< 2 August	4 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 speedy delete under WP:G11. Deleted by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 23:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nochex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Google News search results only offer passing mentions. — Newslinger talk 23:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:50, 3 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. The newly added sources are uncontested. Sandstein 16:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekramuddin Ahmad[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Google search only finds people with the same name, blogspots and Wikipedia clones. » Shadowowl | talk 23:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject of the article died in 1940, so there may be difficulty finding online references. Participation by editors with access to print sources of that time would be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verifiability means articles follow sources. This means if we have no sources, we must delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources. I added one, another encyclopedia, which is likely where the information in the article came from. His literary criticism is written in Bengali, about authors who wrote in Bengali, so it isn't surprising that information about him in English takes some work to find.

His best-known book, Robindro-Protibha (or Rabindra pratibha, depending on the transliteration) was reprinted in 2011, nearly a hundred years after it was first published, and is held by a handful of western university libraries.[1] (WorldCat hardly covers India or Bangladesh, so it's difficult to assess how widely held his books are where people speak the language). Note that WorldCat renders his name three ways on the one catalog page: Ekarāmuddīna, Maulabi Ekrāmaddīna, and Ekramddin. He is probably most commonly referred to as Maulavi Ekramuddin.

Most sources are likely in Bengali and from around the 1920s, but his work is mentioned (albeit briefly) even today and in English:

Murshid, Khan Sarwar (1996). Contemporary Bengali Writing. Vol. 1: Pre-Bangladesh Period. University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-984-05-1317-8.
Hossain, Emran (January 1998). "Muslim Intelligentsia in Bengal, 1857-1937: An Overview". Islamic Quarterly. 42 (1): 48, 50.
Samaddar, Ranabir (1998). Memory, Identity, Power: Politics in the Jungle Mahals (West Bengal), 1890-1950. Orient Longman. pp. 99, 141. ISBN 978-81-250-1025-8.
Quershi, Mahmud Shah (Fall 2008). "Literary Assessments of Tagore by Bengali Muslim Writers". University of Toronto Quarterly. 77 (4): 1137.
Dutta, Partha (October–December 2012). "Forest Satyagraha: An Unforgotten Saga in Junglemahal" (PDF). Central India Journal of Historical and Archaeological Research. 1 (4): 24.
Samaddar, Ranabir (2016). Ideas and Frameworks of Governing India. Routledge. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-317-20881-5.

The biography is short, but more than a few sentences and reasonably complete. There are sufficient independent reliable sources to verify it. Keep per WP:ENC and WP:WHYN. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Worldbruce and the use of his textbook in schools.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO seem satisfied by Worldbruce's sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:50, 11 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 withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 17:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agia Eirini Gorge[edit]

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

~~Unsourced article that fails WP:NGEO and reads like a tourguide.~~ withdrawn » Shadowowl | talk 23:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and the named feature criteria of GEOLAND. Historically important. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, since we have articles on the village and the Lefka Ori mountains. James500 (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I've removed the tourguide content. Can be a valid stub now. Withdrawing. » Shadowowl | talk 17:53, 4 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. The "keep/merge" opinion has to be given less weight because the target article is a list of articles and not set up to accept extended prose, and because the opinion does not address the problem of the article (and proposed merge content) being entirely unsourced. Sandstein 16:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outcasts (Marvel Comics mutates)[edit]

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

Unsourced team (also non-notable) with only 4 appearances per Marvel wiki. List articles not meant to be exhaustive, and only 4 incoming links. Nothing would be lost by deleting this. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages because they are similarly unsourced with minimal appearances and no notability. Against merge because the lists are not intended to be exhaustive and both pages have minimal incoming links so nothing important would be lost. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Neither is more than a footnote within the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:09, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convention du Lac[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Sources don't prove notability and search yields minimal results. The event is now defunct so it is unlikely it will ever gain notability in the future. Gameinfirmary (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only found one news reference to this, and it was an inclusion on a list of cons. While defunct doesn't equal delete (learned that on my own), this was not notable when it functioned. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search also turned up nothing in the way of significant third-party coverage of any kind. This blog describes the 2016 incarnation, which was the last, as still being a "small, growing convention", so I'm doubtful that it at any point attained enough of a presence to have the type of coverage we're looking for. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:25, 7 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. Sandstein 16:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eleftherios Lyratzis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Quick heads up, I screwed up the nomination. The second article was supposed to be Konstantinos Balogiannis, not Eleftherios Lyratzis again. I've since fixed it, and you may want to evaluate the other article as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and per nom ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:42, 10 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. Sandstein 16:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Rodionov (composer)[edit]

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

Tagged since 2016. Nonverifiable neither in English nor in Russian languages. The only russian text found is machine translation of en:wiki article Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's a Sergei Rodionoff who's an accordion composer, but he doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines (and appears to be a different person). The claims made in this article are of such strength that with no evidence able to be located there may be a hoax. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:53, 10 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 Tennessee gubernatorial election, 2018. If he wins, the article can be restored. Until then, almost all coverage of him flows from his candidacy, meaning he does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lee (Tennessee politician)[edit]

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

Political candidate running for office, won a major party nomination but had never held office. Does not meet WP:NPOL. It's a WP: CRYSTAL violation to assume he will win, even as a Republican in Tennessee. Coverage appears to me to be short of WP:GNG and this was created as a standalone article WP:TOOSOON. I would prefer to see this close with a decision to redirect, as I had done when I created it yesterday. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect a little WP:TOOSOON. I agree with nom on all counts and at least the history will be preserved if it becomes relevant in the future.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — Nobody's Keeper (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of TheGracefulSlick (talk • contribs). [reply]
Redirect. Of interest only as a candidate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Close Keep He has won the Republican nomination and stands a good chance to win the Tennessee gubernatorial elections. LK (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrencekhoo: Please read WP:NPOL and WP:CRYSTAL. "Stands a good chance" is meaningless. Upsets happen. Also two people already agreed with "redirect" so there's no WP:SNOWstorm here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that he had an upset victory in a Republican primary and is likely to win are two reasons why I think this article should be kept. Billybob2002 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Lee has had significant press coverage by CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Using the logic of assuming someone is going to get elected and has significant press coverage to warrant an article has been used with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Even though she has had more press coverage than Bill Lee, it is still a similar situation. Why is it she warrants an article before being elected and he doesn't? Billybob2002 (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Billybob2002: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Ocasio-Cortez has had far more and far deeper coverage of her as a person and what her candidacy means nationwide. Lee's coverage has only been in the context of his candidacy in Tennessee. Also, winning a primary election does not establish notability per WP:NPOL. So then it comes down to WP:GNG and he doesn't meet that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a dozen less deserving political figures that have articles. He's the nominee of a major party for a popular southern state, he ran one of the largest companies in middle Tennessee, and his autobiography is a best seller in the spiritual genre. I mean if Jim Bryson (politician) and Dwight Henry (politician) both have articles I see no reason Mr.Lee Can't. (I see this nomination as extremely trivial or nitpicking.) Having an articles isn't a presumption he'll win as still he's a one of the largest business figure in the state alone. Benjamin.P.L(talk) August 4, 2018 23:27:34 (UTC)

@Benhamin.P.L.: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bryson and Henry meet WP:NPOL because they have both served in the Teneessee Legislature. Lee does not meet NPOL. Being "the nominee of a major party for a popular southern state" is not a notability criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: This is so trivial, by your interpretation really a dozen local political figures and or people in the business community don't deserve articles. Such as Francis Guess, Jeffrey Lorberbaum, Forrest Preston, and so on. A redirection seems pointless with very limited information that wont seriously discribe him. You don't need to be patronizing to people that think he does at least fit the Famous for being famous criteria. Benjamin.P.L(talk) 17:11, 5 August 2018 UTC

@Benjamin.P.L: Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to nominate those three articles I'd never seen before for deletion, nominate them for deletion. This discussion is about Bill Lee and Bill Lee only, and he's not notable as of today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There would be a case for an article based on his business career and other endeavors alone, leading one of the largest companies in the region. Whether he wins this election or not, he would still be an easily notable figure in business and probably as a political voice in Tennessee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:12e0:1660:1817:541e:ce43:fa48 (talk) 19:41, August 4, 2018‎
- Sorry, but "strong" means nothing here, and as a businessman etc. he's nothing at all in terms of notability. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a businessman does not make one notable. Having significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources does. He doesn't have the latter. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the only coverage I've found unrelated to the campaign is this video and this article on his retirement (in a publication with a very low-quality article). The company Lee Company appears to keep a fairly low profile; being the CEO of it won't make him notable. Redirecting to the page on the election until November is standard in this situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect although I'm sure he will be notable in the near future, this seems a bit too soon, per reasons already given. Bneu2013 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. SportingFlyer talk 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect HOWEVER, the revision history should not be deleted. It is almost certain that he will become the next Governor of Tennessee, so when he wins the election in November, the article will be restored. He has received some coverage in the media to potentially pass WP:GNG though the coverage was mostly just election results and upsets. Redditaddict69 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Redditaddict69: It was "almost certain" that Hillary would win in 2016. Upsets happen. The good thing about a redirect is the revision history is maintained. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. Winning a primary is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article, because that still only makes him a candidate and not yet an officeholder — but our notability rules for politicians require a person to hold office, not just run for it, to be considered a notable politician. The campaign coverage that a person receives, further, does not assist in getting them over WP:GNG, because every candidate always gets some campaign coverage — so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to distinguish a notable candidate from a non-notable candidate, then every candidate would always pass the test. Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions, either — if he hasn't already held a political office that passes WP:NPOL, then his chances of winning one in the future are not a notability claim in and of themselves. "Favoured to win" candidates do sometimes still lose, and underdogs do sometimes win, so we do not create articles about candidates just because they happen to be leading the public opinion polling at some random point during the campaign. And no, being CEO of "one of the largest companies in the region" is not an automatic notability freebie either — even for company CEOs, the notability test is still the depth and breadth and volume of reliable sourcing that can be shown to get them over WP:GNG for being CEOs, and the word "CEO" is not in and of itself a magic bullet that exempts them from having to have the correct depth and breath and volume of reliable sourcing. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but neither the content nor the sourcing here are enough to already get him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because winning a gubernatorial primary for a U.S. state in which a candidate is generally predicted to win the general election is grounds for inclusion. There are plenty of nominees who haven't had their articles deleted; people say he's a businessman etc. but as it currently stands, there are articles about truckers and various other union workers who have secured nominations in gubernatorial races, lost, and received articles on Wikipedia anyway, such as Robert Gray. Nuke (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @NuclearWizard: No, no it's not. "Winning a gubernatorial primary for a U.S. state in which a candidate is generally predicted to win the general election" is not grounds for automatic inclusion per WP:NPOL, and again you're committing a WP:CRYSTAL violation because even if he is favored to win, upsets happen. And Robert Gray, whoeever he is, is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no WP:CRYSTAL violation in claiming that he won the primary, even if that argument is valid for the general election. Even his victory in the primary is notable, just for the fact he won in an upset. Redirecting the Bill Lee page to the TN gubernatorial election page makes no sense, as the TN gubernatorial page is not intended to contain biographies of candidates. It is notable to be a member of the Tennessee state legislature; it stands to reason that, as a person who has won a nomination to a governorship, he is more notable than a person who has merely won some district nomination. It stands to reason that, as being a gubernatorial nominee itself has already garnered significant press coverage with Fox News, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. that he already satisfies condition #2, even if he is unelected at present. Nuke (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWizard: Your CRYSTAL violation isn't that he won the primary, it's that you say he's "generally predicted to win". His victory in the primary does not establish notability per WP:NPOL. It does not stand to reason that a gubernatorial nominee, even for a major party, is more notable than a state legislator. They get ongoing coverage for the continuing work they do. This guy had articles written on election night in reference to the election result. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and per WP:CRYSTAL. A redirect is the usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate for a federal or statewide office when the subject does not meet WP:NPOL or another SNG. I do think, contra Nuke, that the election page about the election can contain short, verifiable biographies about the candidates. Also, all the coverage of the subject is in the context of the election (see WP:BIO1E). --Enos733 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES cover these types of situations. If he indeed wins his race, we can create a page for him then. But there's no hurry, and no reason to change our usual standards in this area for one individual. Marquardtika (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because he won the gubernatorial election. Certainly notable enough, in my opinion. Article cites plenty of good sources as well. I've seen a lot less notable stay. Citybuild122 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He won a primary election, not a general election. All these !keep comments use the same OTHERSTUFF arguments. At least this one commented on sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Whether or not these comments use OTHERSTUFF, doesn't matter. A deletion request is open for everyone's take. Respect them.Citybuild122 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, so it matters. The closing admin should take into account the quality of the argument. And he hasn't won the "gubernatorial election". That's in November. He won a primary election. With a plurality. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:22, 7 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. Sandstein 16:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy–UAB football rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-GNG callouts:

