IP editor. I can't find any reliable secondary sources at all about this company so, if no other editor over the last two years has been able to prove notability I think the article's time is up. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I can't find any unaffiliated sources with significant coverage. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Simplexity22 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for the reasons listed above. This page is essentially self-promotion. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding enough online to merit keeping this. Edwardx (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran a few searches, and cannot find INDEPENDENT sources that do more than mention the name of this house. Even such mentions are very few, almost entirely confined to listing Kube as publisher book discussed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find independent indepth coverage. --GRuban (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savoie[edit]

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

Semi-advertorial WP:BLP of a music journalist and marketing professional, whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. Half of the footnotes here are to his and his publication's own self-published content about themselves, not reliable source coverage about them in media -- and of the remainder, one is a WordPress blog, three are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, and one is a mere blurb. None of these sources are good enough, but nothing stated in the article confers an automatic notability freebie that would exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this -- and comparing the creator's username to the name of the subject's wife, our conflict of interest rules come into play as well. This is simply not properly sourced to deem him notable, and Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO for non notable self-promoting music journalist. Searches not finding WP:SIGCOV despite fairly unique name. Plus, notable journalists routinely have more than 700 twitter followers (yeah, I know that metric isn't policy. But if I'm looking at an AfD and a journalist has 50,000, I followers, I look harder.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per E.M.Gregory. Daask (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find independent indepth coverage. A brief mention in the liner notes of an album is not that. --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1997 United Kingdom heat wave[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 11:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a major drought of exceptional historical importance: [5]. James500 (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again with that tired list of droughts. -The Gnome (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not establish notability, and I can only find passing references to this heat wave on the internet. The only good source on the article itself is about the 2013 heat wave. The rest of it is Synthesis, as JFG has already noted. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No verifiable evidence of notability as an event. Yes, hot weather in Blighty, always a dear subject for small talk. Not in Wikipedia, thanks much. -The Gnome (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see much coverage of this. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – All "records" set were either previously set (so they weren't records) or were beat within 20 years. No notability demonstrated. Redditaddict6 9 19:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Montu Saini[edit]

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

The article is a mishmash of names of people basically unrelated to the subject other than having (allegedly) been at his table once. No in depth sources required to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The Huffington Post India piece is fluff; not in-depth RS; the Economic Times slideshow ditto. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The man is a presidential chef in a developing country, we can't demand a hard hitting New York Times expose on whether or not his chickens are free range. Sources that there are among India's best. Besides Huffington Post and Economic Times, we have non trivial pieces about him from Sommelier India [6], Times of India [7], and Scroll.in [8]. That meets WP:GNG perfectly fine. --GRuban (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources, such as those posted above by GRuban. Also, I view the Huffington Post article (link) as a valid, reliable source that that provides significant, comprehensive biographical coverage about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe enough sources have been found to demonstrate notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Archer (footballer, born 1995)[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (hasn't played in a WP:FPL. Giant Snowman 19:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 19:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 19:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on loan at Maidenhead, so unlikely to quickly qualify for WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer talk 04:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vagif Ibrahimov (scientist)[edit]

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

Repeatedly created non notable WP:BLP of Vagif Ibrahimov that was deleted and salted before see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vagif Ibrahimov DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NACADEMIC. Simplexity22 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note. There was a request on WP:RM/TR to move this article to Vagif Ibrahimov. I have rejected the request as moving articles under discussion at AfD is discouraged. Should the article be kept it should be moved as the disambiguator is unnecessary. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vagif Ibrahimov is salted (i.e. create protected)--DBigXrayᗙ 20:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article makes some claims that may be relevant to WP:PROF: "Ibrahimov is a corresponding member of ANAS. and Honored Teacher of the Republic of Azerbaijan" Being Vice-Rector isn't enough by itself. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject failed WP:PROF the last time around, and I can't see how that situation has materially changed since then. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daask (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World of Tanks version history[edit]

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

PROD removed by creator. Essentially a table covering the version history of a video game, which creator plans to expand. Per WP:NOTCHANGELOG, this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. No reliable secondary coverage really exists concerning this content, and any important patches that do have coverage can be covered in the development section of the game's article. Prod was removed stating that sources were added, but they are primary. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom; even disregarding the NOTCHANGELOG argument, the general notability guideline is not satisfied here. --Izno (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is provided a reliable source of the information, which is the offical website of the game, covering almost all patches of the game. If this kind of articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia, then why these pages do exist? --Gerg2013 (talk) 29 Aug 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you have added are what we call primary sources. That is, articles or sources posted by the subject cannot be used to establish notability for the subject. See WP:GNG for the general guideline on notability. As for the fact that other stuff exists, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- ferret (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood how Wikipedia works, Gerg2013. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for any content; that it is covered by in-depth WP:RELIABLE WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Simply creating content and linking to the official website is not what is needed.

There is also an argument regarding WP:COPYVIO, where a lot of this information is likely copied verbatum from [9], acording to the detector.

The argument regarding the other change logs being included on Wikipedia is a good, but flawed one. Another article being on wikipedia, does not mean that another one is acceptable. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The articles, such as MediaWiki version history, are obviously a part of a different WikiProject (Software, rather than video games), which sometimes have different rules regarding what is notable. However, these articles are backed up by secondary sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaWiki version history discussion on why this one in particular wasn't deleted back in 2012. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7(🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is obviously a WP:CHANGELOG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG check. Game is notable, not it's patches. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Fails WP:GNG and no reliable secondary source covers this in-depth. Not the content to warrant a WP:SPLIT from the main article, as entries are basically WP:NOTNEWS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to add that hasn't been said already: it's a change log, with unnecessary detailed information on each update. Necessary and noteworthy updates can be mentioned in main article. I think this is a WP:SNOW situation. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Don't belong on an encyclopedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:GNG and as WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everything above. WP:NOTCHANGELOG, and not enough sourcing for the article. JC7V-constructive zone 17:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To editor Gerg2013: The other articles are for software revisions that get impressive quantities of press. When Android or iOS or Google Chrome come out with a new revision, every technology magazine in the business writes about it. World of Tanks doesn't get that amount of coverage. It's a little bit like asking, since every one of Shakespeare's plays or J. K. Rowling's books has an article, why don't we have one for every book of every author? --GRuban (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyones opinion. Fails WP:NOTCHANGELOG AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Afra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

very probably a WP:PAID piece. Fails WP:GNG The sources are as follows, 1:List of board members so affiliated, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, : interviews so primary sources, 5:An author biography so affiliated, 8: a mention on list of 100 people (is this enough...probably not) 9: a passing mention, 10:an article the subject wrote so not of use to show notability 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 : documents from or web sites for companies for which he is a board member so affiliated, Dom from Paris (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article already deleted once (didn't see that at first) but as quite a few of the sources are post deletion (December 2016) I thought I'd let it ride. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was included into WIRE's top 100 in 2016, enough for me. If anything, the article should be nominated for the cleanup/improvement. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Sounds like WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. GNG requires more than that. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you look at the reason why he was included in the list it was for his participation in UNDO Labs that reinvented the shoelace...this company has disappeared without trace or almost http://www.undolabs.com and not surprisingly it is not mentioned by the editor having created this paid piece. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't meet WP:GNG and is written by a UPE. Keep vote is WP:ILIKEIT. » Shadowowl | talk 20:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 17:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article doesn't meet GNG, with articles failing the standard Sig Cov/Reliable/Independent mix (the latter including both interviews/press releases and board member written articles). The suggestion of the Wired article being enough is farcical. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam on nn individual; fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:PROMO. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ghulam Moinuddin Gilani[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Administrators of important shrines on the Indian Subcontinent tend to be fairly well known and influential officials and the article indeed contains claims of significance, e.g., as regards condolences. Whether it crosses the WP:NBIO bar needs to be established, but that was my reasoning when I decided not to nominate this one for deletion when I AfD'd (or speedied) other articles created by the same editor back in May. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity or importance does not equate with notability here on English WP. Administrators of important shrines are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist so we should avoid saying there must be sources out there somewhere, we need to actually the establish the WP:N by providing the coverage in RS. --Saqib (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Really??? — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes really! --Saqib (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

</sarcasm> — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be nominated for deletion. The matter of fact is that the isn't any issue about the notability factor. This person is very famous around the sub-continent.

User Saqib has just nominated my pages for deletion just because I added details he thought weren't 'valid enough on another pages he was watching — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaydbinumar (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability on the basis of the sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Insufficient coverage in secondary sources. I'm not sure if a redirect to Shrine of Meher Ali Shah would be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin At-least two other articles of similar nature created by the same user were deleted recently. Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gilani and Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gillani. --Saqib (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 17:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mud engineer[edit]

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

This article contains no references to the topic, only what appears to be personal experience or opinion, and has never done so since its creation more than 10 years ago. The only citation is to an online glossary for Bentonite, which says nothing about mud engineers. It appears as a subtopic on another page Drilling_fluid#Mud_engineer which is itself unsatisfactory with no citations, but would be an appropriate place for it. The term is actually used in the industry (and I have met mud engineers), but without any source of what the job is after so much time, there is no justification for this page. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Chemical Engineer: For future nominations, please fully follow the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 15:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of books about drilling and the relating engineering required to do this well. And the article lists a few. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to Redirect @Andrew Davidson:The term Mud Engineer on the Drilling_fluid page Drilling_fluid#Mud_engineer can be improved and spun off to a new page if it warrants it. Deletion of the unsourced material on this page will not remove the term from Wikipedia. However, it will remove what seems personal observations which have persisted too long. Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search shows that this is a notable topic. I have added a suitable reference. However the article suffers from an absence of references. If suitable references are not imminently forthcoming, the whole article should be gutted down to a stub. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Axl and Andrew D. The problem with retrospectively sourcing the article is simply that it's difficult to know where to start. But yeah, WP:NOTCLEANUP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is potentially a notable topic, but would be more than adequately covered by the already existing section in Drilling_fluid#Mud_engineer, for which the single web page citation would be at least some direct reference. Making this page a redirect would allow the subsection to be developed until it is worth spinning off. It would be more appropriate for a wikipedia search for "Mud Engineer" to bring you to the section on drilling fluids rather than an unsubstantiated POV stand-alone. Note that books on drilling mud do not necessarily describe the job of a mud engineer any more than chemistry books describe the job of a chemist. Suggested references would be better on the Drilling_fluid page where I think the topic of mud engineer should be first developed, which page is also mostly personal descriptions lacking proper attributions, and where work should be done. Keeping mud engineer within this context would provide the necessary information about drilling mud without repeating it on this page.Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially unsourced. The Schlumberger glossary entry just talks about bentonite without even mentioning the term Mud engineer. I don't consider the Career Trend source to be a WP:RS. Don't redirect to Drilling_fluid#Mud_engineer because that's totally unsourced as well. If somebody wants to start from scratch and write a properly sourced article about this, that's fine, but this isn't it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. There are entire books on this subject. All the other problems are WP:SOFIXIT. Stubification would take all of about five minutes and would remove any original research just as effectively as redirection. James500 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Indexed in Scopus meeting Criteria 1.b) of NJournal so I am withdrawing nom JC7V-constructive zone 17:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IBRO Reports[edit]

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

~~Doesn't seem to pass WP:NJournal JC7V-constructive zone 15:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus (I have added that info, with reference, to the article), which meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 14:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of common Lingayat surnames[edit]

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

Prodded as lacking notability and verifiability, prod removed but article not improved. Fram (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doubtful if this can be sourced. --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, absolutely nothing encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SYNTH. No reliable source covering the topic. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative department[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF where the sole source doesn't even mention the term, never mind establish notability. Definition given may be correct for one particular type of "administrative department", but certainly isn't a generally applicable dicdef anyway, so not useful to transfer to Wiktionary either Both articles were prodded for this reason, but not improved.

Also nominated for same reasons: Administrative secretary. Fram (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Impru20^talk 13:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No improvement even after PROD. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kega Fusion[edit]

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

This page might not meet WP:GNG. It has been a redirect in the past but the page it redirected to, List of video game emulators only lists emulators that currently have Wikipedia pages, so there is no place on Wikipedia it could reasonably redirect or merge to since all that the page it previously redirected to would have is a link back to the Kega Fusion page, a redirect back to the page the user is already on, something entirely pointless. For the purposes of this AfD debate, I restored the article so that people may look at its sources throughout the period of the AfD discussion to determine whether or not they meet the standards of the General Notability Guideline, and if anyone finds sources that meet said criteria, they may add them to the article. Basically WP:GOLDENRULE for notability must be met: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic in order to establish notability. Yetisyny (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Yetisyny (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Yetisyny (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. as a minor housekeeping note, if the consensus is to delete the article, the images File:Kega Fusion logo.gif and File:Kega Fusion 3.64 emulating Zero Tolerance on Windows 10.png should also be deleted since Kega Fusion is proprietary, copyrighted freeware software and the non-free use rationale for both images only applies to using them on the article of Kega Fusion itself. So if that article is deleted, those 2 images must be deleted too in order to abide by the limitations in the non-free use rationale since they are only fair use as long as that article still exists. Yetisyny (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- They would be automatically deleted anyway if they aren't used in any articles, so no worries. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article doesn't appear to have the sourcing necessary to meet the WP:GNG. The subject has existed as a redirect for like the last 6 years, but its no longer mentioned at the redirect target, nor should it be due to its inclusion criteria, so deletion is more appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. This article is a relic of the past (10+ years old) from when guidelines and policies weren't as enforced as they are today. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AFD closures are supposed to be based not on a mere a tally of votes, but rather on the analysis of the policy-based arguments put forth by those who have taken part in the discussion. In this case, I find that those who argue for keeping the article have not refuted the argument, put forth by those that are in favour of deletion, that the subject of the article has not received *significant* coverage in reliable sources. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Riehl[edit]

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

I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG. Some passing mentions, but nothing substantive that I can find. Marquardtika (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmmm. This may well be worth evaluating. When I created this article in 2012, Riehl was a fairly prominent conservative commentator, and appeared to be on the rise. Biased pieces about him (which I didn't cite) weren't uncommon [10][11][12] and were some indication of the level of attention he was getting. It looks like he hasn't written anything at Breitbart.com since 10 Feb 2018 [13], but if this does seem proper for deletion, that's one article he would merit a mention at.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On top of the sources linked on the page, here is one from the Washington Post: [14] I'm not sure whether or not he writes for Breitbart anymore is relevant. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searches online find zero articles about him on Google news. The only reliable sources quote from not about the subject. I've been quoted several times in the Business Review, and my picture was once in the Daily News, but that does not make me notable per se. This guy is a "entrepreneur", which is sadly these days run of the mill. That he got sick and it was on some minor Internet site is not even news. I remind the gentle reader that we are not a free webhosting company for anyone hawking their opinions online. That he tweeted once "Obama sux" (sic.), which was quoted widely, does not make him a "writer" - anybody could have blogged as I did - in the past. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is not significant enough for a living person. - Scarpy (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:AlessandroTiandelli333's sufficient reasoning.desmay (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split between votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 13:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The significance of results and coverage shows that he easily passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Rzvas (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at all the sources and they're all opinion columns or trivial mentions. Not a single indepth reliable source piece about him. I have no idea what "the significance of results and coverage" above refers to, all the coverage is insignificant. --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources that are reliable are all passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, since there's no evidence that anything he blogged was ever notable. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"no evidence that anything he blogged was ever notable." Well I wouldn't go THAT far. Certainly he is more notable than that scurrilous Bearian character. But after 11 years and creating over 600 articles (none ever deleted), I'm finally agreeing that one should probably be deleted. Sorry, Dan!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Rankin (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I found one very incidental mention (for The Nut Job) in Variety – that only establishes he was in the cast of that film – and no other coverage at all in publications like THR, LA Times or Deadline Hollywood. There seems to be an assumption among some that all a voice actor needs to do is be the cast of a few TV shows and movies, and they'll automatically meet WP:BASIC – not so! In fact, voice actors generally receive much less coverage that live-action actors, so the bar for them to justify standalone articles is actually higher than normal, because technically meeting WP:NACTOR #1 often still won't qualify them under WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ticketpass[edit]

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

Fails to meet the nottability guidelines for companies and organizations, WP:NCORP Vexations (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whether regarded as a company or as a platform (albeit one whose ticketpass.co website is currently unavailable), this start-up looks unlikely to have attained notability. The article also features multiple references to uses of the term "TicketPass" by sports club sites in Milwaukee, Toronto, etc. without clear evidence that these utilise the company/service described by University of Warwick as created by one of their post-grads. But whether they do or don't, I am not seeing the necessary coverage to establish notability by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as per above. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small startup founded on Jul 27, 2017 ([15]). No significant coverage on reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT policy; it is covert advertising ☆ Bri (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 15:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Ryan[edit]

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

Not a notable political candidate or protestor; I'm not convinced this is the same person that is affiliated with "Cells R' Us". Most of the references regard the person's criminal record. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is way below the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's a sort of novelty item, a perennial protestor, perennial protest candidate, and all around gadfly on the Wisconsin political scene. No significant accomplishments, news coverage is slight, brief, trivial, local, and non-serious. No indication that his antics have political impact, let alone that one of his candidacies could result in election to public office. Nothing ot carry him past WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would acknowledge that his political notability passes off as a very minor one and could grow but he is very notable as a frequent protester in the Madison, Wisconsin. The news articles about him cannot be said to be trivial or entirely about his criminal records as most of those articles are wholesomely reliable secondary sources that were specifically written independent of him and some were completely about him not just trivial mentions.WP:GNG He was significantly involved in protests that led to the upturning of the rule that prohibited the holding of signs in the rotunda in Madison, Wisconsin, which has significant coverage in various reliable news sources. Moreover, this article I think does not violate what WP:NOT WP:NOTEVERYTHING. As per the issue of Cells R' Us, I agree with you on that and it has been removed as that is an unfounded assertion that cannot be verified at the moment.LenyTee55 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)(LenyTee55 created this article - E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are new to Wikipedia. So, a couple of tips. When arguing to keep an article you created, it's good practice to mention that fact in your comment. Also, since most of the sourcing is local, editors can assess it better if you write references that name the source. And bluelink it in the reference, Wisconsin Gazette, Media Trackers, Watchdog.org, Media Trackers, Wisconsin Citizens Media CooperativeMadison.com, and link to the proper WISC. Still, the sourcing looks to be very local, mostly Madison, and an awful lot of it is sketchy. In addition, I am uncomfortabl ewith the fact that the lede makes a claim: "He has been called the face of the Wisconsin Capitol Protests in 2011 against Scott Walkers’s Act 10, which included the Capitol Occupation, the movement that inspired the Occupy movement." supported only by Media Trackers and MacIver Institute, but is Ryan mentioned at 2011 Wisconsin protests? Are tehr ebetter sources for his role?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both of these are national sources one of which backs up the assertion he was referred to as the leader of the protests. Considering the significance of these protests I would say that passes notability https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/meet-the-segway-riding-liberal-named-ryan-trying-to-beat-paul-ryan-in-the-gop-primary https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/wisconsin-eternal-protest-christian-schneider/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckraker2018 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC) — Muckraker2018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he got a "scattering" of votes the first time he ran, and 6,000 votes this year (coming in 5th). I came in 5th the only time I ran for public office, and I'm neither proud of it nor am I notable. I don't see how his political advocacy had any effect beyond getting into the local news. The protests he engaged in were notable, but he's not necessarily notable. Running three times does not make one a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. - Scarpy (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources I can find are mostly local, like the college paper The Badger Herald (which says he makes stuff up, exaggerating his persoanl accomplishments.) All large colleges have colorful local characters. I remember the one at my college fondly. He too was profiled in local press, but I wouldn't keep or start an article about him. Ryan has been written up for the nastiness of his protest tactics [16], [17], and for the many times his protest tactics have broken the law, but he doesn't pass WP:NCRIME or WP:POLITICIAN, or even WP:BASIC. He's just an unusually ill-behaved version of local gadfly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several national press mentions as well. And local news from across the state. To say he is a local college character would likely be misleading as I can't find anything to state that he even attended that college. The college article was based off his community notoriety not college notoriety. Nevertheless there is coverage from national press as well. And while he did only get over 6000 votes in the last election it was a midterm primary he did remain competitive against all but the winner. However he has been widely covered by the news in several localities and even some national coverage as well. Also the Journal Sentinel and Wisconsin State Journal which are all references he has appeared often in are state wide publications. Those are the two largest papers in the state and are read across the state. But he has been covered in Madison, Milwaukee, Janesville, and Kenosha making it far beyond just a local character. As well as Talking Points Memo and National Review which are national. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckraker2018 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting PROMO tone and inflated claims made in this new article, dominated by SPA User:Muckraker2018. WP:ADVERT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I did to make my argument is spend 10 minutes on Google. He is very widely covered by plenty of media sources no promo needed just the right search terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckraker2018 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Is there any serious coverage of him outside of a political run? Most of the coverage is campaign-related, self-promotional "curiosity" coverage, or of his non-notable crimes. SportingFlyer talk 07:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The debate appears to have been skewed by single-purposes accounts; can we have some more discussion from the regulars?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ran some searches to try to answer User:SportingFlyer's question (Jeremy Ryan turns out to be a pretty common name), and I don't think so - but he's a perennial candidate. Although it's not on the page, he ran for Secretary of State in a 2010 primary, he was mentioned as a "a 21-year-old Madison primary challenger." He's been running for one office or another pretty much ever since. This predates one of the few sort-of INDEPTH stories about him. It ran in the college paper in 2011 The strange ballad of Segway Jeremy It's long, but it's clear that the student journalist thinks Ryan is a fabulist. An article on Talking Points Memo makes it clear that the is, but you have to trust Talking Points Memo on a progressive actrivist: Meet The Segway-Riding Activist Who Hopes To Confuse GOP Voters In Paul Ryan Primary. and that is the point, searches on him get a lot of hits, but it's mostly local, or primary, coverage in more mainstream sources are more likely to be brief mentions of of his candidacy, or of his presence at a demonstration (he always rides a segway - so he stands out,) or, well, strange,: "MADISON -- A well-known protester who says he's running against Congressman Paul Ryan because they share a last name should be kicked off the primary ballot for misleading prospective voters into thinking they were signing up to legalize marijuana, Wisconsin Republicans argued Thursday." E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also answering, 10 minutes on Google also yielded this https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/who-is-jeremy-ryan-the-record-is-mixed/article_efbedc54-6e22-5525-abd7-6c1c5bf310b3.html . Regardless this has been relisted numerous times last time looking for new input which more than a week later hasn't come so I would say that is pretty clear non consensus.

Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Coverage due to him being a bong-smoking Republican and segway boy, not usual for a candidate. While this is coverage only present because of the candidacy, he is well known outside of where he's running. This isn't because of a candidacy in Wisconsin, but because he's a bong-smoking Republican. Moreover, re-read the opening to the article. There is no mention of his candidacy, but look how much of an activist he is:
"He has been called the face of the Wisconsin Capitol Protests in 2011 against Scott Walkers’s Act 10, which included the Capitol Occupation, the movement that inspired the Occupy movement. Jeremy became prominent from his frequent capitol protests in Madison, Wisconsin."
"His frequent use of a segway vehicle around the capitol earned him the name 'Segway Boy'."
"Jeremy established and is the director of Defending Wisconsin Political Action Committee, a committee that took part in the attempt to recall Governor Scott Walker in 2011/2012."
"Segway Jeremy is popular for his continuous protests against Wisconsin Department of Administration’s rules which prohibited holding of signs in the rotunda which was later revoked and his Cannabis activism."
Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:From what I've gathered, my input is simply that I agree with everyone who claims that he is in fact notable. As a response to the nom claiming that most of the sources are about his criminal record, those sources are not entirely devoted to discussing his criminal record they just talk about it along side other subjects. Also what makes a person's criminal record non notable if other attributes of theirs are notable anyway?Grapefruit17 (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding criminal records, see our community standard WP:CRIME. SportingFlyer talk 22:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIME is immediately irrelevant because the first sentence states it applies to people only known for their crime. Indisputably that doesn't apply here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckraker2018 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As E.M. Gregory has copied this to draft, the mainspace version is not necessary at the moment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simcha Eichenstein[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Being handpicked to run for a seat doesn't make him notable yet, let him win first. His various other jobs and entries doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Getting elected to office or not has little bearing on WP:GNG. Eichenstein is a long-time NY political operative mentioned in WP:RS as also being the first Hasid to run for statewide office in the U.S., clearly not a case of WP:ROTM. WP:CRYSTAL allows us only to point out that Eichenstein is running essentially unopposed with all the Hasidic rebbes promising him the bloc vote. His campaign finance officer, a highly visible community leader, was arrested on charges of rape, leading to additional coverage of Eichenstein in a major NY daily. StonyBrook (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like it meets GNG. - Scarpy (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. "Looks" apparently can be deceiving. There are literally "thousands" of "long-time NY political operatives". Someone "being the first" might be notable to Ripley's but not an encyclopedia recording of possible future events. GNG would certainly be a factor, especially concerning getting elected to a notable office, or else we can delete five of the seven election related sources. While we are on the "political" aspect of notability, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is too soon to even consider. Create the article and wait and see is not included in any policy or guideline. Because there is newspaper mentioning of a subject does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on it. We don't list every politician running for state office (there will be some local or state coverage) and throwing in religious sensationalism is not encyclopedic nor the scandal of an acquaintance. People "notable" for one future possible event does not count. NOTE: The New York Magazine might be reliable but what does the long "soap opera" addition attached to a reference, have to do with the price of tea in China, notability, or the subject? The reference "Are Liberal Jewish Voters a Thing of the Past?" looks like we are advocating for voter turnout. Otr500 (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN does not exclude unelected politicians if they are notable. There may be thousands of political operatives but there is only one Hasid who is the first to run for statewide office in the U.S.. WP:TOOSOON refers only to a subject that has no RS. The scandal content is not included in the current version of the article. BLP1E doesn't apply here because the article isn't about an event but a person. The New York Magazine reference only contains the relevant quote connecting Eichenstein and his wife to the apprehension of Leiby Kletzky's killer. The "Liberal Jewish Voters" New York Times article that mentions Eichenstein, before he was a candidate, if anything seems to be lamenting the growing political power of the right-leaning Hasidim – certainly not advocating voter turnout. StonyBrook (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's not notable outside his campaign; likely WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer talk 11:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was mentioned previously in The New York Times as a rising star and in New York Magazine as a participant in an internationally covered incident. TooSoon refers to a subject that has no RS, this does. StonyBrook (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we're discussing the same source, the NYT mention was literally one sentence. That's not significant coverage. He'll probably pass WP:NPOL soon, though. SportingFlyer talk 06:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NOR and no WP:COI. StonyBrook (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Obviously non-notable local candidate who may well become a non-notable local politician, but at present is the subject of routine local coverage. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eichenstein was covered over a span of many years in multiple reliable sources per WP:SUSTAINED, specifically being called a "well-known Hasidic political operative" in 2011 by New York Magazine, a "political wunderkind" in 2014 by The New York Times and a "front-runner" in his present first political campaign by the New York Daily News. What is so 'obviously non-notable' about him? Is an atypical politician serving in a 'local' state-level legislative body unnotable? Usual coverage of a local pol consists of things like cutting ribbons and making speeches. Eichenstein does plenty of that, but the coverage cited in the article came about through accusations of rape (directed against a staffer). Is that 'routine?' StonyBrook (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That NYTimes citation is good. I just ran a news archive search on his name for articles published before January 2018, and turned up a little coverage of his work as Mayor DeBlasio's Albany lobbyist (Kids suffer as pols fight Blaz hit day-care-safety bill; Smith, Greg B. New York Daily News; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]26 June 2016: 4.) But that's all I am finding and it's not enough. We have a longstanding policy that to keep a candidate article, there has to be accomplishments and sourcing that would have supported notability even before they ran for office. You can see a very similar discussion going on about another Brooklyn legislative race, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Salazar. I suggest that you copy this article into your user space, and bring the article back after he wins a seat in Albany.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar but not equal. Eichenstein has been in the news longer, but Salazar received a larger spike in coverage. Even so, she seems to have been damaged severely due to her credibility issues, precluding any realistic chance of her winning. On the other hand, Eichenstein the shoo-in candidate seemingly passes WP:10YT and WP:POLOUTCOMES, so far as his candidacy being the first of something is concerned. StonyBrook (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, Move to user space@StonyBrook: as per my comment above, sources do not support notability for his pre-campaign notability, nor has coverage of him during campaign been extraordinary. However, he is very likely to be elected in November. User:StonyBrook, would you be willing to have this moved to your user space? You would be able to move it back to mainspace as soon as he gets elected.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the need to place this article on a lazy susan for if Wikipedia is not paper? I understand your concerns about protocol and not setting bad precedent, but why not WP:IGNORE that since the article was not written as a puff piece or to increase the candidate's electoral odds? In that community they don't get their news from Wikipedia. It has been demonstrated above that the subject of the article was covered in RS and will pass NPOL soon. StonyBrook (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume he loses the election - he would not be notable per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL - and we cannot assume he will win per WP:TOOSOON. A redirect/draftify would be consistent with how we handle these sorts of cases. SportingFlyer talk 21:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From TOOSOON: "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." Note – Sources for the topic exist. "This applies to recent events, people, new products and any other topics about which facts have only recently emerged or are still emerging." Note – Facts began emerging about Eichenstein in 2011. "It should be remembered that even in cases where a person might not meet the GNG, the GNG itself is not the final word. Editors are encouraged to also consider the topic-specific notability sub-criteria as set out in WP:Notability (people)", and "...the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field". Note – Eichenstein is unique as a groundbreaking Hasidic politician in the U.S. StonyBrook (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your assertion, but being "the first" candidate in any category does not pass WP:POL unless there is a very large amount of SIGCOV. Thsre are lots of unique identity candidates every year in the U.S. This year we have : "Alma Hernandez, millennial Mexican-American Jewish woman ..." running for the Texas legislature.[18]. It's never enough, unless the sources are. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just copy-pasted this into my sandbox. He probably will get elected. And it can go live after the November general election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep in one way or another. Redirect or merge can be discussed separately, there is no clear consensus for either, just against deletion. So Why 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D6 Fantasy[edit]