Troy lead series 7-5, with last game played in 2014
Prior AfD outcome was delete in Dec 2014
UAB cancelled their program and did not field a team in 2015 or 2016, then resumed play in 2017.
This article was recreated in Oct 2017[2] with only a winspedia.com citation re the 7-5 series record
No series games have been either played or scheduled since prior AfD delete
The two teams are currently in different FBS conferences

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Currently there are zero citations which reference an existing rivalry. The pre-AfD delete version does not establish a rivalry.[3] Current searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage"). There are newer comments and speculation based on the resumption of UAB program, including:

"Troy coach 'really happy' for Bill Clark, UAB football; expects rivalry to be rekindled" al.com, 2015
"BIRMINGHAM, AL (WBRC) - A Troy versus UAB football game sounds like a no brainer and an instant rivalry. It was before the Blazers' football program shutdown. The problem is before UAB rebooted the football program, Troy has moved into a different direction without that in-state rivalry." wbrc.com, 2016 (2 paragraph story).

Fails GNG, might be WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator that it's WP:TOOSOON. The only reference to a rivalry I found is the same article at al.com that the nominator mentioned - and one coach, who's trying to hype his football program, mentioning a 'rivalry' does not a rivalry make. Sorry. Amsgearing (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two teams playing each other 12 times does not (necessarily) equate to a 'rivalry.' In any case, as stated, each rivalry does not require a wikipedia page. I see no special notability here; in fact, it might as well be a speedy delete - no change since the previous AfD. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The last AfD ended in a unanimous "delete" determination in December 2014. Not sure what happened; did the deletion disposition not get acted upon? In any even, no additional games have been played, so I can't imagine what the basis would be for reaching a different result today. Cbl62 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last decision. Hasn't gotten much more notable since (and lost notability due to UAB's involuntary program hibernation for a few years). Was something not hit that allowed an account to restore, revisions and all? Nate • (chatter) 00:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure it's even a "rivalry" , certainly not on the scale necessary for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just a rivalry between two college sides, and the article is very thin on references. Vorbee (talk) 15:13, 7 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. This is indeed a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErnestCarrot creation. MER-C 18:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real Good Foods Co.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Company lacks a claim to significance, and a WP:BEFORE search only turns up product reviews (I.E. not quality sources per NCORP), and even that is minimal. Also possibly created by a SPA or sock (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ErnestCarrot) though this in itself is not a reason for deletion. The NCORP failure is, however. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 00:01, 5 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 merge to Human billboard. In limited form. Sandstein 16:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BuyMyFace[edit]

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

The article is plagued with backlogged issues, fails WP:GNG, and fails WP:WEB. The writer also seems to have a close connection AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with just the articles cited in the article (BBC, The Sunday Times), and there are quite a few others on Google News, and even a brief reference on Google Scholar. I'm less certain on WP:WEBCRIT. Newslinger (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned up the article, removing or rethe parts that were more promotional in tone. Since the article creator, Rharper1 (talk · contribs) appears to be the website co-creator (Ross Harper), I've also added WP:COI notices to Talk:BuyMyFace and User talk:Rharper1. I don't think this would be an issue, since the creator hasn't edited on Wikipedia since 2012, and the article has been substantially changed. Newslinger (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was created by a user whose name matches one of the site's creators. One of a number of knockoff sites, brief passing coverage but nothing substantial to establish objective significance. The sum raised is sufficient evidence that this was not in any way important. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Importance ≠ notability. Having a COI doesn't impact the assessment of notability. See also WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline in my mind, but leaning towards delete. Articles about people who have gone out of their way to attract publicity are often problematic. This was newsworthy, but is of no enduring notability, per WP:NRV. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - A tough one, since there technically is enough coverage to meet GNG, but whether the coverage is meaningful or not comes into question. As mentioned by JzG, this was one of a number of knockoffs of The Million Dollar Homepage idea, and it appears that the creators went out of their way to advertise by attracting as much media attention as possible. That being said, I think the popularity and media coverage, although not particularly in-depth save for a couple examples, allow the article to just barely slip by page guidelines. P.S: This article should be employed more frequently than the others due to the analysis rather than surface-level news coverage. Nanophosis (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel that the coverage levels are met for GNG or WEB, the potential stumbling block being WP:LASTING. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3 are a few of the sources that have an article after the initial week-long flash covering them. With some tone changes done I feel it ticks the necessary boxes Nosebagbear (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as 1 paragraph to a section of Human billboard. Notability is marginal, with limited coverage, limited impact (~GBP50000), no long-term significance beyond 2011-12, and little more that can/will ever be done with the article if it remains. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Merge performed at Human_billboard#Other ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Human billboard per Hydronium Hydroxide. This article is a suitable match for this subject. — Newslinger talk 10:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Human billboard per Hydronium Hydroxide. I have struck my original delete !vote given the new information that a page about Human billboards exists. That is a perfect place for a paragraph about this. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human billboard, which presently has no mention. This will improve the suggested merge target article (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 11 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. Sandstein 16:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odilon Ozare[edit]

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

Subject seems to only be notable for his Guinness record, therefore as per WP:BLP1E the subject doesn't meet biography notability standards. An attempt to find reliable coverage of the subject in other contexts didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a subsidiary to the Guinness Book of World Records (yet). ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 10:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catrìona (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A single purpose account attempted to remove the AfD template. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 15:58, 7 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. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 06:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

María Sáez de Vernet[edit]

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

Multiple reasons. 1) Non-notable subject, the subject is only known for being the spouse of Luis Vernet. 2. Factually incorrect in numerous place e.g. Vernet left the islands before the Lexington raid. 3. Classic WP:COATRACK as vehicle for proselytizing certain claims made under Argentine claims for the Falklands Islands.

Once the POV material had been stripped and notable facts established there would be no article. W C M_email 17:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information. Ref some of the language allegedly attributed to this individual Malvinense is a term that has only been in use since the 1940s, "Malvinian" and "Malvinan" are recent inventions, they don't even register on Google Ngram [4],[5]. This certainly wouldn't have been in a 19th Century diary. W C M_email 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations usually engender very strong opinions, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilde Vernet y Sáez (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilde Vernet y Sáez. I would remind commentators to focus on content, the usual recriminations, wailing and gnashing of teeth, accusation of censorship etc are more likely to convince a closing admin to side with delete. 17:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group

For those thinking this person was a published 19th Century diarist. Her diary was a personal one, it was placed in the national archives when her husband's papers were donated and it was later published in 1989 by her descendants. W C M_email 17:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI WP:RSN#Does historical fiction establish notability? W C M_email 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – if her diary is a focal point of Argentine claims to the islands, then she would seem to be notable, regardless of the argument's merits. I only translated the article from the Spanish and am not an expert on the subject, but even if some errors need to be corrected, deletion strikes me as extreme. Nick Number

You do realise that sourcing in the article is simply appalling. They are all virtually WP:SPS. Further you're not addressing the point, I never said the diary was relevant, I said the article was being used as a WP:COATRACK. The diary itself is rather dull and uninteresting and contains nothing of any note.

When you say you translated this, did you or did you just cut and paste from an autotranslator? There is no such word as "Malvinian" its a made up word because the Argentines cannot even bear to recognise the English language name for the islands.W C M_email 18:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's clearly not a raw copypaste, and I really resent the implication. I generally use Google Translate as a starting point and then put in a lot of work to clean it up. In this particular case, the source quotation reads ¡Mi mujercita malvinense! I checked the demonym listed in the Falkland Islands article, and there was not a good way to make it fit here. "My little Falkland Islander woman!" is stilted. The author is writing informally and affectionately, and I thought using the bastardized word was the best choice. You'll notice I didn't use it anywhere else in the article. Nick Number (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you had really cleaned the article up, then you would have done something about the appalling citations used. They're all WP:SPS and included one that is so partisan it is actually banned from use on en.wikipedia "El Malvinense". I am half-Spanish, you can tell when machine translations are used, so forgive me when I point out that the article was not translated by a human. Further, the word used did not exist back in 1829 when this diary was supposedly written, you're reporting a bastardised, politicised and edited version of the diary that does not always reflect the words of the original. Anyone familiar with this subject area is very wary of sources like this, the revisionista movement in Argentina is not above making stuff up or rewriting original documents to suit modern narratives. I note you're still pointedly refusing to address the comment this article is nothing but a WP:COATRACK W C M_email 20:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited. Being the wife of a notable person does not automatically confer notability and the details of her life described do not confer notability. If nobody had married and had children in the nineteenth century, none of us would be here. And that's before you get to the WP:COATRACK problem.

Let's be clear that, though her name is the title, this is not an article on Luis Vernet's wife. This is article on how evil the British are and how the Falkland Islands are Argentine really. That is the sole point of having the article on es.wiki (which has always taken a radically pro-Argentine editorial line on Falklands topics), and since this is a copy of the es.wiki article, it is the sole point of having the article here. We already have an article on the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, the fact that es.wiki feels the need to have lots of articles on the subject doesn't mean we should. Kahastok talk 22:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of things that look like reasonable sources in the Spanish article (in so far as I can tell without being about to read Spanish, which is that language of most of the sources). Stuartyeates (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly surprising that sources describing the life of a notable person (Luis Vernet) will mention that that person was married: this does not create notability for the spouse as notability is not inherited. It is also not difficult to find sources promoting the Argentine POV in the modern Falklands dispute - which are used here to write this as WP:COATRACK article. Between them these make up the entire sourcing of this article both here and on es.wiki. Kahastok talk 12:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts One of the wikiprojects is alerting its members to this AFD. I note that there had been no notification of this on this page. W C M_email 11:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: The alert on WiR is handled by a bot as the article carried a WiR tag. I found the discussion while reviewing recent articles and have now made a comment on the WiR talk page. (see also my comments below)--Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a bot or not, the fact that people are being asked to rescue articles at AFD is something that should be disclosed. I've noticed two things today. All of the "Strong Keep" comments come from members of that project and secondly an awful lot of the output of that project is being deleted as there is a focus on non-notable individuals. Further the comments don't address the fact the article is sourced almost exclusively with self-published sources and is nothing but a WP:COATRACK. Strip out the nonsense and there is nothing left [6]. Seriously, are you happy that the project is copying highly biased articles from es.wikipedia? W C M_email 16:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: the bot doesn't ask to rescue the article, the bot simply notifies communities of interest that a discussion exists. It has been doing so for nearly 10 years now, and is one of the most popular bots in existence. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her husband. It is inevitable that the Spanish WP, with Argentine editors will take an Argentinian POV on the Falklands/Malvinas issue, covering a short period before the reassertion of British sovereignty. Her husband may well be notable; and her diary may be an important historical source on him, but that does not make her independently notable. This article is largely about what her husband did. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am surprised to find such heated political reactions in the above comments. It may well be that Argentina has drawn on these diaries to reinforce claims of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands but that does not diminish the achievement of a 19th-century women diarist. There are very few biographies of 19th-century Latin-American women, simply because nearly all of them were considered secondary to their husbands. Here is a case when a woman produced an important historical document.--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No she didn't, its a document that has in fact been altered to fit with certain nationalist narratives. For example, its been embellished with certain modern phrases that simply didn't exist in the 19th Century. Have you actually read any of the comments above? W C M_email 16:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Diarists are important figures in understanding history and culture. As is true of all articles, it would benefit from some additional attention, but neither deletion or merge are appropriate or relevant in this case. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the policy that holds that everyone who has ever written a diary is automatically notable. Kahastok talk 16:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kahastok, I didn't say that, and you know it. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't see how I'm supposed to interpret your comment in any other way. Kahastok talk 21:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep In 2012 and 2015 she was identified as an important historical woman. Therefore also modern parameters are considering her worthy of attention. Improving the article is an option. Delete or Merge it is not an option according to me. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, in 2012 and 2015, there were events held in the Argentine museum dedicated to its sovereignty claim, where a number of inaccurate and misleading claims about various parts of her diary were made. We need to separate what is nationalist propaganda from notability. W C M_email 16:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article from Clarín a major newspaper in the region, barely mentions her husband, instead stating that her diary is important for chronicling the early history of the area and women's role in society. In fact, it states she was "the first chronicler of the islands", clearly a unique claim to her own notability. That is bolstered by this more brief claim in Pagina 12 which also notes the historic importance of the diary. POV and poor sourcing are not reasons for deletion, rather reasons to edit and improve. SusunW (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Clarin article is an opinion piece by Leticia Martin that doesn't establish notability, Clarin in any event being well known for pushing a hard line on Argentina's sovereignty claims. Pagina 12 is also the mouthpiece of the Peronist party, also well known for pushing a hard line. Neither article is about the person, both are the usual posturing about Argentina's sovereignty claims. I'm stunned, simply stunned, do you even understand the concept of WP:NPOV. W C M_email 16:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster:: I am sorry to see that you have removed large informative passages from the original article, reducing it to a state at which it could indeed justify a redirect to the husband's biography. Here we are not primarily involved with the political confrontation between Argentina and the United Kingdom but rather with the work of a pioneering 19th-century diarist who produced a telling historic document. Please try to consider María Sáez de Vernet's importance in this light and help us to improve the article.--Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a pioneering 19th Century diarist and please quit the accusations of bad faith. You cannot argue notability of this individual and the abuse and misrepresentation of her diary in a modern context does not confer it either. I removed all of the self-published sources that were about modern nationalist narratives, editing to restore the article to represent wikipedia's core policy of a WP:NPOV. Go and try to write much more using souces that meet the requirements of WP:RS. I really don't understand why your project is fighting to keep so many articles on non-notable individuals on wikipedia. If you're so interested in helping in the area concerning Falkland's history, you could start by helping with projects of mine such as Antonina Roxa. Now she was notable in her own right. W C M_email 16:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add you entirely miss the point, if you remove the POV material laden material concerning the as you put it "the political confrontation between Argentina and the United Kingdom", that is all that is left. This is why I nominated this for deletion. W C M_email 16:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wee Curry Monster, sorry, but I'm a bit surprised at the tone and content of some of your comments here. I could be the administrator closing this thing, and in that case I'd be more inclined to take umbrage at your responses, not to mention the accusations of poor word choice, machine translations, etc. I'd point out that AfD is not for cleanup, and that we judge articles based on notability, not article quality, and that we should refrain from being all-too bitey. You've nominated the thing, you've spoken your peace, please be done with it. Kahastok, you too--I am also surprised at your comments here. I do not understand why this generated such hostility. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster I am completely neutral on politics and refuse to inject them into this debate. Argentina's sovereignty claims have nothing at all to do with whether a diary is historically significant and gives insight into a historical period and the role women played in society in her era. As Martin is a writer, university faculty member, and literary critic, her ability to assess the historic importance of a literary work and its creator to my mind makes her a reliable source, regardless of your claims of the newspaper's bias. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you pinged me I'll respond. Argentina's sovereignty claims have everything to do with why articles like that exist in Argentina. They are not neutral academic articles. If you want to we can take this discussion to WP:RSN but wikipedia has always stressed we should not confuse WP:FACT and WP:OPINION. W C M_email 16:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unusually for me, I think just about enough has been done to justify retention. Deb (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 24 references are available on the Spanish version of the article that could be used to improve the article. John Cummings (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG - Redención de la soberanía: Las Malvinas y el diario de doña María Sáez de Vernet is a 156-page book for heaven's sake. No doubt it pushes a Argentine nationalist POV, but this does not disqualify it. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the book listed above by Johnbod, there are also María de las Islas: novela histórica (1982) and Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor (2012). Both appear to be historical fiction rather than scholarship, but I think they still contribute to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far as I'm concerned, notability has been met. I'm not going to get into the POV issues - they don't negate the notability question, to me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the light of my comments above, I am pleased to see that several pertinent sources have now been revealed, testifying to the notability of María Sáez de Vernet and the interest in her diaries. On this basis, the article could be significantly improved.--Ipigott (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be a significant figure in her own right with her diaries providing historically interesting detail. Appears to meet WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I am not impressed with historical novels being used as sources of notability. Burt there do appear to be one or two other Spanish language sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to contemporary coverage generated by her diaries. And note that work of fiction in which a previously obscure historical character plays a role can establish notability; provided that the work of historical fiction is notable, and that publication of the work of fiction and the character's role in it generates secondary coverage. For example, we have a recently created article about Angelica Hamilton, supported by coverage of her life generated by a recent work of historical fiction Hamilton (musical).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would want my Spanish to be better to decide on Keep/Delete, but from the 'keep' statements above, and assuming a keep is the outcome, I think the closer should specifically say 'without prejudice to any future discussion to change/move the topic of the article from the person to the diary'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The contemporary and modern coverage is impressive. The nom needs to understand sources can be opinion pieces about the subject. The Clarín article about her could be entitled "María Sáez de Vernet was the Worst Person Ever!" and it would still count towards notability.--Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator does understand notability. The fact that a character in a fictional novel is based on this person makes the fictional character notable but does not confirm notability upon the individual. The fact that this person's diary has been used in the 20th Century to further Argentina's sovereignty claim makes the sovereignty claim notable but does not confirm notability upon the individual. Contemporary coverage of this individual at a Museum dedicated to furthering Argentine's sovereignty claim is notable but does not confirm notability upon the individual. There are numerous comments here all coming from members of the same wikiproject who are voting keep who plainly don't understand notability. At best this person may merit a footnote in articles about the books, the sovereignty dispute article or the museum article but they don't merit their own dedicated article. W C M_email 06:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually understand notability, then you understand that it doesn't matter how a person became notable, but if they are notable. Your POV beef is with the faction who made her notable. If you don't like that she's notable, fine. But that doesn't change the reality. --Oakshade (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only person to have mentioned POV - I'm arguing notability. This person isn't notable. It seems people are more interested in metrics of their project than concern for the quality of the article. W C M_email 08:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Woman writes diary - not notable. Diary published long after her death - interesting. Lots of people get excited and start seeing her and her diary as pivotal/relevant in a dispute over the sovereignty of a set of islands - notable. Victuallers (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - people getting excited over her diary - vaguely notable. The controversy is notable but it doesn't confer notability on the individual. W C M_email 09:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it all adds up to make the subject notable enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:48, 10 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. Consensus not to keep. No consensus to redirect, which means that a redirect can be separately created and contested. Sandstein 16:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ifan ap Robert[edit]

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

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas ap Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd, where other pages in this same genealogical lineage were deleted for want of notability. No biographical information, just placeholder in a genealogical descent. The title given, 'Head of the House of Aberffraw', is entirely made up, there being no evidence that such a role existed, let alone a formal title. Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not actually indicated that ap Robert held any authority or did anything of note. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. We do not have articles just to fill out ancestral lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- The descent of the Gwydir family from the Princes of Wales is notable. The content at Tomas ap Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd could be merged to House of Aberffraw, which could then be a redirect target. The alleged title "head of the house of Aberffraw" is misconceived, because primogeniture was not the Welsh inheritance practice until the Law in Wales Act (or Act of Union) 1536 applied English law to Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the descent notable? All kinds of people claim descent from medieval princelings. Is every one of them inherently notable, just by virtue of the claim being made? As you explain, it is not like such a line would actually have made them 'rightful' rulers, because there was no consistent 'rightful' succession by primogeniture. Do we take every name in every one of the innumerable claimed descents from the secret love-child of Henry II and create a redirect to the House of Plantagenet? No, of course not. Agricolae (talk) 16:08, 4 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 merge to Mapp and Lucia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster à la Riseholme[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significance outside two novels, adaptations thereof and a pastiche. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Merge to Riseholme (fictional village) or Mapp and Lucia? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consideration, including over delete/merge, and an appropriate merge target if that is the choice
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mapp and Lucia.Vorbee (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, while a merge to the village might make sense at first glance, this topic is actually part of Mapp and Lucia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mapp and Lucia. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 9 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 merge to Dadhocha. czar 02:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dadhocha Dam[edit]

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

There have been news reports about this dam's continual delays (e.g. [7], [8], [9]), but until the dam is actually in operation or under construction, it does not yet exist and therefore WP:CRYSTAL criteria #1 and #5 apply. If there were an intense controversy around the funding or potential effects, that could possibly qualify for an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Dadhocha. The dam is directly relevant here and of local importance, i.e., its description is a non-trivia in this article. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the nominator, I think this merge proposal is a good idea and would support it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 4 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

College of Our Lady Mediatrix[edit]