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

Article on a toy or game is sourced entirely to the manufacturer's (West End Games) own website. Google Books returns only one RS (Dragons in the Stacks: A Teen Librarian's GUide to Tabletop Role-Playing). No results from JSTOR, Google News, or newspapers.com. Fails the General Notability Guidelines due to absence of WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep multiply-reviewed, widely distributed game referred to in multiple reliable sources. Has anyone heard of BEFORE? This is getting ridiculous - placing multiple ungrounded AfD nominations in quick succession has been grounds for previous ANI filings. Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep !vote addendum There is significant coverage in Pyramid Volume 2, which is paywalled but was professionally published with editorial oversight, independly of WEG, and is a paradigmatic RS. That and the significant coverage in Volume 2 of Designers and Dragons is sufficient to meet NBOOK and the GNG. Let's put this one to bed. Newimpartial (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

referred to in multiple reliable sources Which ones? If your Keep rationale is that sources exist, you need to tell us what they are. Also, if you want to file an ANI, you need to file it, not make ominous threats. It's disruptive to this discussion which is focused on the suitability of a specific article for WP. In a different AFD you indicated you understood this [19] so I'm not certain what the continuing issue is. Chetsford (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are submitting classes of articles for deletion that are consistently closed as keep over time, and are dismissing classes of sources that are routinely accepted as reliable in AfD discussions. You show ignorance of such guidelines as WP:NBOOK and WP:CREATIVE, and refuse to use the term Fanzine according to its understood meaning. Apparently you believe that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [20]. In short, you don't know what you are doing, and should stop before you waste the time of yet more editors. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quickest way to avoid wasting the time of editors is to provide the names and publication dates of the "multiple reliable sources" you have said this is referenced in. Simply insisting sources exist while refusing to identify them is a bit unconventional for AFD discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely rare for an article to pass GNG at AFD when only two sources can be found in which the subject is mentioned (setting aside, for a moment, the quality of the sources in question). Further, since this is not in fact an article on a book, but rather one on a "game system" composed of multiple bound instructional manuals each sold separately, I don't believe a logical reading of NBOOK would permit the bare minimum two sources to establish inherent notability. Chetsford (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move the goal posts, Chet. There are not "only two sources where the subject is mentioned" - there are very many. I picked two that are significant, independent, reliable and uncontroversial as sources for RPG articles. And RPG articles, and book articles, and film director articles ... are routinely kept on the basis of two reliable, independent sources...which you would know if your first foray into RPGs wasn't cluelessky nominating a dozen for deletion, but had instead - I don't know - actually read some deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial, otherwise merge to West End Games. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Sangrolu. BOZ (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources, meets GNG. Re: Chetsford, it's not IME "extremely rare" to pass AFD with only 2 reliable sources, but that claim sounds like you are trying to intimidate the other editors, not make your case. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm spontaneously flashing back to Jennifer Anniston's scene in Office Space wherein she argues with her manager how many peices of "flair" is enough. Don't be that manager.) - Sangrolu (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to West End Games per WP:PRODUCT. Insufficient sources to demonstrste independent notsbility. Jbh ^Talk 17:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two of the four references listed are to threads on forums. Going through AfDs today this is the second time I've seen someone in a gaming AfD say "But there's substantial coverage in a source that's not really used in this article" ... so, why isn't the content in this article based on that source and those like it rather than on web forum threads? - Scarpy (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy-compliant !Vote, per WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-policy compliant article. IF the topic is notable why are half of the sources based on forum threads? If a topic is notable, writing a stub summary using the abundant sources with in-depth coverage should be trivially easy. Instead, I'm seeing a lot of politicking on the talk page which makes me think otherwise. - Scarpy (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but it my case I was reacting to a non-policy compliant nom. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Yeah I see a lot of people saying "multiple reliable sources" and other things like that -- show us the in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources and we don't have to waste time on this discussion. If this article survives the AfD, you still have an article based on forum threads rather than the WP:RS you're insisting is out there and it's likely to get nominated again for that reason. - Scarpy (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was not a SOURCESEXIST argument; it was an actual list of sources that meet NBOOK and the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to West End Games per WP:Product Simonm223 (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selective merge to West End Games. Fails the product clause of WP:NCORP due to lack of WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
week keep We've got two solid sources mentioned and without anyone indicating they don't count toward WP:N: Pyramid Volume 2 and Volume 2 of Designers and Dragons. That's enough for WP:N to be met. I'd be happier with a handful of other RS reviews. Hobit (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: People keep arguing as if the reasons for deleting that the Nom stated don't exist. I did a simple google search and couldn't find anything besides west end games which doesn't work as a real source, the rule book or information about the rule book which could only be used minimally in this article, and websites where people are just having discussions and Q and A over the game. Frankly, Where are these numerous REAL AND USABLE sources that mention the game? Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to West End Games. It is claimed that there are "two solid sources". However, Pyramid Volume 2 is not used to reference anything in the article and no further information is provided to even be able to verify that it exists, let alone verify that it is reliable and in-depth. No author, publisher or ISBN. Unsurprisingly, can't find anything that looks like it on gbooks. Designers & Dragons is used to reference only one sentence in the article that gives little more than the publication dates of the books. If that is all that is in that source then it is not in-depth coverage and so does not rise to showing notability. And that's putting aside the questions raised about the RS credentials of the source. Everything else is definitely not RS or not independent. I mght be persuaded if someone with access to those two sources could enumerate exactly how much coverage of the subject is in them (like in number of words or number of pages). But from what I can see here it's pretty minimal. SpinningSpark 22:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon and Saber[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG No reliable secondary sources. Killer Moff (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps a redirect to Adrian Chase could work? Seems to be a "supporting character" of that Vigilante. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage by third party sources, barely a footnote within the fiction. The only mention on Adrian Chase is "Before his death, he frequently battled Cannon and Saber and Electrocutioner.", and that's been marked as needing a citation for seven years. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ditto to what Argento said. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that WP:GNG is clearly met, and it is irrelevant whether WP:NPOL is met or not. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Salazar[edit]

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

Young political activist and first-time candidate running against incumbent as long-shot for New York State Assembly seat in a Brooklyn district. Zero notability or press coverage before campaign. Candidacy has drawn attention in online left-wing news/commentary sites (many NYC based). ROUTINE general press coverage of campaign until a pair of small brouhahas erupted in local and Jewish media over the fact that she was campaigning as "An immigrant" brought to the U.S. from Colombia by her parents as "a baby". It turned out that she was born in Miami. (U.S. citizen mother, Dad immigrated from Colombia.) She also campaigned as a Jewish Latina. But, as the New York Post put it, "even in politics, it’s rare for someone to manufacture imaginary ancestry." E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Apologies for tone, focus. Struck.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a really difficult one and I don't think the nomination makes a particularly good argument against the article. One of the sources even notes "Julia Salazar has earned media attention that most state senate primary candidates could only dream of, including serious treatment in The New Yorker, and friendly profiles in New York magazine, The Forward, The Intercept, and Vice." It passes WP:GNG, but WP:GNG is only a presumption of notability. What makes this difficult: the article as it is written violates both WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTSCANDAL and to a lesser extent WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. While she's been well-covered, her notability derives from the fact she's in the same faction as Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez (leftist news) and because of a number of contradictory or unforced errors she's made (rightist news). There's no election page to redirect to, and it will be difficult to rewrite it as it is in a NPOV. I also note the election she's running in occurs September 13, so she will either win the primary (and therefore likely the general, and be notable per NPOL) or lose the primary and be a WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer talk 10:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the specific text in WP:NOTPROMO that it violates? --Nbauman (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a little more focused on controversy than it was when I voted, but the "advocacy" prong still applies. SportingFlyer talk 20:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think might be some confusion about who or what is being advocated for, as much of the article is neutral. The same editors who want to delete the article are the ones adding the abundance of weight to the controversy section, which is the only portion used as a soapbox. She was notable before the controversy, unlike say the Republican in Florida who was a fly-by-night national news story for the fake college degree. I think the final version of the article would severely tone down this controversy as it's not that big a deal in the big picture. But finding the article at fault for violating PROMO might just have been the intention all long, as again, it's the same actors on multiple angles (the NPOL nom, the AfD, and the abundance of "controversy"). JesseRafe (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft - WP:TOOSOON, failing WP:NPOL. This is a candidate in the primaries to the state senate (the primary in September, the actual elections in November) attempting to unseat an incumbent democrat in the primary. To qualify for NPOL - she would need to have won the actual state senate seat. Prior to the election cycle (e.g. if you do a BEFORE time-ranged to 2017, filtering out all the sidebar hits from the election) she was not notable - an appearance at Glenn Beck not withstanding. All the coverage we have is from the election cycle - while it is more voluminous than the typical state senate primary candidate due to issues regarding her identification/identity (as well as some coverage of the Democratic Socialist wave in which she is given as an example) - it is definitely less than the typical US senate or congress hopefuls (for the actual elections) that we routinely delete. Barring her winning the election, there's little expectation for this coverage to be WP:SUSTAINED in this WP:BLP1E situation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON is an essay. It's not a policy or guideline. We have no obligation to follow it. Even so, when I read it, I don't see how WP:TOOSOON applies. If you wait long enough, the election will be over, we will have missed our opportunity to give readers the information they want at the time they need it, and then it will be WP:TOOLATE.

WP:NPOL specifically allows Salazar. "an unelected candidate for political office ... can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". So your arguments don't apply. --01:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Once you're notable in Wikipedia, you're always notable - that's not necessarily the case here if she loses and falls out of the news cycle. If her campaign were notable for all time, this would be an easy keep, but it's not clear - claiming WP:TOOLATE implies this fails WP:PROMO.

~~Weak~~Strong Keep on the basis of WP:GNG - she's had substantial coverage in the Intercept and also in Haaretz which is international in scope. I don't think WP:BLP1E entirely applies due to the current heat going on within the Democrats regarding establishment vs DSA candidacy, which this ultimately ties into. Concede she's marginal, but I tend to lean toward keep in marginal cases, especially when GNG conditions are met. Simonm223 (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOVING to DRAFT space makes a lot of sense; it can be brought back to main space if she becomes a figure of national interest, or actually wins a seat in the legislature.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is Wikipedia:Sour grapes. Above allegations are false on their face. Nominator was presented with multiple sources of national press coverage before this controversy generated more coverage, which they chose to ignore on the Talk page. There's dozens of links on the talk page. It passes both GNG and NPOL. Salazar has been the subject of indepth reporting by national press like The New York Times, Washington Post, Salon, Jacobin, the New Yorker, New York Magazine, Washington Times, Village Voice. Her campaign has been prominently mentioned in articles not specifically about her/her campaign by other national press -- CNN, The Cut, etc. This is very unusual and significant coverage of a state legislature candidate. Two editors have been trying to destroy this article with various means, tagging and templating it over and over, rather than simply make it better. One technique employed by the nominator has been to try to overload the article with recent press about the controversy and then claim that the article is all about the recent news cycle and should be deleted. Both these editors have literally ignored every source, local and national, presented that makes no mention of the recent controversy and continue to insist she's only notable for the controversy. Easily passes GNG with national mentions and passes NPOL to boot. Links on article talk. JesseRafe (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JesseRafe: WP:NPA please. Care to elaborate on how a never-elected individual who is running in the Democratic primary for NY State Senate district 18 passes WP:NPOL?Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument would probably be the major press coverage prong, ignoring the problem no article on talk page or in the main article is older than two months old. SportingFlyer talk 13:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can make a case of a political candidate passing GNG without passing NPOL - usually on the basis of notability prior to the election cycle (and the invariable coverage it brings). You can also try to make the (very rare) case of notability via press coverage from the election cycle only, without meeting NPOL. However, per JesseRafe this individual "Easily passes GNG with national mentions and passes NPOL to boot" - we can dicker over GNG, but I don't see how this individual passes NPOL in any way, shape, or form.Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether she passes NPOL is moot if she passes the GNG marker. And that's very nearly a WP:SNOW level of obviousness. This is a person with substantial national and international coverage in reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is bad faith request, Icewhiz. I very clearly and explicitly made the NPOL argument on the Talk page yesterday. You chose not to engage with the sources and notable, national press coverage, which began in earnest in May. JesseRafe (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please state explicitly which WP:NPOL criteria this individual passes - or strike your assertion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are six articles from five high-profile outlets where she is mentioned but is not the subject of the article, which I believe satisfies NPOL provided I understand it correctly.