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

Brazilian school's article without reliable sources and with no encyclopedic notability. —Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 02:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are reliable and sufficient to keep, as secondary schools are generally kept when existence is established by an independent source. Following are some up-to-date references that might be added:

https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2016/03/22/fla-flu-politico-provoca-demissao-de-professora-e-alunos-protestam-no-pr.htm

http://g1.globo.com/pr/parana/educacao/noticia/2016/10/veja-100-escolas-do-parana-com-maiores-medias-no-enem-2015.html

http://www.colegiomedianeira.g12.br/ensino/ensino-medio/

http://www.evangelico.org.br/index.php/noticias?start=76

http://www.jesuitasbrasil.com/newportal/2017/12/14/colegio-medianeira-promove-feira-do-conhecimento-2/

https://www.facebook.com/colmedianeira/?rf=325082410860549

https://especiais.gazetadopovo.com.br/guia-escolas-e-matriculas/colegio-nossa-senhora-medianeira/

http://www.asav.org.br/colegio-medianeira/

https://tnonline.uol.com.br/noticias/cotidiano/67,366857,23,03,colegio-medianeira-proibe-protestos-de-alunos-dentro-das-instalacoes.shtml

http://www.rasca.com.br/noticia/rasca-debate-participacao-politica-e-cidadania-com-alunos-do-colegio-medianeira-C178071.html

https://www.tribunapr.com.br/noticias/parana/medianeira-promove-encontro-de-ex-alunos/

http://www.valdirrossoni.com.br/sala-de-imprensa/noticias/alunos-do-colegio-medianeira-visitam-a-assembleia

http://www.curitiba.pr.gov.br/noticias/linha-verde-tera-passarela-coberta-perto-do-colegio-medianeira/17174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) 09:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jzsj and per long standing fully documented practice for secondary and high schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per standing consensus that secondary schools must prove their own notability in the article. The present sources are not conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 12:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal matter, that should not reflect on the school: I am currently banned from editing schools and am following directions to place my contributions on the delete pages. In time these references will be added. Jzsj (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good chunk of these refs suggested are from the school itself (website, facebook) or associated primary sources, and others are passing mentions (events that take place at the school), so we would have to scrub those. Also they don't need to be presently inside the article during AFD, just that the potential to be integrated into the article is there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prado Velho.Fails to establish standalone notability, beyond the horizons of existence.∯WBG^converse 09:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: did you intend to suggest redirecting to a red link? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that WBG was tricked by the fact that it's a blue link in the article, linking to the Portuguese Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming the article's sourcing is fixed, because it meets 9 out of 10 factors in my standards for a notable hogh school. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Winged Blades of Godric's argument about notability, though Prado Velho does not exist on the English Wikipedia, so we need an alternative target. Curitiba would seem to be the next-best option. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these sources suggested:

https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2016/03/22/fla-flu-politico-provoca-demissao-de-professora-e-alunos-protestam-no-pr.htm – Article about some political protests, one of which took place at the school and an anonymous teacher commented. UOL is a news website.
http://g1.globo.com/pr/parana/educacao/noticia/2016/10/veja-100-escolas-do-parana-com-maiores-medias-no-enem-2015.html – Grupo Globo is a news website. Passing mention in a list as "14) Colégio Nossa Senhora Medianeira (Curitiba) – privada – média 627,73"
http://www.colegiomedianeira.g12.br/ensino/ensino-medio/ – School's official website, self-published WP:SELFPUB
http://www.evangelico.org.br/index.php/noticias?start=76 – students visit a local hospital, source is the hospital website, WP:ROUTINE
http://www.jesuitasbrasil.com/newportal/2017/12/14/colegio-medianeira-promove-feira-do-conhecimento-2/ – Press Release from the School to the Jesuitasbrasil.com website about the school had a Knowledge Fair event, WP:ROUTINE, possibly primary since it's connected to Jesuitas Brasil
https://www.facebook.com/colmedianeira/?rf=325082410860549 – School's facebook website, self-published, WP:SELFPUB
https://especiais.gazetadopovo.com.br/guia-escolas-e-matriculas/colegio-nossa-senhora-medianeira/ – Directory Entry from Gazeta do Povo, trivial coverage
http://www.asav.org.br/colegio-medianeira/ – Directory entry from Associação Antônio Vieira - ASAV, trivial coverage, possibly primary since it's connected to Jesuitas Brasil
https://tnonline.uol.com.br/noticias/cotidiano/67,366857,23,03,colegio-medianeira-proibe-protestos-de-alunos-dentro-das-instalacoes.shtml – UOL article saying that protests are now prohibited at the school. This depends if you think that having the school announce they are banning protests is significant coverage
http://www.rasca.com.br/noticia/rasca-debate-participacao-politica-e-cidadania-com-alunos-do-colegio-medianeira-C178071.html – Article on State deputy Rasca Rodrigues website in which Rasca participated in a talk about political reform and citizenship at the school, likely WP:ROUTINE as he is a local politician
https://www.tribunapr.com.br/noticias/parana/medianeira-promove-encontro-de-ex-alunos/ – Tribuna Parana article about day of celebration for the school, doesn't really discuss history of the school, only that it interviewed some alumni WP:ROUTINE, was hoping for some significant coverage here?
http://www.valdirrossoni.com.br/sala-de-imprensa/noticias/alunos-do-colegio-medianeira-visitam-a-assembleia – Article about students visiting political representative Valdir Luiz Rossoni at his office WP:ROUTINE
http://www.curitiba.pr.gov.br/noticias/linha-verde-tera-passarela-coberta-perto-do-colegio-medianeira/17174 —Curitiba official website article discussing the construction of a pedestrian walkway at the school

I tagged most of the news articles as routine and some of them as directory profiles. So it really depends on whether you think the protests and walkway construction are significant coverage towards the school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 19:25, 9 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. Sandstein 16:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K11 MUSEA[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Opening a year from now and most of the coverage provided links back directly to the press packs available here on the website of the development. Lacking truly independent coverage to establish notability. This may be established nearer to the time opening, but not yet. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is already sufficiently sourced - I would regard both SCMP and Bastille Post as reliable sources in this topic area. Rather than deleting the article only to have somebody re-create it in a year's time (I can't see Victoria Dockside or K11 (Hong Kong) getting deleted any time soon), we may as well let this stick around. Deryck C. 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: I see where you are coming from. However, I don't think that WP should be a "slave" to marketing efforts of new development projects and front ride notability while the developer is at this very minute probably negotiating terms of future tenants. I would 100% discount all sources given in the article (including the SCMP and Bastille Poste ones) as directly related to the press packs. They completely follow the line of thought and vocabulary of the press packs, they were released around the very same time. Okay, SCMP did a little bit of own work drawing a comparison with PMQ in two sentences. Still, 90% or more of the remaining article is derived from the press pack. This is hard on the border to promo at this stage. Sources need to be independent, those are not. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your rationale, but if we 100% discount all sources that are derived from the subject's own publications, the way the news cycle works would mean that the only "independent sources" we have left are those about controversies. We will be left with no detail about the basic facts and statistics about any property development or art project. In that interpretation, notability of any property development becomes not "are there multiple independent reliable sources" but rather "has this thing been embroiled in a massive PR scandal yet", which isn't a position Wikipedia should take. Deryck C. 09:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

well, for NCORP we say that pure “business as usual” reporting does not establish notability. Business openings etc are specifically mentioned I believe. I agree with you that we shouldn’t be a place for scandal reporting but we also shouldn’t be a business listings site. There may be other writing such as an editor reviewing the mall with a proper write up or other reporting related to the mall. I’m just very uneasy that this closely aligned PR writing is very promo-esque which we definitely don’t want. I’m not saying musea isn’t ever notable. Just not yet with effectively only unverified PR floating around will those descriptions of what the developer imagines it will be. How many times have we seen HK developments wildly overhyped and then under-delivered? Let’s wait until the thing has proper independent reporting. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deryck C's rationale, which was also mine when creating the article. The project seems to be already underway, and having a reference of this is a useful contribution at this time. Ypatch (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deryck C. The arguments against independence don't hold water because the SCMP and Bastille Poste are not owned or otherwise controlled by the developer. They are free to print what they like. If they choose to believe what the developer says, that is fine. Non-independence implies a lack of choice. James500 (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: I'd like to use Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Non-independent sources and specifically reference Churnalism. I would generally question the genuine independence of any HK media from major local conglomerates such as New World Development and its parent Chow Tai Fook given their significant leverage through advertising spend. This is an interesting read related to the "tycoon problem" which is why I believe standards should be higher when we evaluate notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. A major ~~museum~~ [inserted: retail and entertainment complex] can receive an article before the official opening, provided that there are sufficient independent sources. BTW the word "proposed" sound like crystal balling but the place is already being developed. Perhaps this triggered the nomination? The other correction the article probably needs is a name change. All caps words are usually a self-style that we should not support. It comes across as screaming and makes us look like a press release forum. gidonb (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: this isn't a museum, though. This is a shopping mall with bits of art floating around and a few restaurants. I have probably been to the sister mall K11 hundreds of time and until this article not even noticed the arts angle. One of many many malls in HK. Sill, pure existence does not make a commercial enterprise notable as has been laid out at AfD thousands of times. Regurgitated press-releases I don't think have ever been considered sufficient for notability. If so, we'd have to undelete thousands of articles for start-ups or "up-and-coming" artists etc etc. Notability also isn't inherited, so the fact that a large conglomerate is behind this should not make a difference. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 05:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jake, thank you for pointing this out. I will make a few corrections in the article, addressing your and my concerns. gidonb (talk) 14:58, 11 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasini Samuel[edit]

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

Fails on WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. She has not won any major beauty pageant. Hitro talk 14:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every beauty queen is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with nom - fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. Didn’t even finish in the top15 out of 42 contestants in the beauty pageant that she entered. Dan arndt (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:50, 9 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 Levellers (band). given its twisted history, I will protect the redirect. Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Friend (Levellers)[edit]

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

Article has been repeatedly redirected to The Levellers and then recreated by the same editor. Time to formally put it to bed one way or the other. Lithopsian (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Article includes information not included on the Levellers Band page, the article includes information exclusively about the subject matter. The subject matter does not exclusively relate to the Levellers. There are multiple articles consisting of far less information than has been provided about the subject matter on this particular article. The article is not the "finished article, and further information will be added. Wikipedia is constantly expanding. Slade121 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Levellers per WP:MUSICBIO - members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. No individual notability has been demonstrated outside of the band, therefore redirect is the only option. If the article keeps getting recreated without demonstration of individual notability, then delete and salt. Hzh (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not delete and salt plausible redirects. We WP:BLAR and then, if necessary, apply page protection so that only admins (or whatever level we choose to set the protection at) can edit. Per WP:R we do not delete redirects unless they are positively harmful. James500 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does not seem to be the case anywhere else, that an individual has to have had a solo career to warrant an article about them. Slade121 (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a solo career is just an example. The idea is that the person needs to do something more than what he did in the band, for example, joined another notable band, has other notable careers such as acting, etc. I do see other musicians having individual articles despite not having done anything significant outside the band, and when I see these articles, I would normally redirect them. Hzh (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simon Friend was one of the more well-known members of the band called The Levellers, and I see other members of the band have articles about them. Simon Friend was not just in the Levellers, but, as the article about him says, in a band called New Model Army. Vorbee (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, he was a roadie for New Model Army. No one would describe it as being part of a band. Hzh (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Friend declined an offer to become the guitarist for New Model Army, am i to take it, that if he had accepted his offer and then at a later stage joined the Levellers, he would then be able to have a wikipedia article about him. Slade121 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he had accepted the offer, then he would have done something else significant outside of the band. That is the guidelines per WP:MUSICBIO. Please note that you are not allowed to vote multiple times. Hzh (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unbolding multiple !votes by same contributor. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Ultimately the arguments that have been forward do not suggest that he is not a 'notable musician', he is an integral member of the band and frequently takes on the role of frontman. It seems slightly silly to be considering deleting the article, merely because he has only had a leading role in one band. Slade121 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the guideline. You can argue for a change in the guideline, but arguing against the guideline is not relevant here. Hzh (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, just rename to Simon Friend. Only one here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Vorbee (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid bolding in a way that suggest it is a vote when you have already voted. Hzh (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unbolded, if that's a word, to ease closing admin's navigation. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of lack of sources verifying independent notability as a musician. At best, Merge whatever material is based on sources to "Levellers (band)". And since the article keeps getting resurrected, Salting of this specific page should probably be considered. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 12 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. Where it not for Enterprisey's comment, I would have gone with redirect. No prejudice against someboy re-creating this as a redirect on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CoinGate[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG and notably WP:ORGDEPTH Dom from Paris (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect~~Delete~~ Fails GNG, per nom. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to redirect per Bri below and ATD-R. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wanted to nominate it myself. Renata (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coingate scandal. WP:ORGDEPTH is going to continue to be a problem and the fact that a particular pornsite accepted this payment isn't really how to do an article. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire business seems to be a pilot program with 100 customers. That couldn't possibly ever pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as CoinGate might be a search term for the company and Coingate (the scandal) isn't widely-known enough (in my judgment) to be the redirect target Enterprisey (talk!) 07:08, 8 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 speedy delete under criteria G11/G12. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Begum[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an editor who apparently cannot start this page themselves. The rationale is: The article for Sarah Begum should be deleted. It is clearly promotional in tone, the majority of statements are supported by two sources that are not reliable and those sources are what support any claims to pass GNG. Thanks Battleofalma (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Reyk _YO! 11:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. Author indeffed recently for serial copyvios. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this one is a 63% copyvio as well, and it's also promotional copy so is a case of WP:PROMO (have added csd nomination). Also, it's mainly referenced to unreliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 16:52, 6 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loki's Wager[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem notable as their is little usage or sourcing outside of it's coinage Zubin12 (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know how to delsort this… ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a couple references [10][11], but I'm not convinced there's enough out there to support a stand-alone article (as opposed to a mention in some other). XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep, rewrite as a notable myth, mention fallacy in passing. BTW, the fallacy part seems to be a yet another example of wikipedian "citogenesis", but alas the term is used now in scholarly articles [12]. I'm pinging the article creator user:Kendrick7, maybe they can reveal the source of their wisdom of 2 August 2006. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Links 2 and 3 are actually to the same paper. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for pinging me. Not citogenesis, just a matter of me losing track of the source I read in college, as I explained in the last AfD back in 2009.[13] It's still a kind of fallacious argument that people run into from time to time, so it's of little surprise that sources more recent than the article itself have found having a name for the concept useful and so continue to propagate it. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a whole article on the use of the argument in fiction as Quibble (plot device). But, times being what they are, it shows up in real life too, to which various sources attest. I've beefed up the sourcing as best I could in light of the AfD. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important article for the philosophy of science and the demarcation problem. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 11 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knovel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent references for this company (formerly independent, now a division of Elsevier (though that article doesn't discuss this product). I declined a PROD for technical reasons. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment There is no mention of the page on the Elsevier except in the bottom template. So, merging would not be a perfect solution. Although I didn't find considerable links on the web, one thing is obvious, the article had been created back in 2008 and nomination of such old articles would be waste of time instead new articles should be given preference. My vote will be weak keep Rgyalu (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as a sockpuppet account Nosebagbear (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as if an AfD without a response due to sockpuppeting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:22, 6 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. Sandstein 16:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomàs Molina (meteorologist)[edit]

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

I see no indication that the subject is independently notable per any of our criteria: WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF. Merely doing his job as a presenter does not inherently confer notability. The sources given may verify certain facts about Molina, but they are neither in-depth nor independent (if they are live at all). I was not able to find any in-depth independent sources elsewhere. The Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia articles are basically the same content as this one (sources and all) so there was nothing there to use. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. CoronaryKea (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to give editors with more access to Spanish or Catalan sources time to chime in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:08, 3 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. No prejudice to starting an article about the technology, if sufficient independent sources treating the subject in-depth exist. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockstack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I closed AFD1 as delete but further sourcing has been provided that was not discussed in the first debate. I also realised that i had not noticed one user voting delete twice. As a result I am relisting in a clean discussion. The provided sources are:

1) George Gilder's latest book Life After Google has Blockstack as a major subject. There is an entire chapter dedicated to it and Blockstack is mentioned throughout the book. Here are two screenshots of the book: source 1 and source 2. George Gilder is not affiliated with the Blockstack project.

2) The HBO Silicon Valley Show season 5 is inspired by the Blockstack project (source) and the co-founders of Blockstack Muneeb Ali and Ryan Shea served as technical advisors to the show and got screen credit (source). The first source is based on an interview so might not qualify but the second source is independent (screen credits are public information anyway). Journalists have independently linked Blockstack to the HBO show even before their involvement with the show became public (source from 2017 before the season 5 came out).

3) An independent study on internet freedom and new internet architectures by MIT that covered Blockstack (source).

4) South China Morning Post published an article on Blockstack and the browser. The article features an open-source developer living in Hong Kong that contributes to the project (and not any officers of Blockstack Public Benefit Corp, the NY entity) (source).

5) There are many other independent sources e.g., the Economist 1, the Economist 2, Techcrunch, VentureBeat (these don't include comments by Blockstack Public Benefit Corp officers). Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: generally the presumption is that the nominator is a vote for delete. However, in this case you are re-nominating as a previous closer. Just for the record could you please vote on this? (or if you are neutral, please state that as well) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral..Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Keep I also noticed TechCrunch source here [14] and a Forbes Staff writer source here [15] and a Tedx talk here [16]. For me this is probably enough. I see this entity has been around since 2014, far longer than the average tech funded startup and continues to get mainstream business press. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I noticed this list of additional sources (available on Github) as well. Freedaemon (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC) — Freedaemon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there must have been an original delete. As I'm unsure whether previous participants were courtesy pinged to contribute to an AfD I shall do so now
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Ping - As this is, in effect, an AfD that was reopened as ongoing, I feel it's appropriate that the previous members have their attention specifically called to it. @K.e.coffman, Djm-leighpark, HighKing, Acuster, Mangoe, EditorE, and Power~enwiki:. There was a personal attack by an editor towards another in the original AfD. Please do not repeat this if you participate in this AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with apologies for !voting Delete twice in the last AfD!).
- It is true that George Gilder's latest book Life After Google has a chapter entitled "Blockstack" but this isn't a chapter on the company. Instead it is a chapter where he discusses at length and with a lot of detail the background to the invention of Blockstack's technology but doesn't provide any details on the company. In chapter 15, he does provide some snippets in relation to the company especially when discussing Ali's or Shea's background but it is clear from this chapter that he is relying on being provided the story by Ali and Shea. He also described how on July 27 2017 he "traveled west to see how the Blockstack people were doing and perhapd help them with a speech" and how Blockstack's "marketing chief, Patrick Stanley, asked me to speak on "Life after Google" at the 2017 Blockstack summit. Which he did. Gilder has also spoken at the 2018 summit. The question on whether Gilder is an unconnected person (just a big fan of the technology and not necessarily the company) or whether he should be considered a connected person (speaking at events to promote his book which means he benefits from promoting Blockstack) is a really fine line. But for me it is clear. While his book does discuss the technology in detail, it does not discuss *the company* in any significant way therefore fails WP:SIGCOV. A link to the book can also be found on Google Books here.
- Since the fortune.com reference for the HBO show relies on interviews with Ali and Shea, it fails as it is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND since Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The other reference is a tweet from a random source. The final observer.com reference fails for the exact same reasons as the fortune.com reference.
- The essay published by those authors has nothing to say about the company (the subject of this article). If the topic of this article was the technology (hint hint) and not the company then it may be a good source to establish notability - but it isn't. As it is, this reference does nothing to establish the notability of the company.
- The South China Morning Port article is written by a Blockstack opensource contributer but says nothing about the company (the subject of this article). It does nothing to establish the notability of the company.
- As to the other references. This economist reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the same as this economist reference. Same problem with the TechCrunch article - nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the VentureBeat reference relies on a company announcement and Ali's "five traits" and fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. I've no intention of commenting on each reference on GitHub but to say that every one I looked at that discusses the company was not intellectually independent and failed ORGIND.
- The other sprinkling of other sources also fail. This TechCrunch reference relies on a company announcement and fails ORGIND. This Forbes piece is on the "sites" and fails WP:RS (lots of discussions to this effect on the RS noticeboard]. The TedX reference is a talk by Ali and fails WP:ORGIND.

In general, the Keep !voters above are failing to understand that the subject of this article is the company (not the technology) and therefore the references must establish the notability of the company. Most references discuss the technology in-depth. As it currently stands, the article attempts to appear as an article on the technology but it is clearly a thin disguise on a corporate article. If someone should like to write an article on the technology, this is not the place to start. The other aspect is that the Keep !voters are failing to provide references that are "intellectually independent", that is the references "must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". My !vote remains to Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your main objection seems to be the difference between a company/project and technology. Given this is open-source software that line is blurry. The article cannot be just about the open-source project/company or about the technology, they're inter-related and both should be covered. As currently written the "Corporate backing" section of the article covers Blockstack Public Benefit Corp more explicitly and should be improved/edited so that only that section discusses the company. If people disagree that "the company" should be separated from the technology then we'd end up having a very different discussion. Currently, my understanding is that both the company and the technology are the subject of this article and most sources confirm that assumption as most sources refer to both the company/project and the technology.

George Gilder read a publicly-available PhD thesis and based his research for the book on that publicly available information. Yes, he gave a talk at a summit but saying that he is affiliated with the project is inaccurate and a long stretch. Edward Snowden also gave a talk at the Blockstack summit, does it make Edward Snowden affiliated with the project? No. The book actually discusses the funding of the Public Benefit Corp as well and discusses the technology and company interchangeably. So the question here is about (a) source being significant and (b) source being independent, and both are true in my view.

RE the HBO show, at a recent Decentralized Web Summit event the producers of the HBO show themselves confirmed that Season 5 was based on Blockstack and MaidSafe, there is a publicly available recording of that available (source). Further, anyone can watch the screen credits of the HBO show to confirm the "tweet image" of the credits, it's public information and you're not relying on a tweet.

The MIT report explicitly mentions the project e.g., on page 51 "Blockstack is an open source project whose goal is to make". As with the Gilder book, both the company/project and the technology is the subject of this source and, similar to the Gilder book, they are often used interchangeably e.g., on page 45 "Blockstack is implementing an alternative to the current DNS/URL naming framework" uses "Blockstack" to refer to Blockstack Public Benefit Corp while later in the report they use the term to refer to the technology.

The South China Morning Port article is NOT written by a Blockstack opensource contributor. The article is written by a Hong Kong-based journalist Harminder Singh. The opensource contributor is featured in the article (he didn't write the article). As with other sources, both the company/project and the technology are the subject. The line "The project has been in development, primarily in the United States, since 2013 and is entering a stage where people can begin using it" refers to the company/project and "Blockstack is a decentralized internet where users keep their data locally" refers to the technology. No Blockstack PBC sources are quoted in the article and the article qualifies the independence and significance check.