--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are less significant than it may appear, almost all coverage is in in New York City-based publications, the INDEPTH is in niche publications like Jacobin (magazine), and Tablet (magazine). But she is only mentioned as one of several candidates in articles like, "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Historic Win and the Future of the Democratic Party". ALL coverage of Salazar is campaign-related. And Note that Ocasio-Cortez's first page was started only AFTER she actually one a primary (for a seat in the House in D.D., not a seat in Albany, New York.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basically any insurgent candidate, particularly from the left, is going to garner the most coverage from "New York-based" publications as they (here The New Yorker and the New York Times) are national publications of record that happen to be based in New York City. She's received in depth coverage from other outlets, but I included those sources, where she is not the main subject of the articles as I was responding to Icewhiz.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that one of the NYTimes articles ran in the local edition NOt national ; and the 2nd NYimes story, like the New Yorker (published in New York) story merely mentions her as one of several progressives who might win in a surprise upset of like Ocasio-Cortez did. Something to keep in mind is that New York figures get a disproportionate boost in such stories because they are convenient examples, similarly, you'll notice that when the Washington Post needs a photo and interview of a national trend (psychologist using new therapy, school instituting new rules,) the example picked will almost always be located in Maryland or Virginia. Nevertheless these stories are not about Salazar, they are about several progressive candidates who might pull off upsets, citing her as one example.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"these stories are not about Salazar, they are about several progressive candidates who might pull off upsets, citing her as one example." That's irrelevant. According to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." --Nbauman (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to user:Icewhiz's request, "Please state explicitly which WP:NPOL criteria this individual passes - or strike your assertion" --

WP:NPOL: 'an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".' Will you now strike your objection? --Nbauman (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per JesseRafe and discussion on talk page.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a no-brainer. Full-length profiles in award-winning nationally and internationally distributed publications including

sail past WP:NPOL's standard for being a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage, where A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists—not to mention the GNG.

Additional full-length profiles in nonpartisan local media [26][27][28], and WP:SIGCOV in The Times [29] and sources like Fox News [30] and The Times of Israel [31] make it clear that, pace SportingFlyer, any NPOV problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. FourViolas (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the additional information provided by FourViolas I am changing my !vote to a strong keep. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not suppose that FourViolas intended that comment to be ironic. But Editors wondering why this longshot candidate got a sudden, small spate of coverage in early August should scroll to the bottom The Intercept, here: Looking to Land the Next Blow Against the New York Democratic Machine] and read the "correction" where it is explained that Salazar lied to interviewers and on her campaign webpage, calling herself a “proud immigrant”, when, in fact, she was born to a U.S. citizen mother in Miami, Florida. She also told a highly imaginative stories about her father and his family being Jewish, which got a coverage in Jewish publications, and the fact that she campaigned as "an immigrant" was picked up by some right-wing media (for the left-wing-Dem-candidate-telling-lies angle.) However, all or almost all original coverage (there are some echo rehashes) is by New York City-based journalists writing for New York-based publications. Like the New Yorker and the New York Times, The Nation, the Village Voice, Gotham (magazine) and Vice (magazine) are written and edited in New York, New York. Major national media based elsewhere, The Atlantic, and the Chicago Tribune, along with many NYC based national media including NBCNews and the Wall Street Journal have ignored her. New Jersey's Star-Ledger couldn't be bothered to send a reporter across the bridge. This is a local New York City story. It is an amusingly provincial town.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of her honesty is irrelevant to WP:GNG notability criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your evidently strong opinions about her heritage notwithstanding, all the policies require is that these articles be written by journalists and published in reliable sources (the kind that issue corrections). Even if we imagine that The Times, The Forward, The Intercept, and most of Israel's major newspapers have all been writing about "a local New York City story" because they enjoy losing subscribers, their coverage amply satisfies WP:AUD—a requirement that doesn't apply to articles about people in the first place. FourViolas (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is fueled by a composition of false information and follow ups on those lies. Nothing more than one event and clearly nothing that adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is wantonly false. All the links on the talk page are for national press that was before this controversy. JesseRafe (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far the delete !votes seem to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT - a reminder that, as FourViolas and I keep pointing out, it doesn't matter why somebody has gotten over the WP:GNG line. If they're notable, they're notable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: I rather dislike your characterization of my delete vote. While she has received substantial coverage, we still have WP:NOT which no one is discussing, and she is subject to a WP:BLP1E concern. There is no indication from the sources her campaign will be notable if she loses - she'll just have a candidacy that received a lot of press. I do agree with you the nomination feels like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but there are still a number of concerns with this article, and I want to make sure it can be renominated for deletion once some time passes if she were to lose the nomination and doesn't receive any further significant coverage.SportingFlyer talk 04:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – See more of my discussion on the talk page
Basically the only things I said there that matter are the following:

"If an article passes GNG, it is notable. It does not need to also pass WP:NPOL or WP:N or WP:POLOUTCOMES. It has received significant coverage if it passes GNG, therefore, it is notable."
"The requirements for GNG, or a simple rule of thumb, is that if the subject has multiple articles written about him/her/them/it in national publications, it meets GNG, and they can not be just passing mentions nor can they be solely local news sources. Salazar meets these requirements with an article written about her in WaPo and several pieces of info (not just trivial) about her in NYT."

While the nominator made a good point there that this didn't happen until after the candidacy, I feel that this does not matter. See the AfD discussion for Robert Kelleher; he was only notable due to his candidacies. GNG is the general guideline, and there are no second opinions to that. There is no discussion here that Salazar meets WP:GNG. She is notable and the article should be kept. There is no valid reason against it. Redditaddict6 9 17:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False parallel. Robert Kelleher, an unusual chap, was kept because he has been a Perennial candidate since 1964.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding nomination – EMG stated that the only coverage was on left-wing sources. Her controversies are also on Fox News and New York Post. She has coverage from across the political spectrum on several national news sources. Many are not just passing mentions, but give paragraphs of detail on her and some are articles solely about her candidacy. Redditaddict6 9 17:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misquote me. Read my comments before making erroneous assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 17:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 17:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's also important to contextualize Salazar as being part of a substantial shift within the Democrats between the Centerist party establishment and the center-left DSA. Not to give people bad ideas, but much of Salazar's notability comes from the same well, notwithstanding the inevitable muck-raking, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just read Wikipedia:Notability (people):

This page in a nutshell:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

The discussion above, and the article's Talk page, have clearly demonstrated significant coverage. I don't see anything in the discussion above refuting that conclusion. --Nbauman (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the umpteenth time I feel like I'm saying for the umpteenth time, all of the links of national press at Talk:Julia_Salazar#Sources_for_WP:NPOL are before the current controversy. There's been so many comments that should be dismissed for wantonly misstating this objective fact. Despite the fact that much of the current article is about that controversy, that is not the sole source of notability in the least. Multiple national publications have covered her. JesseRafe (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources about her meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Salazar has been the subject of coverage in the national and international media. I believe she passes WP:GNG regardless of whether she passes WP:NPOL. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Facially passes WP:NPOL; I'm unable to discern an actual rationale for deletion in the nomination. He tries to imply there's been little coverage, which is false, and then adduces various non-policy-based reasons to dismiss the coverage as somehow irrelevant ("routine," "small brouhaha," the sources are supposedly too liberal or too "NYC based," etc.) This doesn't convince. TiC ^(talk) 13:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The actual rational for deletion is our long-standing rule against keeping articles on candidates for office unless they have the sort of accomplishments and sourcing that would have supported notability even before they ran for office. Consider, for example, Alma Hernandez, a young, liberal, Jewish Latina running for a seat in the Arizona state legislature and getting coverage very similar to the coverage Salazar is getting (local media, plus Jewish and Israeli media). Doesn't have an article yet because coverage appears to be campaign related. And we don't keep articles on candidates with no prior notability. WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's coverage by the media of a third country, published today: Guardian Interview.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I would suggest you read WP:OSE. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to say this more clearly, but that rule is not a policy or guideline. In fact, it conflicts explicitly with WP:NPOL's statement that Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". If you think this guideline should be changed, hold a RfC and see what the broader community thinks, rather than simply ignoring its previous decisions. FourViolas (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~MERGE~~ to Democratic Socialists of America candidates, 2018 election, as per WP:POLOUTCOMES#Politicians#Candidates. Note that similar candidate Zak Ringelstein has been similarly redirected. And that this MERGE is to a space where most r all of the content of this page can be transferred. The great advantage is that this is in keeping with longstanding policy on unelected candidates that prevents Wikipedia for being used a venue for political WP:PROMO. And that will WP:PRESERVE this material on an appropriate page documenting this year's remarkable wave of socialist candidates, something that had not been seen in the U.S. for almost a century.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If you MERGE, you must either delete most of the Julia Salazar content, or make the merged article bigger and more unwieldy. I think that (on the basis of coverage in WP:RS) that Julia Salazar is too important to condense and delete like that.--Nbauman (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems a little rich that you, as nominator, are changing your !vote to merge when it's become clear that you're in WP:SNOW territory. How about you do the right thing and just withdraw the AFD. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her notability is from the coverage she has received, not automatic candidate/pol notability. She might not have passed the routine-coverage bar before this controversy, but she passes it now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the article itself could use improvement and expansion of her positions, but she has received extensive coverage over both her Jewish identity and socialist politics. I do agree we need to be cautious about WP:NPOV, WP:NotNews and WP:Promo but I think we can handle that :) NY elections are in less than 2 weeks anyways and her run will be notable nonetheless. Shushugah (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 11 Keeps, and 3 deletes, while this is not a vote, there is clearly no consensus to delete. Shushugah (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep based on the arguments of JesseRafe, FourViolas, and Redditaddict69. Since I created this article earlier this month, the subject has received additional national coverage for a variety of issues. I also find it very odd that as the article creator, I was never notified about this AfD. It strikes me a little as bad faith. Trinitresque (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My error and my apology. I ought to have thought of that; I rarely nominate articles for deletion, and I simply forgot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is running against an Hispanic-American incumbent in the September 13 primary election for the Party's nomination for a seat in the state legislature. Page showcases our persistent problem with election-cycle partisan campaign enthusiasm. If she loses, this brief summer of coverage will be WP:BLP1E. Fails ten-year test. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am still for KEEP per my comments made a week ago (basically saying the nom is false – she is included in both left and right-wing sources and many of them, especially nationwide publications). Moreover, the comments made since then which add to the points made before appear to make the argument for KEEP more convincing. Redditaddict6 9 15:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my "merge" opinion per ONGOING national coverage. Article still needs editing for POV because recent non-local coverage is of journalists who continue to find new, verifiable details of her personal history about which she told falsehoods as part of her campaign. And the POV editing is likely to be an ongoing issue. Nevertheless, the 1st hit on a news search this morning on "Julia Salazar" is a national story on Fox News (I know, I know I also saw today's story about how terrible Fox is in The Atlantic, but FOX is a large, national network,) Dem socialist candidate Julia Salazar's mother and brother expose more inconsistencies in her bio]. What I truly do not understand is why her partisans want to keep this page up. But, well, it's a lot of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC) I now note that the Fox story is merely a rehash of the recent story in City & State.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is has nothing to do with "her partisans" but everything to do with her notability prior to and independent of this minor scandal that will soon be over. This is a fact which you chose to ignore time and time again. It was detailed on the Talk page before you AfDed it. JesseRafe (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: - I don't think you should be withdrawing your nom. Coverage of interesting candidates and all the more candidates with seemingly "juicy" inconsistencies and scandals is par the course for elections. If she ends up getting elected - she'll be notable (just by the dint of our SNG, but it will also lead to on-going coverage - elected politicians tend to generate SUSTAINED coverage of their positions and voting records). If she fails in her election bid and returns to doing whatever mundane thing or another (and doesn't become notable via a subsequent successful run, or some other event) - she'll be just another failed candidate with a scandal that fails BLP1E and the 10Y test.Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Democratic Socialists of America candidates, 2018 election as per WP:POLOUTCOMES#Politicians#Candidates. This race is a clear case of WP:BLP1E, and as I have said at the pages of other, closely parallel candidate pages, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Innamorato, we do not start pages on candidates running for office. And note that despite the enthusiasm on exhibit at this AfD, she is running in the Democratic primary against a popular Hispanic incumbent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - without endorsing either her politics or allies, she has a very good chance of getting elected via the Democratic primary next Thursday. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy-based vote. (Note also that there have been no polls in this race, and the pundits are not speculating.) That said, I could see an argument for rolling this over for a week. After the primary on Sept 13., it will be clear that she is either a candidate or the state legislature, or a candidate known only for losing a state legislature primary. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warren "Slim" Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. » Shadowowl | talk 17:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:GNG. Only credited with working on one recorded song, and one album, a single actually and under a different entry, two albums. There's some passing mention in a local paper. Now if this IMDB entry can be verified, there may be something there, as WP:MUSICBIO does suggest that a subject may be notable if they perform for a notable film, but WP:COMPOSER does not state that simply writing for a notable film is enough, which is why we would have to fall back on GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz. I don't know which part of the imdb profile you want verified but the award mentioned there is verified in the Montreal Gazette, see below. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I questioned the "prodder", but after a search online, I could not find anything new to prove notability. If there were an approriate target for redirect to a band he played in, I'd go along with that. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian. There is a good page for Tchukon, a Juno nominated band. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there's no indication or evidence of notability, and per the notes by Walter Görlitz. I added the IMDB link, but his TV and movie work doesn't appear to be especially substantial. PK T(alk) 14:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gemini Award winner and prominent member of a notable band. Even if you don't think there is enough for a stand alone article there is no need for deletions, in that case this page should be merged to his bands page Tchukon. Gemini (""with Oscar Peterson for best original musical score for the latter's biopic In the Key of Oscar.) is verified by Brownstein, Bill (31 January 2013), "Slim Williams stages 'family' reunion; Tchukon holds concert to mark Black History Month", Montreal Gazette. That article has a lot about him away from the band and goes halfway to GNG. Given that his career is from the 70s on it is likely there is more in offline sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme, I would go along with that merger as you suggested to the band's article. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme. Gemini winner. James500 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tchukon. While winning a Gemini Award for his television composing work is certainly a valid notability claim in principle, it's not so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to be properly sourced — but on a ProQuest search, apart from the one article that Duffbeerforme pointed out above, all I can find otherwise is a handful of glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him, and even Duff's source is fundamentally about the band rather than about Slim apart from Slim being the person who's doing the speaking about the band. So he's not really sourceable enough to qualify for a standalone BLP, and redirection to his notable band is therefore appropriate — though no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find much better sources than I've been able to. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions split between delete, keep and redirect - can anyone else chime in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tchukon. After researching the musician's history and reviewing the votes above, I think this is the most convincing solution per WP policy. That band's article, in the "Breakup" section, can mention that Williams released two solo albums and later formed the band Atomic Glam. Not quite sure where the Gemini Award fits in though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Basketball League (Philippines). Consensus that individual season is not (yet) notable with no significant coverage. Rough consensus that there isn't anything that should be merged yet, however content can be acquired in the article/redirect's history and added to the League's article if desired later. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 National Basketball League (Philippines) season[edit]