In summary, the line between Blockstack company/project and technology is blurry and almost all the sources mention both. Question to ask here is "Is Blockstack company/project/technology significant?" And the clear answer is yes. Just the book and HBO show should be enough for this but there are like more than 100 independent additional sources that are not even being discussed here. Freedaemon (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Your responses indicate that you are not clear on the difference between a source that is used to establish notability and a source that may be used to support an assertion within the article itself. All sources used for the former purpose may also be used for the latter, but not vice versa. Also, you raise a good point - it is unclear whether this article is primarily about the company or the technology. From my reading of it, I assume it is the company. I would also state that I believe an article on the Blockstack technology would certainly meet the criteria for notability. Perhaps if the article was editted to make this fact clear?

George Gilder's book goes into some detail on the contact he had with the founders and the company and various company officials. You're not accurately portraying his connection by stating that he only read a thesis and gave a talk. Your strawman about Snowden isn't relevant. The book does not discuss the company and the technology interchangeably in my opinion either - the book traces the technology and the company being formed is a separate episode in the technology coming to market. His book is very clear on which is which.
The sources provided on the HBO show are a good example of what I mean about the difference between sources to support an assertion in the article (the interview is OK for this purpose) and sources to establish notability (this fails ORGIND). A tweet wouldn't be acceptable for either. I'm not disputing the *fact*, I'm saying that the source fails the criteria for establishing notability.
I don't understand what you are implying. Are you saying that the project is the same thing as the company? That isn't my understanding.... Also, given that the MIT report is focused on the technology and not the company, a mere mention-in-passing of the company (if that's what you say it is) fails WP:CORPDEPTH (if the article is about the company ... which it is).
My bad, I meant to say that the article relies extensively on a Blockstack contributer and fails since it is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:ORGIND - Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject

In summary, I'm convinced that if this article is changed so that it is about the technology, it will pass GNG without a problem. I don't believe the current article is the correct starting point though. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks for the comments about notability vs supporting an assertion, I'll try to read more about it. I 100% agree that the article should be changed and should be primarily about the technology (with the "Corporate backing" section having a small discussion about the company). I did some research on Github and pulled data on software releases etc and (a) changed the infobox to software from company (this was there is an earlier edit as well) and (b) updated the first paragraph to better reflect what the software platform provides. I need to go and run some errands, I plan to make a second round of edits tomorrow; the article right now doesn't reflect the state of the technology correctly. Let me know if you have other suggestions for improving the article. Freedaemon (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Leaning weak keep, since there's enough above to satisfy WP:GNG, I think. But I don't know why an article about Blockstack must be only about the company and not about the technology such that in-depth sources on the latter should be disqualified. Do we already have an article on that somewhere? This article says it's about a "network," not just the business behind that network, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response There is no separate article on the network/technology. The current article is covering both and my recent research and edits made the article primarily about the network/technology with some discussion of Blockstack PBC. I agree with you that the article should cover both. This open-source technology is in a similar situation as Apache Spark and Ethereum and in those cases the articles primarily cover the technology and mention the respective companies, Data Bricks and Ethereum Foundation, in passing (which I agree with). Freedaemon (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant RS coverage of the company not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Guylepage3 with few other contributions outside this topic. With $4M in venture funding and per review of available sources, it's clearly WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Sources offered abobe do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP, resulting in a promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response This looks like the same comment you made in the 1st nomination; the article has evolved since then and a list of new sources are now under discussion. Can you kindly comment on the discussion above RE the article primarily being about the technology and not the company? Thanks a lot, Freedaemon (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons already given by others. I'm just adding that the user who created the article (Guylepage3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has a declared conflict of interest. Freedaemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like connected too, since he has no other contribution since 2011, until he jumped to edit this article 24 minutes after its creation. --MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm a user of the technology and a fan of the Silicon Valley show. I got involved in this discussion when I noticed that the entry was deleted and I wanted to add the Silicon Valley show info to it (I mentioned all of this in my original discussion to re-list). I'm not an experienced wikipedia user/editor and would defer to you guys for making a fair call here. I don't think any of Guylepage3's content is on the article anymore. There are new sources (like the Gilder book, MIT report, South China article etc) that were not considered earlier and are still not being discussed really. I'm going to stop defending this article now and let you, the more experienced editors, take it from here; I've spent a surprisingly large amount of time on this discussion this week. My only request would be to evaluate the project/technology as it exists today; in my humble view, it's an extremely important technology. Thanks for taking the time to read! Freedaemon (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 12 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. So Why 16:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Tour (Mary J. Blige and D'Angelo)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Routine coverage only. Just a list of tour dates and set lists. --wooden superman 13:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 23 July 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?} 14:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails tour notability guidelines. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 12:13, 9 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. So Why 16:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Verdier[edit]

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

Unable to find sources to verify this article, not sure even if I could that she would qualify as notable enough for a stand-alone article Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC) (Note: Even after a few sources were found down below, I'm still a delete here, the sources mention her, they do not establish notability.) Courcelles (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article totally lacks context. Since Verdier is more than likely alive, this is almost certainly a major BLP violation. The language of the article is clearly NPOV, calling an associate of Thatcher "notorious" for no justified reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~this probably should have been a BLP prod, and it probably would have been deleted that way.~~ However, I found some mentions of her ([17][18][19][20]). I couldn't find an Obituary, and for such a relatively high profile individual it likely means she is probably still alive. Based on some of the sources above I'd say she is notable, I'd say there probably is enough in google books searches to create an article and demonstrate notability. I also found a source for the second sentence in the article. I added 5 references to the article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Been around since 2004, that's too old to BLP Prod, at least I thought. Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course. I didn't check the creation date. Got NPP on the mind. BLP prod wouldn't have worked. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete an utterly nonnotable IOC functionary. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 3 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. See also Philippines Urban Living Solutions, which was salted in 2016. czar 02:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines Urban Living Solutions (PULS)[edit]

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

Although there are plenty of refs, almost all seem to be press releases or regurgitations of press releases. A couple show that the company exists and has ben involved in a take-over but nothing here demonstrates notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 23 July 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?} 14:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:11, 6 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. So Why 16:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Cassar[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator. This is an article about a non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as he has never played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 10:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article looks well maintained however Maltese league is semi-pro and because of that Andrea Cassar fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Lack of sourcing doesn't help, article also is failing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 4 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) 14:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The whistleblowing incident is an example of WP:BLP1E and does not in itself suffice for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. » Shadowowl | talk 16:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFOOTY and I can't find better references in searches. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:40, 10 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. So Why 16:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main Attraction (group)[edit]

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

A before search failed to turn up significant reliable sources. The song “Everyday” did not chart so it does not help pass NMUSIC, and notability is not inherited from Avalaches’ sampling of their recording. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced, and I only managed to find a brief review of their album in Billboard - [21]. Need more RS to satisfy WP:NBAND. Hzh (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBAND> ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing NBAND per above. No reliable sources in the article. I did an online search which turned up almost nothing, other than a couple mentions/reviews of their albums, so it probably doesn't meet GNG either. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Needs more references. jonnycraig888 (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:51, 11 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. So Why 16:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources are all from the company's website, blogs, press-releases and those which aren't don't mention Appeon in any significant way. Cabayi (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I found a two-paragraph article followed by an interview in this article^WebCite in ZDNet and some insignificant coverage in the Sams Publishing book PowerBuilder 9: Internet and Distributed Application Development. I did not find significant coverage about the company in my searches for sources. There is insufficient coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 08:30, 3 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.

First of all, the canvassing of editors from other AFDs was problematic and probably should have lead to sanctions against the editor in question if they hadn't been blocked as a sockmaster in the mean time. I do want to remind all participants though that notifying editors from previous AFDs is generally only accepted when they were about the same article.

That said, on to this discussion: Numerically speaking, the count is tied at 21 to 21 (discounting sock !votes). Unfortunately, many (experienced) editors tried to justify their !vote without a strong policy-backed rationale:

Delete !voters: WP:TRIVIAL, WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, "men just have beards", WP:LISTCRUFT, "it's stupid", "consensus can change" (yes, it can but you have to argue why it should, not just state it), WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL, "common sense" (?), WP:WAX, "America-centrism" (which is not a reason to delete America-specific articles but to create non-America-specific articles)
Keep !voters: "was kept previously", WP:ILIKEIT, WP:WELLWRITTEN, "Nom does not convince me", "not again",

The key - and only relevant - question that had to be discussed here was: Is this a notable topic for a stand-alone list per WP:LISTN. In this regard, it took a few days before the first !voter (Cunard) provided significant amount of sources to argue in favor of notability. Once sources were provided and the discussion focused more on notability and less on whether this is a trivial topic for inclusion, the consensus shifted notably towards agreeing that facial hair in American politics is a notable encyclopeic topic that received significant coverage in a lot of reliable sources. Only few people argued for deletion afterwards and none of those argued based on the lack of notability of the topic. The only policy-based !vote at this point was a link to WP:INDISCRIMINATE without an explanation about why this policy applies to this list.

In the end, this discussion did not noticeably add new information compared to the four previous discussions and as such a new nomination will have to demonstrate that the topic is non-notable to not be considered disruptive. This discussion has shown that people on both sides are not opposed to creating a more inclusive page that deals with facial hair and its impact on American politics in general and creating such a page and then merging this list to it seems a possible way forward that should be discussed in earnest.

Regards So Why 16:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure

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

This article is a trivia and there is no need of a separate list. See deletion of List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair. Kraose (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. gidonb(talk) 22:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to those who recently participated in AfD:"List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair"
@Greenleader(2), QubecMan, Wugapodes, 344917661X, Kraose, KJP1, The Gnome, Bearcat, Ajf773, Sam Sailor, Power~enwiki, K.e.coffman, Bishonen, Clarityfiend, Ifnord, and JC7V7DC5768: DexterPointy (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment. User was blocked for sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DexterPointy. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN. List of trivia, not telling us anything important or valuable. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User: Accesscrawl. Vorbee (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination failed to list or address the previous nominations. Their results were:

Our deletion policy is that it "can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." As the nomination presents no policy-based argument and doesn't say anything that hasn't been said and refuted repeatedly before, it should be dismissed and a moratorium on further frivolous nominations established. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Consensus can change, and arguably has changed.
Most recent AfD result was "Delete", on 31.Jul.2018, for "List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair".
-- DexterPointy (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The principle that repeated renomination can be disruptive only applies to cases like somebody who doesn't like the consensus renominating it for another discussion minutes or days after the initial closure. It does not apply if it's been years since the last time the article was considered at AFD. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - Arbitrary unencyclopedic topic, supported only by pseudo-science and fan/fringe fetish. -- DexterPointy (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a particularly useful, interesting, well–written, and well–sourced article. Somebody explain how deleting this would help our readers. Lepricavark (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like this article too but that is not a policy-based argument. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of policy, that essay to which you linked isn't a policy and carries no weight with me. Lepricavark (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same opinion when somebody says something is useful but then doesn't explain how it is useful. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this useful? --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consensus can change, so the fact that this was kept in the past is not binding. As I've said in the past, nearly every adult man is capable of both growing facial hair and shaving it off, so the question of having a beard or not having a beard is not a defining characteristic of a man — two of the presidents present in the list, for example, do not have beards in the actual portraits being used to illustrate their list entries, which is proof in and of itself that beardedness can change (and that it can even change during a president's term, making him simultaneously a president with a beard and a president without a beard.) Further, most of the sources present here are passing references to beardedness in sources about other things, not direct analysis of beardedness as a political thing. This simply amounts to trivia, not genuinely encyclopedic content about a notable concept — the question that actually needs to be answered here is not "how deleting this would help our readers", but how keeping it would help our readers learn anything important or encyclopedic. Bear(d)cat (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEFINING is about categories, not lists. Nobody is suggesting the creation of Category:Presidents of the United States with facial hair. There is no requirement that lists must be about defining characteristics. If there was then a load of clearly encyclopedic lists would have to be deleted. Hut 8.5 10:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's not a single "clearly" encylopedic list that would need to be deleted on that basis — there are certainly several unencyclopedic lists that clearly should be deleted on that basis, but not a single solitary genuinely encyclopedic list would ever be lost by the application of that standard. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's see how that works out. Appearing on a banknote is hardly a defining characteristic of a person, so we'll have to get rid of List of people on United States banknotes. Not having armed forces isn't a defining characteristic of a country, so we'll have to lose List of countries without armed forces. Similarly for Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605 and List of cricketers called for throwing in top-class cricket matches in Australia and many others. That's four featured lists your standard considers unencyclopedic, and there are plenty of others. If you actually read WP:DEFINING you'll find that it says In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative. So yes lists can be about nondefining characteristics and that is in fact one of the main reasons for having them in the first place. This standard has no validity whatsoever here. Hut 8.5 18:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. I continue to believe, as I stated in the 2016 discussion, that the content be rewritten as "Facial Hair in Politics" (to be broad) or "Facial Hair in American Politics" (to be specific), since the article contains "reliable sourced content about the political implications of facial hair." I continue to believe that the list itself approaches WP:OR. --Enos733 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, this is non-encyclopedic trivia. And as Enos733 said, the list does appear to be original research. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and not by the hairs on my chiny-chin-chin. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I'm pretty sure that something like the History of facial hair in American politics could be an encyclopedic page (and not in list form), the page as it exists is an exercise in unencyclopedic trivia, because facial hair is neither defining nor informative in distinguishing one US President from another. Would we also have lists of bald Presidents, or of those with blue eyes? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As a follow-up, I see quite a few editors arguing for keeping based on sourcing that passes GNG. Given the existence also of WP:NOT, I think it's relevant that GNG means that we may keep a page rather than that we must. And I share the concern over the giant-economy-size pings, so I also want to underline that consensus can change, so the past AfD results are not binding here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked at List of Presidents of the United States, and it includes images of each President. Thus, it's a simple matter for an interested reader to look there and readily see which ones have had facial hair. What additional value a reader would derive from the list page discussed here seems negligible to me. A non-list page about facial hair in US politics does seem useful to me, but that's not the page nominated here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and Tryptofish. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure participants: LibStar (talk · contribs), Falcon8765 (talk · contribs), Roscelese (talk · contribs), Starblind (talk · contribs), Chrishmt0423 (talk · contribs), Mandsford (talk · contribs), Scottywong (talk · contribs), TheGrappler (talk · contribs), JHvW (talk · contribs), Oculi (talk · contribs), Milowent (talk · contribs), Nuujinn (talk · contribs), Hans Adler (talk · contribs), Quiddity (talk · contribs), Dream Focus (talk · contribs), CRGreathouse (talk · contribs), TJRC (talk · contribs), Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs), and King of Hearts (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair participants: Postdlf (talk · contribs), Brambleberry of RiverClan (talk · contribs), Carrite (talk · contribs), Mangoe (talk · contribs), and Jclemens (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (2nd nomination) participants: Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), Czolgolz (talk · contribs), Arthistorian1977 (talk · contribs), Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), Thincat (talk · contribs), Clarityfiend (talk · contribs), Lojbanist (talk · contribs), Fieari (talk · contribs), Muboshgu (talk · contribs), Montanabw (talk · contribs), XXN (talk · contribs), White Arabian Filly (talk · contribs), K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), Arxiloxos (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Feminist (talk · contribs), Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs), RoySmith (talk · contribs), Shivertimbers433 (talk · contribs), and Smmurphy (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (3rd nomination) participants: LinguistAtLarge (talk · contribs), Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), and Ivanvector (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: Is there any good reason why you didn't also ping participants from below two AfDs ?
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_New_Zealand_with_facial_hair
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Australia_with_facial_hair
-- DexterPointy (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DexterPointy has a valid point there. You've pinged the participants of the AfD where the results was keep consecutively 3 times. Please see WP:CANVASSING Accesscrawl (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DexterPointy does not have a valid point. Cunard pinged people who participated in past discussions of this article, not past discussions of all conceivable related articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rhododendrites (talk · contribs). I agree that my pings of editors who participated in the previous AfDs do not violate WP:CANVASSING. Cunard (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Back in 2016 I see I wrote "Even if this doesn't pass the nominator's scrutiny it passes mine. I have a nagging feeling that I might be persuaded by a well-considered nomination but this one falls far short". This nomination is even less satisfactory. Thincat (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of presidents' facial hair is discussed in independent reliable sources for the group as a whole.[22][23] and, so far as I can see from the preview, here.[24] This list is not merely an amalgamation of individual factoids. How someone who says "Fails WP:LISTN. List of trivia, not telling us anything important or valuable." can feel well placed to criticise someone else for infringing WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is a mystery to me. There is little doubt that the personal appearance of candidates does affect how people vote so my own view is that the mater is not trivial. However, I agree with Hut (below) that it would likely be better if this were presented on WP as a normal article rather than a list. Thincat (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this topic has been discussed sufficiently in sources to meet WP:GNG requirements. feminist (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of sources which discuss the topic of facial hair of US presidents, including things like changes in facial hair over time. This means it's an encyclopedic, notable categorisation. I can see it working as an article instead of a list, but that's not an argument for deleting it. Hut 8.5 10:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – "not even a close shave. This is at the negligible end of trivial." (This is what I put last time, of which I have no recollection. Thanks for the ping.) Oculi (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Every man has facial hair; sometimes the fashion is to grow a beard, sideburns or other facial adornment, sometimes it is to shave it off. Growing facial hair (or not) is not a defining characteristic of a man and the list is as trivial and useless as "American Presidents who wore flared trousers" or "American presidents who wore a beehive". The subject may be worthy of an article (why so few presidents did, how beards are perceived by voters, how attitudes have changed etc.) and the overview at the start of the list could be incorporated into that, but the list format ("beard colour" - really?) is the wrong approach, not least because the subject need not be limited to US presidents alone. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am trying to be consistent with my 2016 opinion. It's not just a trivia. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hut has the correct answer to the mystery: since this matter has been addressed multiple times in published sources of presumed reliability (see footnotes), it is a notable topic under our inclusion rules — whether or not we think this topic is inane trivia, as I personally do. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per every other article that has every existed on national leaders with facial hair. WP:LISTCRUFT. Useless, unencyclopedic trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a lot of coverage of this topic, coverage treating them as a group, and a clear inclusion criteria -- hence it's meets WP:LISTN and WP:SAL. That's why we've come to that conclusion three times already. Lots of impassioned WP:DONTLIKEIT going on here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since this is covered in RS, and is useful to readers. An argument that perhaps the scope should be expanded slightly to History of facial hair in American politics is reasonable and valid for RM, but not a good reason for deletion.--Pharos (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for picking up on what I said about a "History of..." page. However, what I was talking about was not a slight expansion and move. Rather, I was talking about something that would essentially be an entirely different page. And, how exactly is it useful to readers? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my 2016 !vote. Beards are and especially were a much discussed (in RSs) aspect of presidential fashion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – given the interest that has been in the topic (as in WP:RS) and the importance of the position, this article is justified. gidonb (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: Never mind, I found time to complete the pinging myself.
Pinging participants from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_New_Zealand_with_facial_hair
: @Ksylatron, Fieari, Schwede66, Mattlore, EEng, WWGB, Johnpacklambert, DerbyCountyinNZ, XXN, and Clarityfiend:
Pinging participants from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Australia_with_facial_hair
: @Lankiveil, NZKenny96, Ksylatron, Andrew Davidson, RoySmith, Lugnuts, AlphaBetaGamma01, Sandstein, AussieLegend, Ajf773, Johnpacklambert, Nick-D, WWGB, Jonesey95, Clarityfiend, and XXN:
-- DexterPointy (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Now you're actually canvassing. You have dug up a tangential list because it resulted in deletion in response to someone pinging people who have previously discussed this list. One is standard operating procedure for AfD. The other is, well, obvious canvassing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites - selecting and notifying groups of people known to have previously voted overall to keep the article as was done previously by Cunard was obviously going to have a non-neutral effect. I make no suggestion it was done in anything but good faith but you can clearly see the pattern of !votes change before and after that was done. Anyway, I think you are wrong in two of your assertions. Firstly, regarding who should be notified - WP:CANVASS actually states this: notifying editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances (my emphases) - that is, it is only sometimes appropriate, not always; it doesn't specify when it is appropriate, but this clearly indicates it should be done cautiously. On the other hand, it actively encourages what DexterPointy has done - it specifically says that notifying editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) is appropriate - note: not the same article; the same topic. Notifying the editors who have previously discussed lists of prime ministers with facial hair at AfD is as close to choosing the same topic as you could get. Secondly, regarding the outcomes of those discussions - one closed as delete and the other closed as keep, so there was no hint of favouring one side of the argument or the other. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. It's standard to ping participants of past AfDs of the same article. It is not standard to notify people of a tangential list. The fact that it was clearly done based on an assumption of bad faith on Cunard's part is all the worse (the same assumption you are making now). I hope the closing admin (and those who were canvassed) will recognize that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhododendrites stands correct that allowing similar (vs. previous) discussions to be pinged would be opening the process to incredible bias. Which discussions are really similar? How do we spot if all previous discussions have been covered or just a selection thereof? I hope that this is clear from the guidelines. If it isn't – these should be improved. In the meantime, I would like to ask those who have been canvassed not to add opinions. Whatever their position may be! gidonb (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that Dorsetonian edited his/her comment after I replied to it (see WP:TPOWN), ~~removing the accusation of canvassing directed at Cunard)~~. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was copyediting what I wrote when you replied but felt it important to commit the clarification even after there was an edit conflict to make it clear that the "previous" notifications I first referred to were Cunard's and not DexterPointy's. I should perhaps have let it stand and added a second comment, but as you did the same thing yourself straight afterwards, let's not quibble too much. However, both versions of what I wrote clearly stated that I believe Cunard acted in good faith. I did not "remove the accusation of of canvassing directed at Cunard"; it was explicitly not there from the outset. Check the diff. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dorsetonian: You're right. My apologies. I misread it. Struck. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites - I don't doubt that it has been your experience that pinging participants of previous AfDs for the same article is "standard" but I hope I have opened your eyes to the fact that WP:CANVASS actually suggests caution is needed. Gidonb - you are right, carefully selected "related" topics could introduce significant bias. Read on at WP:CANVASS, though, and it says The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it, which covers that, and it appears clear that DextyPointer has adhered to that. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No partisan notifications has been espoused by my hand. In fact, the pinging I did was not only indiscriminate between keep/delete-votes, but also served to alleviate the systemic bias, which could be perceived by Cunard's ping-scoping to US-only.
Note! I never accused Cunard of anything (my question to Cunard was actually in hope of getting Cunard to do the additional pinging, so that I didn't have to do the work; at worst that makes me lazy, not evil). -- DexterPointy (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from this being trivial and stupid, I'm struggling to find the RS treating this topic per se. The closest I can come are [11][24] and [23] from this version. But [11] is about Congressmen, [24] is from 1896, and in [23] facial hair is one of 59 variables considered in a statistical model for predicting presidential elections, but does not discuss individuals or make any substantive comment on presidents with facial hair. E Eng 23:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this belongs on Wikipedia. It makes for good trivia but not really informative and doesn't appear to have much cultural impact on whether or not a president has a beard. Also as mentioned before Consensus can change and it has been a few years since it was last reviewed. Gameinfirmary (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best this is trivial. Having facial hair is a non-defining characteristic. Right now I have facial hair but shortly it's going to be gone. Regardless of whether or not I have facial hair, I'm the same person. If we're going to have silly articles like this, why not some more, like List of Presidents of the United States with blood or List of Presidents of the United States with toenails. Really, this is more suited to a silly YouTube video. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's unimportant, silly, trivial, etc. is an opinion that isn't a basis for deletion. We defer to external sources to determine what's important. There are many sources which talk about presidential facial hair, hence regardless of whether editors think it's useful or silly or "cruft," it's a notable topic and makes for an acceptable list. So many of the delete !votes don't have a basis in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I think our dozens of lists of Pokemon, wrestlers, Star Wars characters, etc. are entirely useless but these questions aren't up to me -- it's based on what has received coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that a lot of character articles are useless but they do provide useful, encyclopaedic information about the characters. I note that you did not mention the other parts of my rationale i.e. that having facial hair is not defining or the comparison with, say, List of Presidents of the United States with blood or List of Presidents of the United States with toenails. Why should this article exist when they don't (and shouldn't). GNG isn't the be all and end all that some think it is. Just because a topic meets GNG doesn't mean that it should exist. There are plenty of deleted articles that pass GNG, including a couple of "List of <foo> with facial hair", but which were deleted because the existence was contrary to other policies and guidelines. You also need to use a bit of common sense and common sense shows that a list like this should not exist as it serves no useful, encyclopaedic purpose. It's really just a list for list sake. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More a response to several !votes, of which yours was the most recent. But indeed I did leave out the rest. There's no requirement that it be a defining characteristic -- that's from our guideline for the categorization system, not articles themselves. As with anything, we defer to external sources to determine what's important. If you don't think the sources are sufficient to show that it's a notable topic, that's fine, but "common sense" in this case is WP:DONTLIKEIT. We have a huge number of things on notable topics that many people call trivial or silly or useless or whatever but which clearly some people don't think so. Hence why there are sources about those topics (and this one). The debate should only be about the extent to which sources show it's notable. This will be my last reply on the matter, though. I'm far from passionate about this article in particular -- it's just a shame to see it go just because some editors decide it's silly on its face so nevermind the relevant guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're replying to a specific editor, it's not a good idea to lump in replies to other editors as well, as it's confusiing. That said, when I said facial hair isn't defining, I wasn't talking about categorisation. I was speaking more generally, as should have been obvious from my original comment when I pointed out that I had facial hair but it was going to be gone soon. Everyone has facial hair, even women. It's really nothing special and certainly not anything to create an article about. I haven't read through all the references at the article but I imagine there's a lot of speculation in them as to what effect facial hair had on their presidency as it's not really something that can be scientifically measured.