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

A season of an amateur league which doesn't have any significant coverage. Definitely fails WP:GNG. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with league article. Since it's the first year of the league, a merge seems like the best option unless there are more reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the only thing to merge would be the league results table, and I don't think that's necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Basketball League (Philippines). WP:TOOSOON to tell if the season is notable, even if the league happens to be. In the interim, can add contents to the fledgling league's article. However, there is nothing to merge now per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was repurpose as DAB page. So Why 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal[edit]

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

This is a bad mix of WP:DICDEF and a disambiguation page. I'm not sure if there really even is an attempt here to have an article about journal, the word. Especially so considering the confusing hatnote: "This article is about the journal as a written medium". wumbolo ^^^ 08:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom, the definition (as well as violating DICDEF) doesn't really add anything that isn't at the top of the disambig page. The first sentence of the disambig page also sets out the literature uses of journal. Unless it was going to have some odd expansion (historial use of meaning? etc) that got it out of DICDEF and beyond the disambig detail I'm not sure how it could remain. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a bad DAB/set-index page; a much better one exists at Journal (disambiguation) and should be moved here; however, the usage of a general journal as well as referring to the journal of a parliamentary body would need to be added to that page. The history of this page dates to 2002 (compared to 2005 for the DAB page), a merge may need to take that into account. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article feels more like a dictionary definition mixed with a very short list than an article, for sure violates WP:NAD.Grapefruit17 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per power - at the very least, this can be re-appropriated as a disambiguation page, which would include things like General journal, Journal (TV series) and The Journal (newspaper). AfD is not cleanup. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect to DAB, do WP:SWAP to preserve histories, mostly per deletion is not cleanup. There is no world where Wikipedia is better off with journal as a redlink. Whether this turns into a WP:BCA or a WP:DAB can be settled on the talk page, but this isn't a case of WP:TNT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Headbomb - there's something to put here, definitely, maybe one could move the dab at Journal (disambiguation) here or one could expand the article but there is something to put here Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, deleting and moving the dab here is a fine idea; not sure why people are suggesting that per me when tis power~enwiki who suggested moving the dab first Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and repurpose Journal (disambiguation) per User:Galobtter. I've merged all the entries from here into Journal (disambiguation). At this point, we should just delete this, and move Journal (disambiguation) to this title. The existing Journal (disambiguation) could use some cleanup; I'll attack that after the move. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rename Journal (disambiguation). Great suggestion @Galobtter:. Redditaddict6 9 23:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick T. Haneman[edit]

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

There seem to be no indepth reliable independent sources about Haneman, and half the info in the current article is unverifiable (New York Journal info is unverifiable, and the "American Jewish Yearbook" seem to refer to one entry he wrote for it, nothing more. Birth year of 1863 also wasn't verifiable) Fram (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Killiondude (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a tough time finding any sources in various databases, even searching for "FT Haneman," which it seems he may have been credit by in at least one of the publications mentioned in the article. Killiondude (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG [and AUTHOR]. Managing editor of the New York Medical Journal (hence the confusion), and I see amongst other things an obituary (Jersey Shore) giving date of death as 1950, a book review in the Athenaeum and biographical dictionary says "Haneman Frederick Theodore" editor of said medical journal born 20 September 1862 [32] (not 1863), so that clears up that mystery as well. James500 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Words in square brackets added. James500 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500:, can you add some additional information about these sources, so that people can verify them? The only link you give goes to a typical sham "blue book", which gives no notability at all (it is a kind of who's who where everyone who paid was entered). Being a managing editor also doesn't give notability as such (but of course is relevant information to have in the article), so what we have is an obituary in "jersey shore", but I can't find a newspaper with that name, and I can't find any obituary through Google newspaper archive (which, of course, isn't all-inclusive). Similarly, my search of The Athenaeum for "Haneman" gave no results at all[33]. Presumably you meant one of the oter magazines with the same title, but without any indication of which book they reviewed, when, in which actual magazine, this is impossible to verify. Fram (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book review in the Athaneum is at page 144 of this: [34]. The Jersey Shore is pages 404 to 409 of this: [35] [36] [37] which says amongst other things that he had a "national reputation". Obituary in Typographical Journal [38] gives date of death as 3 May 1950 at Brigantine, New Jersey. Other sources include, in particular: [39] [40]. That is from a non-exhaustive search of GBooks. Other sources come up on searches for obvious queries. I can't see any positive evidence that the blue book is a scam. If you have some, please provide it. Managing editor of the journal might satisfy PROF. As for AUTHOR, I suspect there may be other reviews as he contributed to a number of encyclopedias and periodicals. James500 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC) And indeed I was correct: for example on a search for [41], periodical book reviews of his contribution to that do indeed come up: [42] [43] [44]. So we now have a clear pass of AUTHOR, and I would presumably find more reviews if I tried the same technique with the other reference works and periodicals he contributed to. James500 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that "book review" in the Athenaeum is in fact a very passing mention to one paper. His work as managing director of tht journal has received no attention and doesn't meet NRPOF at all. Your search for his work on the international encyclopedia: you give three results, but I can't see the second one, and the first and third are the exact same letter to the editor. The "obituary" in the typographical journal is a one line mention in a long list of deceased members. The only longer source is a the Jersey Shore one. Perhaps that one is sufficient to scrape by WP:BIO, but it is a far cry from the passes of WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR you claim to have found. Fram (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Athenaeum is a book review of a volume of the Jewish Encyclopedia to which Haneman contributed, and it reviews his article on "post-Talmudic medical science" in that encyclopedia directly and in detail. It is not a passing mention. It is a periodical review for the purpose of AUTHOR. Haneman's biography in Who Was Who in America is a very detailed source. The Abridged Biography and Genealogy Master Index says that there is a biography of Haneman in at least one of the biographical dictionaries published by Gale Research. It does not say how much detail that biography has, but we would need to find out before dismissing it. Why do you think that the material ("Article on Poisonous Plants in the New International Encyclopedia") in the American Journal of Veterinary Medicine is a letter and not a review? James500 (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SkyGazer 512. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gprscrippers: Did you mean per James500? I didn't actually "vote" in this discussion, I just relisted the discussion to provide more time for others to comment on it.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR per review of available sources. Sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above, plus there was an obit in the New York Herald Tribune (1926-1962); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]04 May 1950: 24..E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. All votes lead to a "Keep" Consensus. The discussion participants have established the articles notability. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rui José Lopes (footballer)[edit]

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

There are insufficient reliable sources to verify the content (WP:V). It may also fail WP:NFOOTBALL as the person has not played in a fully professional league, as defined by the football WikiProject. There is also a lack of significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. The editor whose username is Z0 07:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL (per this) as he has played in the Primeira Liga. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the website's reliability as they allow users to submit changes and it appears to be run by a group of Portuguese football fans, according to the About page. There is no actual evidence of this person playing for a fully professional league. There may be some unreliable sources but they cannot be used to verify this information. The editor whose username is Z0 11:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accepted this from draftspace per WP:NFOOTY as he played in the top Portuguese division. Also known as "Rui Lopes" in web searches. SportingFlyer talk 09:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails WP:V, it fails WP:NFOOTY, which states "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable." What evidence is there to prove this person has played in the top division of Portuguese football? The editor whose username is Z0 11:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As some funny trivia: the player shows two birth-dates because he came from Guiné to Portugal. At the time it was common for African football players (and not only African football players, Africans in general) to register in Portugal as 1/2/3 years younger than they actually were, so that they seemed younger (i.e., clubs would think they could have a more prolonged career).
Comment - many years ago, editors at WP:FOOTY researched whether Foradejogo.net could be considered a WP:RS and concluded it could. ~~I cannot locate the discussion, but it~~You can read a bit of the discussion at the Talk page linked below, and it involved a GA review of an article which used the source (Talk:Nuno_Mendes_(footballer)), and I think the reason it satisfied the RS standard is because another reliable Portuguese newspaper (Região Sul) had cited the website and considered its editorial/publishing standards for Portuguese football to be satisfactory. That said, I know there is significant concern about using Foredejogo.net as a source for information about non-Portuguese football. ~~I did a few searches but couldn't turn up the original discussion.~~ Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a low-resolution picture of A Bola's 1988-89 season preview of Fafe, which identifies Rui José Lopes as a squad member (see the last entry under "Avançados"). A Bola prints similar previews every season, and I'm sure someone with access could find similar reports on this player in each of his Portuguese top-flight seasons. It's difficult to demonstrate GNG-compliance for this article given how little is actually online, but the amount of printed coverage of Portuguese top-flight players in the 1980s would almost certainly be sufficient. Jogurney (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above, consensus is that Foradejogo is a reliable source for Portuguese soccer and as such can satisfy WP:V. Given that it also shows the subject satisfies WP:NFOOTY, the article should be kept. If editors feel sources previously deemed reliable by consensus are, in fact, not reliable, an AfD is not the appropriate place to be having that discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This newspaper archive image from the 18 Feb 1985 edition of the Diario de Lisboa names Rui Lopes as the scorer of Rio Ave's second goal against Benfica in the match played two days prior; the other scorers correspond with those given by Foradejogo. This image of the same newspaper dated 31 Dec 1984 mentions him scoring three goals at home to Braga two days earlier. I don't intend to go through the whole season, but those pages certainly prove that someone of that name played and scored for Rio Ave in the Primeira Divisao when FdJ says he did.
As to questioning the reliability of FdJ because "users can submit changes": I can't see where it suggests that users can submit and publish changes, which is a very different thing from submitting changes with supporting evidence and the website assessing the evidence and accepting the change, or not, depending on their editorial judgment. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article about professional footballer who played in the fuly-pro Portuguese top flight and accordingly satisfies WP:NFOOTY. Jogurney (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above !votes explain, subject passes WP:NFOOTY. While article is pretty poor quality at the moment, there is some potential for expansion. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But it sounds like there should be some discussion to unify the tenure standard for various similar articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the New Zealand Parliament who have served for at least 30 years[edit]

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

Just trivia. Why not 25 years? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the Malaysian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the Australian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. No indication that this specific topic is notable. Fails WP:NLIST. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is most certainly a valid encyclopedic article. Perhaps a renaming of the article would be better to bring it in to line with List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service, which likewise uses the 30 year mark as a threshold for inclusion. Kiwichris (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this is absolutely valid encyclopedic content. Thirty years is a long time to be part of the parliament in a democratic nation. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the proposition from Kiwichris to bring this article into line with List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service which is more logically laid out. This also applies to the two other related AfD's. Meets WP:GNG. NealeFamily (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per NealeFamily's rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus that the list is encyclopedic; no consensus that the list is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tenure of service is a notable concept; otherwise we wouldn't have a Father (or mother) of the House. The question is whether 30 years is the right length of service. But that question isn't the right one to resolve for an AfD; that question is to be resolved via a discussion on the talk page. The issue up for debate here is whether the list is notable and I suggest that yes, it very definitely is. Schwede 66 06:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – What notability guidelines does this fail? Redditaddict6 9 21:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to satisfy WP:NLIST/WP:LISTN. (Those are the only relevant ones) wumbolo ^^^ 21:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion comes down to a disagreement over the quality of the sources asserted to support notability, with neither side making a dispositive argument that the status quo should be changed. This defaults to the article being kept as is. bd2412 T 04:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Mason[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Not notable (WP:GNG, WP:BASIC). wumbolo ^^^ 07:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per now, the claim "not notable" is not backed up by any arguments. Thus, if there is no argument to delete it, there is no reason to delete it. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff5102: No, if there is no argument to keep it, it should be deleted. The only independent sources in the article (current revision) are: 7, 9, 10 and 12. Out of these, ref 7 only discusses some minor work by Mason, ref 9 begins with "YouTube has launched an Orwellian program for users to 'moderate content.'", ref 10 discusses Mason in only two sentences, and ref 12 is about a minor drama between Mason and a pro-creationist YouTuber. wumbolo ^^^ 07:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

. wumbolo ^^^ 07:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was a participant in the last deletion discussion and I said back then that the sourcing was a problem with regard to notability. I see this still suffers from that problem. He is still in essence apparently a non-notable youtuber as there are no reliable 3rd party sources that cover him in depth, nor has his academic work received much in terms of in depth peer review that one would expect to see. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- On Edit To clarify, what I mean to say is that he fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even a very cursory search turns up several relatively substantial sources: [45], [46], [47]. I think a more in-depth look would turn up even more and perhaps some on his academic side, but between his work on Youtube and his academic career, he seems to have attracted enough source coverage to be notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources are: a semi-lengthy summary of one of his videos, a summary of a minor FBI drama, and a passing mention. wumbolo ^^^ 20:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you if something is "minor" or not. It was at least notable enough to make a long article about it. Just leave it to the administrators to check those sources, and they will come to their judgement. Otherwise, if you continue to dismiss every opposing view, then that will not do any good for the atmosphere on Wikipedia, and it will drain out all the fun of editing it.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see coverage of this guy meeting WP:GNG at all. He easily fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF as well. As wumbolo ^^^ already stated, the three sources listed are very weak, and contrary to the comment on them, it IS up to us if something is minor or not. When it's passing mentions or a Hotair blurb that reads like a blog/opinion post, we're more than capable of making the judgment that those don't reach the level of "significant coverage in reliable sources." This man's coverage does not nearly meet that level. Amsgearing (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One instance of research getting a bit of press coverage is not enough for WP:PROF; the sourcing in general isn't enough to satisfy the GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (previous AfD is old and unpersuasive) note that I added a search bar for his youtube handle. It brings up a couple of books with discussions of him: Atheist Awakening: Secular Activism and Community in America, Oxford University Press, which talks about his "popular" series Why People Laugh at Creationists, and Religious Talk Online: The Evangelical Discourse of Muslims, Christians, and Atheists, Cambridge University Press, in whcih the author discusses a Christian posting as VenomFangX who threatened to sue Thunderf00t, (there's a footnote). I also added a couple of sources not overlapping those added by Seraphimblade. There are WPRS already in this article. And he does quite well in a news search. What is lacking is a formal profile, but WP:SIGCOV does not require one, just a lot of coverage that is more than a mere mention. ~~I think that adding the available sources together he probably does pass WP:GNG.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC) After taking a deeper dive, I can see that there really is not enough WP:SIGCOV. switching to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Whose !vote is now to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thunderfoot's notability is not by the press. He is a YouTube star who has something sharp and cutting to say on many topics and is well known among the Reddit set. He mixes fact with personality, hyperbole and production value to create entertainment that is self-published and lacking any oversight. The question then is he a YouTube star that stands out from the crowd of YouTube stars, who notable from the rest of YouTube stars. Of course any YouTube star will have some press mentions if you dig enough for marginal sources, but that would make most YouTube stars notable and dilutes the concept of notability. Indeed one would expect notable YouTube stars to have substantial cross-over coverage by the media, what sets them apart from the rest of the YouTubers. I'm not convinced he is notable for Wikipedia yet. -- GreenC 04:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Web of Science h-index of 34 which seems sufficiently high to pass WP:PROF#C1. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that's a WP:GHITS argument. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IntoThinAir: How did you reach that figure? Searching for "Mason Phil" on WoS returns many papers that are by different people, and even then their combined h-index is only 11. The highest-cited paper by Mason I was able to find on GScholar is Ions at hydrophobic aqueous interfaces: Molecular dynamics with effective polarization, which he's the third author on and has been cited 50 times.– Joe (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: I entered "Mason PE" on Web of Science. Admittedly, some of those results are false positives but I doubt that excluding them would lower his h-index very much. On Google Scholar the highest-cited paper by Mason is not the one you linked to; rather, it is this one which has 287 citations. [48] IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, "Mason PE" returns a lot more results on both. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are lots of Google hits for Thunderf00t, but after spending some time searching I wasn't able to find a single source that is both in-depth and published in a mainstream, reliable publication. ~~I also don't see any case for Mason passing WP:PROF.~~ – Joe (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per IntoThinAir above, his citation metrics are in the range that we usually consider passes WP:PROF#C1, although chemistry is a high-citation field. Still, I'm uneasy about his notability as a scientist acting as a coatrack for an article primarily about his dubious online activities. If it's kept, the article should be rewritten to give due weight to the things he is notable for and weed out the unreliable sources. – Joe (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (6 publications with over 100 citations each in Google Scholar). No opinion on whether his blogging activities are also sufficient for notability, but at least they appear to be adequately sourced for inclusion in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per IntoThinAir and David Eppstein. Passes WP:PROF#C1. Into the Rift (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Note For the benefit of openess, Into the Rift previously !voted based on another !vote which has since changed to delete thus he has removed it, the original post is here. But I would argue to the points above that the number of hits he gets on the h-index or google scholar makes him notable, is a WP:GHITS argument and not reliable to rely on for keeping the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So this is another "I don't believe in our established notability standards for academics so I'm going to argue that they shouldn't apply even though the subject is an academic" opinion? The way to express that is to try to change WP:PROF, not to pretend that academic citations are the same thing as Google web hits. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per WP:PROF, Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others. And you call the h-index an established notability standard?? wumbolo ^^^ 07:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also the notability guidelines are not rules like a boardgame -- one needs to make an argument why this person stands above the average academic, is a notable academic compared to his peers. To me he looks to be doing what all academics do - a few publications here and there, but not standing out from the crowd of academics. -- GreenC 14:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll choose to believe that you accidentally overlooked this, but I did explicitly make the argument why this person stands above: "6 publications with over 100 citations each". It is very much not the case that most people in the crowd of academics achieve this high level of citation. And that gives hundreds of reliably published sources mentioning his work, with some of them most likely in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll choose to believe that you accidentally overlooked that you only cited numbers, with no explanation as to why those numbers have any significance. Now that you have given an actual rationale, that is something to discuss. Per WP:PROF, Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others. -- GreenC 18:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments about how h-indices are not a perfect indicator of notability remind me of a similar point made by Ahecht at an AFD in 2014, in which I voted keep. Ahecht made basically the same point as the C of E and Wumbolo did above, i.e. that having a high h-index doesn't necessarily mean notability, and quoting the warning on WP:PROF advising against using h-indices as an infallible standard for notability. Xxanthippe responded by noting, "The warning above is directed at people who are not familiar with the world of scholarly publishing and citations. Most of the other contributors to this AfD, from their edit records, are." I also feel like both Eppstein and myself understand that h-indices aren't infallible indicators of notability, so arguments about it being imperfect fail to understand that it can be useful for separating notable from non-notable academics according to WP:PROF, if limitations are taken into account. If you look at User:Czar/h-index you'll see that an h-index of 29 has previously been determined to be sufficient for chemists such as Mason, whose h-index is actually slightly higher than that, as I noted above. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be the first to agree that h-indexes are imperfect. Better would be actual expertise in that specific academic discipline. But the argument that "they're just numbers, so they're meaningless" is even worse, as is trying to evaluate academics by how much popular press they've attracted. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: between WP:GNG and WP:PROF, sufficient notability has been established, per sources already present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Townhill Theatre[edit]

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

This is another no reference article on a theater in Swansea. Third party searches found nothing on the theater, so it possibly fails WP:NBUILD

~~Also nominating these:~~

~~Dylan Thomas Theatre (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.~~

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

Splitting apart AFD --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similiar AFDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thomas Theatre Added by --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taliesin Arts Centre Added by --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patti Pavilion Added by --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

notices about deletion sorting
:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

notices about deletion sorting

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it will be difficult to discuss the notability of three different theatres in one AFD. I suggest nominating the two others separately.96.127.244.27 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched and could not find any reasonable sources.96.127.244.27 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One opinion (delete) and well over a week old.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 03:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything that is significant in coverage. Not even in news. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above, unable to find any coverage, only minor mentions of events there. MB 02:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Shushan[edit]

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

No outside/independent sources listed, just a poorly written article about a person with no notability (doesn't pass WP:N). Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 19:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC) I'm crossing out my original nomination due to the ones added by Bearian. I am still in favor of a deletion or a merging to the flood that he helped control. Despite having a decent amount of coverage and being the head of the levee board during the flood, I still don't think that this makes him notable. Being involved in scandals has only ever added to notability, not been the sole source of it. The article is definitely of a much higher quality after Bearian's edits, however. Redditaddict6 9 18:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, only one source. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete From a search on newspapers.com it appears he very well was an important political figure in 1930s Louisiana, however, none of those sources actually provide biographical information by which a properly sourced WP entry could be maintained. As a result, this article is essentially WP:OR. Abraham Shushan probably should receive a biographical treatment somewhere, but Wikipedia is not the place to originate it. Chetsford (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being head of a city levee board is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search of books online reveals many possible sources. The head of a levee board during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 should be notable. In fact, the New Orleans Airport was named for him, but later removed because of a scandal. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am invoking both WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY, as well as WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I was able to find (and add) many sources about this person. The only reason he isn't better known today was because of the scandals. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Thanks Bearian! - Scarpy (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a fairly important politician during the Huey Long era, with plenty of sources provided by Bearian. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (read comment first) – I seem persuaded by Bearian's edits on the page but it still looks like he was just someone who assisted with stuff, knew famous people, and got involved in a banking scandal. I'd like to hear more opinions before closing. I'm still unsure if he meets WP:GNG, which I'd like to divert the discussion to. Redditaddict6 9 21:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC) (AfD nominator)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep gBooks search is dispositive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per recent article improvements. Notability has been sufficiently demonstrated. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aryanah Indoor Sports Hall[edit]

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

This article on a 2,000 seat gymnasium has no references. A BEFORE search on Google Books, Google News, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any references to either "Aryanah Indoor Sports Hall" or "Aryanah Sports Hall." Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aryanah. I think multipurpose gyms are usually notable, but we need some RS first. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think multipurpose gyms are usually notable - are you sure? In spirit, I have no problem with a merge, however, it's impossible to prove this facility even actually exists at present on which basis I regretfully have to oppose even a merge. Chetsford (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's likely that this exact name in English does not appear anywhere else except in Wikipedia mirrors. There could possibly be some sources in Arabic, or French, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Zagalejo^^^ 13:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment name on the photograph (which is from 2014) is La salle omnisports de l'Ariana (Google says that translates to The sports hall of Ariana). Could search for either name and see if English or French sources are found. - Scarpy (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the French spelling; nothing in Google News or Google Books. Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No eviedence presented that this meets WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources means it doesn't even pass WP:V, so a merge is out of the question. I'd be happy to see information about this added to Aryanah, but only if WP:RS can be located. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bd2412 T 03:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Campbell (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Redirect to the Vancouver municipal election, 2018. Subject does not pass WP:Politician. He is currently a councillor of the Squamish Nation, of ~4000 people, among 15 others, which does not confer notability. He is running for mayor of Vancouver in the upcoming 2018 election, but that doesn't confer notability either. 1l2l3k (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lean DeleteWhile I don't know where I'd stand on tribal leaders, 1l2l3k has a point that candidates do not normally meet the specifications of WP:NPOL. If he wins, he'd be notable as Mayor of Vancouver. The question then becomes: is his work as councillor and hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation enough for notability? That I don't know. Bkissin (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure about whether his role as a hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation alone makes him notable or not, but I feel we should be careful removing content related to aboriginal people. As a group, they are under included in Wikipedia. Of course alone that is not a reason to keep if he is not otherwise notable. He is the mayoral candidate for the current ruling party/slate Vision Vancouver in Vancouver the third largest city in Canada. His candicatcy has been covered in multiple reliable sources: The Georgia Straight, CBC News, Vancouver Sun, and Globe and Mail (as cited in the article). Not cited in the article as of yet, his campaign has also been covered in the StarMetro (newspaper)[49], Vancouver Courier [50], CTV News [51], North Shore News [52] and Squamish Chief [53]. If he is elected, he is certainly notable. If he is not, he likely is anyway given the coverage to date, and which will continue until the election in October.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether presence or not of aboriginal people is under or over included is of no relevance for notability. There is nothing in the wikipedia policies that says that when a subject is aboriginal, a different level of care should be used. Are you making an argument that he has received significant press coverage, thereby falls under second bullet of WP:NPOL? In this case the onus would be to bring sources that consist of writings which cover "in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles". With the exception of the article on "the Star" I don't see in-depth coverage in other articles. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, don't get WP:HOSTILE. I think the concern that Darryl Kerrigan and I have is whether being an Aboriginal chief satisfies notability outside of the campaign context. I can't say that I know personally. When Elsipogtog member Susan Levi-Peters ran in Beausejour in 2011, she was considered non-notable, but I can't remember if she was a chief or not. Steam5, Bearcat, your thoughts? Bkissin (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 1l2l3k and Bkissin. I have made some additions to the article and am starting to think he may be notable simply for his role as Chief of the Squamish Nation. During his tenure, he was the negotiator on the Squamish, BC Woodfibre LNG project (which he was ultimately opposed to), and was Chief when the nation filed a court challenge against the Trans Mountain Pipeline. Some of his statements were reported well before he declared for mayor, including his proposal that the Fairmont Academy, a former RCMP barracks, in Vancouver, be torn down despite its heritage designation due to its history in the "marginalization of indigenous people". Ultimately, it appears the building is going to be moved. Before he declared for mayor, this[54] profile was published in BC Business. Anyway, more food for thought. Look forward to hearing from others.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was by all means not rude in my earlier paragraph, just stating Wikipedia's policies. I left a note in the talk page that may require attention. I repeat: there is nothing for tribe leaders, even if we consider them under WP:NOBLE that would make them inherently notable: only GNG saves this article. I think the article got very good improvements in the last 24 hours by Darryl Kerrigan, that can satisfy the second bullet of WP:NPOL.~~and at this point, I can use WP:WDAFD and can withdraw my nomination, always provided that @Bkissin: agrees with me and strikes his "delete" vote.~~ --1l2l3k (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We typically don't include general WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage as counting toward WP:GNG under WP:NPOL - and all of the coverage is currently campaign related as he's unelected, but it does seem there should be enough sources about his career as the Squamish Nation regardless of his mayoral run to get him there, but I'm not sure they're in the article yet. SportingFlyer talk 13:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-candidacy, Squamish nation activity all sounds like routine local political leader stuff, deals about real estate, naming a park, doing stuff when Olympic Games come to the region, opposing a gas pipeline. It's what local leaders do. Then the popular ones run for a significant office, like Mayor of Vancouver.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think being a hereditary chief of a major indigenous community probably makes one notable, providing there are reliable sources. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Squamish Nation pop. 3,600. more or less mayor of a very small town.

Squamish is one of 3 numerically small indigenous groups, that hold lands that can be described as over $1 billion in developable properties.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as editors state at top of discussion, he is one of 17 members of the Council that manages Squamish affairs. I take "hereditary chief" to be an honorific, like being "Sir" somebody in England. It doesn't confer notability. (cf. Wakeley baronets; baronets don't get articles by right of heredity, ergo, neither do chiefs). There is some news coverage pre-dating candidacy, like this in a local paper: (my apologies for the Password protected Proquest link) Leaked audio says towers part of Jericho vision; Squamish chief airs land deal details at band meeting, Mackin, Bob. North Shore News, May 2016: A.6. in which Campbell promotes/defends landholding arrangements shared with other tribes and promotes high-rise development of a jointly-held tract in Vancouver.) But he's just a non-notable individual running for Mayor at this point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Changing opinion to REDIRECT. see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be WP:TOOSOON for him to pass WP:Politician but the referenced, secondary sources appear to grant him notability under WP:GNG. I found Darryl Kerrigan's argument that under represented groups of people should find inclusion to be persuasive as well. No, it doesn't grant them notability per se but we should consider this when considering deleting information. Ifnord (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Wow. Just Wow. This is the 3rd editor who has come to this page to suggest that we have double standards, judging members of certain groups by a higher, tougher standard, and of Amerindians by lower, easier to pass standards. Color me gobsmacked. Stunned. Saddened and dazed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While E.M.Gregory is tending to his smacked gob, I'd like to point out I came here to add to the discussion of this article's AfD, I am not bonded to either side and did not come here to promote any double standards. Also, we treat many groups of people differently for notability purposes; Olympic athletes are notable for simply competing but Paralympic athletes are only notable if they win a medal. See WP:NOLYMPICS. Perhaps we require notability guidelines for First Nation leaders. Ifnord (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. Pre-candidicy coverage is minor, coverage during campaign is WP:MILL for candidates, even though it does exist. We have standards for candidates; we keep them only if coverage is extraordinary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, we all understand he is not notable simply because he is running for Mayor. The article on the 2018 election suggests there are at least seven others running for that position this year. Not all of them are notable, nor deserving of their own article. As we are all aware Mr. Campbell is the current chief of Squamish Nation. Not a large group by population, but given the British Columbia Treaty Process and aboriginal land claims the nation packs a punch much larger than its ~4000 members alone. This is shown by the reporting on Mr. Campbell and his role (as Chief of the Nation), concerning the Woodfibre LNG project, the Trans Mountain Pipeline (kind of a big deal for the last number of years), the 2010 Winter Olympics, the proposed renaming of Stanley Park (which received significant nation and local coverage), and the removal of the old RCMP barracks (more of a local issue). There are 14 citations in the article. A quick google news search for ("Ian Campbell" Squamish) tenders 654 results. Sure, some of this is routine coverage of the municipal election, much of it is not however, and is instead coverage from his time as Chief. If you change the date range, to exclude articles since he declared for mayor there are still tons of articles (at least 10 google pages, doesn't show the number though). In addition to being chief, he was one of the founders of MST (and remains a board member of that corporate entity), which manages over $1 billion in real-estate holdings for the Squamish Nation and two other first nations in the Vancouver area. No one is saying that all candidates deserve an article, but there is a lot of ink that has been spilled about this guy, and he has been around for a while with his fingers in a lot of pies. We should not be so dismissive of him simply because it took him running for mayor for the likes of me to pay attention. Anyway, more food for thought.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a Proquest news archive search, limited dates to exclude the campaign coverage, and, as I state above. the pre-campaign coverage was minor, local, and MILL, documents Campbell's participatin in local issues as a community political leader. Stuff like opposing a pipeline through the area. So, yes, First Nations unite in pipeline fight; Bailey, Ian. The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]18 Jan 2017: S.1., quotes"Chief Ian Campbell of the Squamish Nation said following a news conference declaring common concerns," as the community's spokesman. A lot stuff of the type: (Squamish Nation elects new council; TIA ABELL Staff Reporter. The North Shore Outlook; North Vancouver, B.C. [North Vancouver, B.C]08 Dec 2005: 10. ...Baker, Deborah Baker and Chief hitIan hitCampbell, one of the four hereditary chiefs....); but we would need if WP:SIGCOV, articles that are about him, profiles, or deep dives into his political and financial doings. If you can find those - pre-campaign - I'm always willing to change my opinion. But I'm only seeing that sort of coverage once he's running for Mayor. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Can anyone state the policy that says tribal leaders of tribal nations (more specifically, those with under 5,000 people) are notable? I also do agree with EMG above, that it should wait until after the election before deletion is considered. If not, I support a possible Redirect to the Vancouver municipal election, 2018 because there is a mention of him there. If this is done, the revision history shouldn't be deleted, solely to preserve the article in the case that he wins. Redditaddict6 9 00:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not argue for keeping until after the election. I argued for delete, but changed to REDIRECT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

@Redditaddict69: There isn't any such policy, and I believe, as nominator, that the redirect is the best solution for now. --1l2l3k (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Vancouver municipal election, 2018 makes sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Redirecting to Vancouver municipal election, 2018 does nothing to address the questions of his notability for his role a Chief, council member, or founder of MST. If he is notable for these reasons, or a combination of them, directing to Vancouver municipal election, 2018 obscures these issues and dismisses them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Squamish (pop. <4,000) have 4 hereditary tribal chiefs, but if you have some sources supporting the idea that any of his former roles supports notability, please bring it to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources in the article and noted above. In addition to those, there are these ones [55] (January 13, 2017), [56] (2012), [57] (2014), [58] (2015), [59] (2016), [60] (June 30, 2017), [61] (Dec 05, 2017). All these articles are before he declared, as are the numerous ones about reconciliation, mining/pipeline projects, MST founding and operations, and his stances on renaming, removal of building/parks etc, etc...--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability need to be demonstrated by showing that there were profiles or WP:SIGCOV of him before he ran for Mayor. These articles only make it clear that he was a spokesman on political and financial issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am not going to fight anymore. You have made up your mind. There are literally hundreds of articles about this guy. Some are profiles after he started to run for mayor. Those certainly cover him personally (as the main topic), but you completely dismiss those as he has not yet been elected (as Mayor, only Chief). You dismiss anything about his positions on issues as Chief saying that is "trivially" reporting on things. You dismiss his roles on the basis that his First Nation is too small, not significant enough etc etc. Doesn't matter if he has been elected in Squamish Nation elections three times. Doesn't matter if his photograph appears many many times in major publications like the Globe, Vancouver Sun, CBC etc. Just doesn't matter. I get it First Nations don't matter. I am not a First Nations person. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am noticing a certain bias in the WP community about First Nations topics and people now. In the TOTALITY of ALL of the reporting it is clear that he is notable. Go ahead, delete the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrigan, I have tried, really tried to give your arguments and sources a fair hearing, combing through the sources you suggest and others I find in searches. But the positions you cite, chief (of a tiny group with 4 "hereditary chiefs," and as one of a several people who put together a real estate cooperative (holding lands for 3 native American groups,) do not confer notability. The articles, many in local media, are about issues, not about him. He is cited as a tribal leader, and often serves as a spokesman for the tribe, and the press does run his photo in some of these articles. but they are not profiles, and do not provide WP:SIGCOV of him, and his accomplishments appear to me to add up to those of a local political leader doing his job. In short, this is an article about a candidate, and his claim to notability will only be validated if he wins. Our standard procedure is to REDIRECT to the page about the mayoral race.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Campbell obviously hits WP:GNG for his role in the highly WP:SUSTAINED Kinder Morgan pipeline controversy; and with his involvement in Vancouver politics and the Olympics quite handily gets past the WP:BLP1E bar. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing SIGCOV of Campbell in pre-campaign stories about Kinder Morgan pipeline. What I am seeing, and is mostly very local and it mentions him without saying he led the movement. There is some in larger media, Vancouver Sun]] 2014: "At a news conference Friday, Squamish Nation chief Ian Campbell says his people do not consent to Kinder Morgan's proposed activities on the mountain and the related tanker traffic it would bring." but that's all, and its immediately followed by "Charlene Aleck, a Tsleil-Waututh councillor, told a gathering of protesters at the base of the mountain that members of her First Nations band would join the actions aimed at protecting their homelands and waters. 'For the Tsleil-Waututh nation, it is our sacred obligation,' she said to a cheering crowd. 'In our shared opposition to Kinder Morgan we are many people paddling one canoe. Our united opposition and the sum of our collective voices will ensure this pipeline is never built.' Activist Tamo Campos, the grandson of David Suzuki, said he was emotional after his arrest on Thursday...." and so forth. Campbell shows p as a spokesman, and a leader. I am always willing to change an iVote, but you'll have to persuade me with sources that show WP:SIGCOV pre-dating his candidacy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

288 news stories describing Campbell's participation in the Kinder Morgan fiasco dating back as far as 2012 when Campbell was already a speaker at anti-KM rallies. This on top of his involvement with the Olympics. On top of his involvement with major First Nations land management issues. On top of his mayoral run. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have access to an excellent news archive and I have scanned tehm on searches with his name highlighted. He speaks at rallies, and gets quoted - one of many anti-pipeline activists. What I am not seeing is journalists describing him as a key figure in the protests or pre-campaign copy that is SIGCOV of Campbell.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident that even if you don't want to change your !vote that the clear evidence of his notability per WP:GNG will be evident to the rest of the community. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But one last point, for the sake of clarity, the Squamish First Nation is at the heart of the Kinder Morgan dispute as the pipeline would cross Squamish land, and as such, Cambpell's role as "a local politician" is central to this story of significant national and international interest. The central core of the dispute is that first nations groups were not properly consulted; and the protests put forward by the Squamish group has been a key example of that, as evidenced by the log I provided. So how is Campbell central to the Kinder Morgan dispute? Because his nation is central to the dispute. Or did you think it was random chance that he's being quoted directly along side Stewart Phillip in the CBC? Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart's page needs an upgrade, but there is material on Stewart like Globe and Mail: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-twenty-questions-with-gra Twenty questions with Grand Chief Stewart Phillip]. Again, you could persuade me by bringing WP:SIGCOV on Campbell.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I provided you with exceptional detail of WP:SUSTAINED It's not on me if you have decided that it doesn't count for reasons that seem entirely opaque. Simonm223 (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the closing admin User:Darryl Kerrigan has voted twice in this AfD. This is disruptive as it gives the impression to other voters to believe that Keep has more weight, which is not necessarily the case. --1l2l3k (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of striking through his extra !vote. I'm willing to assume that it was an honest mistake or a surfeit of passion over what has become a heated discussion. It should be pretty obvious to any Canadian why issues of minimizing first nations voices with regard to the Kinder Morgan controversy on today of all days would be treated as a hostile action. I would suggest some latitude is allowable in this regard. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They advised me on their talk page that they misunderstood the re-listing process and thought they needed to refresh their !vote - a mistake, not malice. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, Simonm223 and 1l2l3k. I think I was confused about the effect of the re-listing of the AfD. Thank you for clarifying this and striking out the second Keep nomination which appeared on my behalf.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zimele Asset Management Company Limited[edit]

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

Not a notable investment firm; the independent references are trivial and merely say that they offer "Unit trust" investments. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Kenya, Unit trusts (Money Market Fund & Balanced Fund) providers are licensed by The Capital Market Authority (CMA) while Pension Funds providers are licensed by The Retirement Benefit Authority (RBA). I know for a fact that CMA & RBA have licensed Zimele to provide these services. Feel free to check CMA's & RBA's websites, contact them or conduct your own independent research to confirm this. I believe CMA & RBA have been referenced in the article and since they are the regulators in Kenya, I don't think they are trivial. Xomifred (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xomifred, regulatory registration is a basic requirement for doing business. What is required to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability is something more than mere licensing to trade: see WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A fund managers license in Kenya is not a "mere licensing trade". It's not like the county government's Business Permit or a company registration certificate. Not everybody can get it. Fund management in Kenya, as it is everywhere else, is a highly regulated business hence the need for the government to set up two agencies (CMA & RBA) to regulate the sectors. There are only 23 fund managers licensed by CMA in the country and Zimele was among the first to get the license. Institutions like Equity Bank & Sanlam have tried to join that market but are currently considering exiting it as we speak. Furthermore, Zimele's trustees are KCB Bank while their custodians are Standard Chartered Securities Services. I believe that demonstrates encyclopedic notability. Information on the Kenyan financial services sector on Wikipedia is very scant. Even information on RBA is not available. I believe we should focus on adding more information and not deleting the small that is there. Xomifred (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every notable investment firm in Kenya is listed on the Capital Markets Authority's website. Have a look for yourself at https://www.cma.or.ke/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=49&Itemid=254 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xomifred (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided for now - Just to avoid confusion, a "unit trust" in American English is called a "mutual fund". I sympathize with Global South firms that usually don't have a article on Wikipedia because most of our editors are unfamiliar with reliable sources in those countries. It is a systemic bias that we have and we should be sensitive to that problem. I've looked briefly at the references and it looks like maybe 3-4 would meet our standards of independence and reliability. But unfortunately I'm really not familiar with the sources yet. We can't just throw out our standards however. The list of licensees above is interesting but includes maybe 200 firms, so just being on that list doesn't make a company notable. There are 23 mutual fund managers on the list, so that doesn't do it either. And maybe 120 individual mutual funds run by those managers are listed. I'll think and look at the sources and get back in a couple of days. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two reputable business publications in Kenya; The Business Daily and The EastAfrican. The Daily Nation also has some business content but that's not their focus. (They are all owned by The Nation Media Group). It is therefore very difficult to get good references for local companies, especially in the financial sector. Blogs have it but companies pay blogs to write about them here. If you look at the references on other players in the market like Britam, CIC, and Jubilee, it's mostly from their website and the Nation Media publications. My point is information about the Kenyan financial sector is very limited even in the mainstream media. It would be beneficial to the general public if this information is available in this encyclopedia. Xomifred (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Xomifred with few other contributions outside this article. Routine, promotional content. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and repurpose to "List of Kenya mutual funds". ASssusing Xomifred is correct, there are 22 other firms in the business sector, and no evidence this is particualrly notable. Merge the other articles mentioned . DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose or Delete. I like DGG's suggestion, but admit I'm not going to do it. Without that, there isn't sufficient independent indepth coverage of this company, the best I can see is [62] which is 4 paragraphs, a start, but just not sufficient. --GRuban (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose per DGG. Sdmarathe (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Vine (TV show)[edit]

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

As far as I can tell this show is The Wright Stuff, only with a different host. Do we need a separate article, or can this be merged? Laun chba ller 15:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wright Stuff for now, do the appropriate tweaks and adjustments and move to this title once it premieres and we know if it'll be a Ctrl+C of TWS. No sense in turning this into a toss-off of theories about how 'some people' think the replacement host is uninspired. Nate • (chatter) 06:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this is currently incorrectly disambiguated (as per WP:NCTV) in any case: if the result is "redirect", then it should first be moved to Jeremy Vine (talk show) before being converted into a redirect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Different show. There might have been origins with The Wright Stuff (named after Matthew Wright, that show's host), but this is now a different now with a different host and title just as Late Show with David Letterman transformed into The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. It would be nonsensical to have an article for The Wright Stuff when readers really want to know about this show. The Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, the Corwall edition of Local World and the Telegraph & Argus have all written extensively on this upcoming show. [63][64][65][66][67] None of these refer to this show as "The Write Stuff" with the latter going as far as to write, "The presenter’s self-titled programme is set to replace The Wright Stuff..." To call this show "The Wright Stuff" would be factually incorrect as per all reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that the two shows are comparable if I'm honest. The Late Show gets millions of viewers per episode, while The Wright Stuff is lucky to get a million viewers over the course of a month. I say the most recent coverage is a case of recentism, and it would be better to merge.--Laun chba ller 09:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viewership has nothing to do with this being a specific network show or not. If you'd like to contact the Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun and every other reliable source and let them know this show they're reporting on is not at all the Jeremy Vine show with Jeremy Vine but in fact The Wright Stuff with Matthew Wright and they all issue retractions explaining so, then I'll change my !vote to "delete." Until then it's factually incorrect to redirect to a "The Write Stuff." The only redirect I'd consider is to Jeremy Vine but we're going to call this 'The Wright Stuff' even though Matthew Wright has nothing to do with this show because a Wikipedia editor thinks this should be called 'The Wright Stuff'. --Oakshade (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be beneficial to have some further discussion following Oakshade's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes WP:NTV. Having a separate article would in no way be inappropriate – compare GMTV/Daybreak/Good Morning Britain. OZOO (t) (c) 14:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well watched and therefore notable. scope_creep (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New name and new host, looks like the network is treating it as a new show, so we can too. Clearly passes WP:NTV. --GRuban (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coomber Yvonne[edit]

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

I noticed that the title is backwards, so I tried to move it to 'Yvonne Coomber.' Turns out it's moved protected because of this...

Fishy, isn't it? Lepricavark (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. See [68]

--Vexations (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Vexations. Tagged for G4.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taliesin Arts Centre[edit]

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

I'm not quite sure if this meets ~~WP:NBIO~~WP:NBUILD. It doesn't have any references nor is it of cultural heritage. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similiar AFDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Townhill Theatre Added by --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thomas Theatre Added by --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taliesin Arts Centre Added by --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patti Pavilion Added by --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Swansea University. Has not been established that location is notable enough for its own article. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 23:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basilosauridae: I agree-- but perhaps delete is better, as the Egypt centre is already at Egypt Centre, Swansea University. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in GNews appears to satisfy GNG. Has, amongst other things, the largest museum of Ancient Egypt in Wales: [69]. That is an important collection. James500 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: Already included on wiki at Egypt Centre, Swansea University.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Centre, Swansea University is a redirect which does not include anything. James500 (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a redirect that leads to a section in the Swansea University article on the Egypt collection.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to be a somewhat significant cultural institution. There's some coverage, such as in this guidebook [70]:

On site is an imaginative performance space, the Taliesin Arts Centre, which also incorporates the Ceri Richards Gallery, specializing in touring exhibitions by contemporary Welsh and Celtic artists. Also housed here, the Egypt Centre is...

I believe this is sufficient for a stub that can be improved. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman, but the building itself does not have a cultural heritage. It just houses the Egyptian Center. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arts centres can be notable for the collections they contain, or these collections at least contribute to notability. This appears to be the case here, hence my "keep" vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guidebooks are promotional materials and are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. If this location is notable there should be reliable secondary sources, but I haven’t seen any. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 01:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing notable here is the Egypt collection, which is already covered at Egypt Centre, Swansea University. The building is not notable by inheriting the collection. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Egypt Centre, Swansea University is a redirect which does not cover anything. There is some content at the Swansea University article, but that should be spun out to the arts centre. It is also worth bearing in mind that the arts centre has other things beside the Egypt Collection. Quite a lot of things. James500 (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Egypt Centre, Swansea University redirects to a two-page succinct description of the Eqypt collection, and two-word mention of the Taliesen centre. Re: "Quite a lot of Things", could you be a bit more vague? Seriously now, do you have sources for the "quite a lot of things"? Because so far all we have is a heartfelt belief that it's notable, and one source in a guidebook. The Taliesin centre's notability is very adequately covered by the Egypt Centre, Swansea University redirect. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The description of the Egypt Centre in the Swansea University article is not succinct, it is completely inadequate and needs major expansion. James500 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have pointed out that there are other sources in GNews: [71] (which yields about seventy-odd relevant sources) [72] [73]. Likewise with searches for "egypt centre"+swansea: [74] [75] [76]. Are you unable to see those sources? James500 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  James500, like what other things? There's a cafe upstairs and a theater room. There is also a bookshop. Not quite sure if the bank is still running or not. I am a student at Swansea University.
  
  Taliesin Annex is a lecture theater.
  
  Oh and then there's the Egyptian exhibit.
  
  That's pretty much it. See https://www.taliesinartscentre.co.uk/en/your-visit --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Other things": I was referring to the theatre, cinema [77] [78] [79] and art gallery [80] [81]. That is quite a lot of other things. Theatres and galleries have their own productions and exhibitions, which attract coverage eg [82]. James500 (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James500, the sources you gave are not SIGCOV of the theatre, they are about things that happen in it. none of them go into coverage in-depth. The last one you give above is about a play, not about the theatre itself. As User:Tyw7, a student of the university where the theatre is locate says, there is nothing notable about the building itself. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED: when finding sources we need sources that actually talk about the subject in depth, not just sources that say something a play was staged there. Do you have any of those? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis it is one of the top major arts venues in the city, as evidenced by the various coverage with Wales Online in particular. But even the BBC's summary of the contenders to the UK City of Culture mentions only three Swansea venues - Glyn Vivian, Grand Theatre and the Taliesin Arts Centre. It's clearly far more than just part of the Swansea University site. Of course, if the Centre houses an important Egypt collection this should be covered in the article. Additionally the closure of the Centre's "renowned" art gallery in 2017 received quite a bit of coverage. Sionk (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sionk and others above. Museums open to the public are usually notable. This is apparently a museum, per above, i.e. it has a collection, though that is not reflected yet in the article, which makes it appear to be just a performance space. --Doncram (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, well actually it isn't actually a museum per se but it houses a small collection. However, it's main function is of a movie / performance theater --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An arts center that had been around for decades. Houses a museum of Ancient Egypt (accredited), and is an active performing arts center that stages its own productions and hosts touring groups. WP:HEY, I added a few profile/feature stories aobut the Centre from regional and local press. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need for me to rehash the arguments made by others, there is enough coverage in RSs to make it notable. Edwardx (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which RSs you are referring to? I haven't seen any RSs that establish notability. One line in an article stating it exists doesn't establish notability. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 16:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added 4 such sources to the article yesterday, User:Basilosauridae, it's sort of useful to check what sourcing is on the page before making statements like this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Edwardx to draw their attention. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when a cultural institution has been around for several decades, and has a building, it's a really good idea to at least click "books" on the search bar. Unsurprisingly, this brings up a few that seem to be mere mentions, and a description in a guide book to British colleges, but also Modern Playhouses: An Architectural History of Britain's New Theatres, 1945 — 1985 an Oxford University Press book from which the architects who designed it can be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasta La Vista (Coca-Cola Brazil song)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NSONGS . Kpg jhp jm 01:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. Creator has routinely ignored calls to stop making articles about non-notable music content.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 05:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no hint of any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. The corresponding article in Portuguese Wikipedia, pt:Hasta La Vista, has been repeatedly created and repeatedly redirected to pt:Coca-Cola Brasil (no corresponding English article). (Portuguese notability criteria for songs are similar to ours. I've had some dealings with Portuguese Wikipedia, including participating in their equivalent of a WP:AFD. I'd tipped off a Brazilian WP:ADMIN who I'd met before that Portuguese Wikipedia had two music-related articles which had been shot down in flames in English WP:PROD and AFD. They failed to survive in Portuguese Wikipedia either.) Narky Blert (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transport puzzle[edit]

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

This article has been listed twice in July 2005, under MoreKarlScherer and KarlSchererRevisited5. The article has not changed much.

I can't find any evidence, on Google Books or elsewhere, that the term "transport puzzle" is commonly used to classify games as done here. The article cites no sources. As far as I can tell, this article consists of original research, because it invents a classification and applies it to existing games; furthermore, this term (in itself) doesn't appear to be notable. (Obviously the games themselves are notable.)

The keep votes on the earlier listings don't rebut these criticisms. In addition, the notability policy is more concrete now than it was then. If this term is in fact in common use, I'd love to hear it (with reliable sources added to the article), but those sources are a long time coming. Wikiacc (¶) 01:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comment below, after the discussion was relisted. Wikiacc (¶) 14:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 01:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - likely a blantant violation of WP:ORIGINAL and may meet CSD under WP:A11. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the prior nominations, I'd prefer to get consensus first -- but I won't object if someone else deletes. Wikiacc (¶) 01:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - After checking the article carefully again: while it's pretty clear that the term was made up, it's not plainly indicated that it was made up by the author or someone the author knows. I think this should go through AFD instead of WP:A11. Wikiacc (¶) 01:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - appears to be WP:OR. - Scarpy (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find absolutely no outside use of the term "transport puzzle" being used as it is in this article. At best, I think this falls under WP:SYNTH – someone classified a bunch of games/puzzles together and coined a term for them. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sourcing whatsover, here or with a Google search - term fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the relisting. I did do a WP:BEFORE search, and the only sources I could find were a lot of articles about transportation themed children’s puzzles. Since that’s not the subject of the article in question, and there’s a more common use of the term than the usage in the nominated article, I felt the article failed WP:GNG. The newly identified sources do not change that belief. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had deleted this article, but per discussion on my talk page, I have restored it for the time being and relisted this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is the comment that was placed on my talk page prior to this discussion being reopened (diff, diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to take this one to DRV but thought you might be persuaded to restore and/or reopen the AFD. It was claimed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport puzzle that absolutely no RS could be found using this term but I believe there has been a serious lack of WP:BEFORE on this one. Several people claimed to have searched gbooks without success. I found two relevant hits on the first page of results: this symposium has a passing mention in connection with Sokoban, but at least it supports the definition of the term; iPhone Game Blueprints has a section on "Transport puzzles" over three pages and gives as examples 15 puzzle, Klotski, and The fox, the goose, and the bag of beans, all listed in our article either directly or as a member of a higher group. Admittedly, that last is a print-on-demand book, but there are other book hits and also a number of scholarly papers. One of the few not behind a paywall is What determines difficulty of transport puzzles?. Their definition is in line with our article, and of the puzzles studies (Sokoban, Rush Hour (puzzle) and Replacement Puzzle) two of the three are listed in our article. Another is "Generic Puzzle Level Generation for Deterministic Transportation Puzzles". There are a few dozen more that are inaccessible, but snippets indicate that many are very relevant such as "Genetic algorithms and the art of Zen". Regards, SpinningSpark 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Weak Keep an argument was made on Northamerica1000's user page that included some sources where the term was used. I disagree that there was a "serious lack of WP:BEFORE" as the depth of these sources seem questionable to me, and I remember doing some quick searches and not being impressed. That being said, it seems like enough that a stub could be written with them. - Scarpy (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scarpy: I don't know how you can say that "the depth of these sources seem questionable" when I have provided two scholarly papers with the term in the title and are entirely concerned with properties of these puzzles. SpinningSpark 07:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can because your comment doesn't time travel. I'm saying it because that's what I did and what appears to be passing using of a term in a scholarly paper is not the kind of depth that impresses me. I am non-plussed when editors say something like "you obviously didn't spend hours searching for and carefully reading every obscure paper that mentions this topic to see that there is a teaspoon of WP:RS. What a serious lack of WP:BEFORE!" when all that time you spent scolding you could write quick summary based on those sources and end the conversation. You're welcome for the keep vote. Please mind WP:BLUDGEON. - Scarpy (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep due to the article now having enough sources to at least be a very small stub. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - may change to a delete !vote if any of said sources are deemed unreliable. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rationale above. Thanks to NorthAmerica1000 for relisting. SpinningSpark 07:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator. Thanks Spinningspark for the exhaustive reference search. I'm not convinced by the book references, but the academic papers (which I admit I hadn't checked thoroughly enough) are clear. I suspect that when this article was first written, it was original research, but the term was later adopted by the academic literature. (Try finding references before 2005.) Nonetheless, if it's been adopted by reliable sources, we should document it as it's used. Spinningspark convincingly points to the Coldridge and Amos papers, including "Genetic algorithms and the art of Zen" (doi:10.1109/BICTA.2010.5645284) and doi:10.1007/s11047-011-9284-7. I support keeping the article upon (1) removing all text that fails WP:OR and (2) replacing with the definition given in the sources, a summary of the scholarly literature, and a list of puzzles that reliable sources have specifically referred to as transport puzzles. This would require a near-complete rewrite of the article. I am happy to help with that process. (We could also consider merging with motion planning.) Wikiacc (¶) 14:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For further support for my suspicion, note that the Coldridge and Amos papers' prototypical example of a transport puzzle is Sokoban. But the early literature on Sokoban (for example, doi:10.1016/S0925-7721(99)00017-6 and [83]) only uses the term motion planning. And the article at Sokoban didn't refer to it as a transport puzzle until 8 January 2004, while this article was created in 2002. (It's hard to draw definitive conclusions when the article is so old.) Wikiacc (¶) 14:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 14:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Sabbatini[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK Mondfeuer61 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable runner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 01:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for track athletes and also fails to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Object-oriented business engineering[edit]

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

Neologism. No sources exist to support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as described in nomination. - Scarpy (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one opinion so far
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 01:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: OOBE appears to be specific to the Promendo consultancy firm: [84]. Some coverage can be found in association with that firm and its Open Engineering predecessor, and can be found offered as a distance learning course [85], but these are all primary. If some WP:RS coverage was located, this could perhaps be mentioned in context at Business_engineering#Approaches, but I am not seeing enough to establish specific notability. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it reads as promotional to me as an advert for the consultancy firm, created by an SPA, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no cited sources, could not find anything meaningful with a quick search, text of article could be from a Dilbert comic strip. "encourages convergence of diverse thinking (through business patterns); while still very clearly capturing and respecting those differences that create profitable differentiation in the marketplace." Yeeesh. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serkan Gür[edit]

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

Non notable filmmaker and journalist. Sources too weak to pass GNG and nothing of interest in a before search. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No discussion in one week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 00:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indepth coverage. Linked text sources are very short mentions. I admit to not understanding the YouTube video, but it would have to be very impressive to be sufficient for WP:GNG. --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gruban AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JerryPHD[edit]

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

Most the sources mention him in passing, none are significant coverage. Not a shocker for 21 year old director, but it is WP:TOOSOON for an article, which is demonstrated by the fact that the article itself is little more than a directory of his projects. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 01:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 01:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. [86] is the only reference that isn't entirely trivial. Probably WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. scope_creep (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indepth coverage from reliable sources. --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the basic notability guideline for people and is not notable under the additional criteria for creative professionals. Sam Sailor 09:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2050 (song)[edit]

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

Didn't chart, insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSONG. The creator of the article has recently been making several non-notable music-related articles as well. A quick look at their talk page indicates this is a reoccurring issue.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: besides not meeting WP:GNG, calling it a stub (WP:STUB) would be an understatement.Grapefruit17 (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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