"common sense" in this case is WP:DONTLIKEIT - That's really a cop out and completely wrong. It's not that I don't like the article. As I said, and have tried to explain, it really doesn't have any encyclopaedic value and really falls under trivia. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was this page linked from some other website recently? It looks like there's a spike in pageviews a couple days before the AfD. Just curious. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Effect on voters of the appearance of American presidential candidates and merge Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States there too. Also, mention Kennedy Nixon debates. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep (see below): Thank you, Cunard, for the ping. Although I !voted to delete this article years ago, I think that the repeated nominations weigh heavily against this AfD. There's value to the article, even if it is marginal, and I don't think bringing it here time and again is reasonable. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That it has been nominated so many times only indicates that there are many people who don't think the article belongs in an encyclopaedia. Voting keep just because it has been nominated so many times is really not a convincing reason to keep it. I for one am at a loss as to understand how this article has value? Knowing what we know from this article, what would the effect of Donald Trump growing a beard be? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not much WWGB (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god! It's a completely different person. Let's write an article about it. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CRGreathouse: You're not only committing the logical fallacy of past practice, but also ignoring the deletions of the 3 similar lists (3: Canada, Australia, New Zealand), which all happened much more recently than your delete-vote in 2010. -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DexterPointy: Not only do I not appeal to tradition, I'm an iconoclast -- I prefer to break with tradition when possible, all else equal. But I'm not in favor of this quadruple/quintuple jeopardy, especially considering the considerable improvements to the article since its original AfD. I'm changing my !vote to keep. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable intersection of charaacteristics. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do we have to go through this every year? Czolgolz (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last time this was nominated was three years ago. As others have mentioned, consensus can change and then, for those of us who missed the other discussions, this gives us the opportunity to voice our opinion for the first time. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Presidents of the United States with facial hair" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Book sources

Strock, Ian Randal (2008). The Presidential Book of Lists: From Most to Least, Elected to Rejected, Worst to Cursed-Fascinating Facts About Our Chief Executives. New York: Villard. p. 65. ISBN 0345510429. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The book notes:

Presidents Known for Having Facial Hair

Many men have tried facial hair at some point in their lives; some have found they preferred the look, others did not. The following Presidents' best-known images include facial hair of some type.
Abraham Lincoln (1861–65) is the only President to have worn a beard with no mustache.
Ulysses S. Grant (1869–77), Rutherford B. Hayes (1877–81), James A. Garfield (1881), and Benjamin Harrison (1889–91) all had a full beard and mustache.
Chester A. Arthur (1881–85), Grover Cleveland (1885–89, 1893–97), Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), and William H. Taft (1900–13) all had mustaches but no beards.
Were Presidents fashion trendsetters, or merely trend followers when it came to their facial hair? All of the mustache/beard combinations appeared during one quarter of a century, and all of those with facial hair of any sort were in office during a 52-year span.
Algeo, Matthew (2011). The President Is a Sick Man: Wherein the Supposedly Virtuous Grover Cleveland Survives a Secret Surgery at Sea and Vilifies the Courageous Newspaperman Who Dared Expose the Truth. Chicago: Chicago Review Press. pp. 75–76. ISBN 1569768765. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The book notes:

And then there was the small matter of Cleveland's big moustache. The president undoubtedly insisted it be preserved. Even if he bore no visible scars after the operation, the sudden disappearance of his bushy 'stache would arouse intense curiosity. Indeed, at the time, a clean-shaven president was almost unimaginable. There hadn't been one since Andrew Johnson left office in 1869, nearly twenty-five years earlier.
Except for some outlandish sideburns, such as those worn by John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren, no president sported facial hair until Abraham Lincoln, who, after his election in 1860, grew a beard at the suggestion of an eleven-year-old girl. Thereafter, excepting Johnson and McKinley, every president for the next fifty-two years was bewhiskered: Grant (beard), Hayes (beard), Garfield (beard), Arthur (moustache-meets-sideburns, a style known as the Franz Josef), Cleveland, Harrison (beard), Roosevelt (moustache), and Taft (moustache). Although he grew a beard after his stroke, Wilson never appeared in public with it.
How did facial hair because de rigeur for presidents? In part, the style was borrowed from British aristocrats who, by 1850, regarded shaving as "a most peculiar activity." Beards had come to be regarded as healthy. They were thought to prevent bronchitis, as well as diseases of the throat. Also, during the Civil War, most soldiers had neither the time nor the inclination to shave, and after the war they simply kept their whiskers. By 1870, facial hair had become all the rage. Even Uncle Sam, previously clean shaven, had sprouted a goatee. In a photograph of the Harvard Class of 1870, each and every graduate is sporting a beard, moustache, or some variant. Yale's yearbook even broke down the class by facial hair:
...
Yet, seemingly as quickly as it had become fashionable, facial hair fell out of favor. Since Taft left office in 1913, no president has had any facial hair, and only two major presidential candidates, Republicans Charles Hughes (1916) and Thomas Dewey (1944, 1948), have had any. (Hughes reportedly grew his beard to "save trips to the barber." Dewey wore a pencil-thin moustache that made him look, in the memorable words of one socialite, "like the bridegroom on the wedding cake." Although he was frequently advised to get rid of his 'stache, Dewey refused because he said his wife liked it.")
Peterkin, Allan (2001). One Thousand Beards: A Cultural History of Facial Hair. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press. pp. 36–37. ISBN 1551521075. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The book notes:

Not surprisingly, American presidents followed the fashion of the day despite its being set abroad. Even Uncle Sam had whiskers added to his clean-shaven face in about 1855. In 1860, apparently at the request of a young girl named Grace Bedell, Abraham Lincoln was convinced that his chances in the upcoming presidential election would be enhanced by his wearing a distinguished beard. He promptly did so and won. ...
...
Mutton chops, long dundrearies, and other 'burn variants, as well as fine moustaches, are clearly visible in photographs of men from the north and the south. From that moment on (though a brief moment it was), with the notable exception of Andrew Jackson, all presidents until Benjamin Harrison wore beards. In comparing presidential growths, Ulysses S. Grant had the hairiest cabinet, Rutherford B. Hayes sported the longest beard, and Chester A. Arthur the bushiest whiskers. Later on, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Taft all wore full, authoritative moustaches. Alas, since Taft all U.S. presidents have goven the clean shaven-route. In Canada, many Canadian leaders followed the trends laid down by their American and British cohorots, including 19th-century prime minister Alexander Mackenzie.
Shapiro, Ben (2007). Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson. pp. 163, 167. ISBN 1418537349. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The book notes on page 163:

Before Lincoln, facial hair had been restricted mostly to the over-grown muttonchops of J. Q. Adams, Zachary Taylor, and Martin Van Buren. Lincoln changed all that, ushering American into the "Golden Age of Facial Hair." From Lincoln to William Howard Taft, a span of twelve presidents, only Andrew Johnson and William McKinley were clean-shaven.
The book notes on page 167:
Three beards (Rutherbord B. Hayes, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison), three mustaches (Grover Cleveland, TR, William Howard Taft), and one giant sideburns (Chester Arthur) later, the "Age of the Bankers" began. Woodrow Wilson's election victory in 1912 spelled the end of presidential facial hair; not a single president since has sported a mustache or beard. Part of the transition from hirsute presidents to clean-shaven ones can be explained by changes in technology and fashion. In 1895, the disposable razor blade was invented; in 1901, it was mass-produced; by 1906, hundreds of thousands were bought annually. When the United States entered World War I, the military ordered 3.5 million razors and thirty-six million blades for soldiers.
Lieberson, Stanley (2000). A Matter of Taste: How Names, Fashions, and Culture Change. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. p. 96. ISBN 0300083858. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The book notes:
The presence of some facial hair progresses upward from the beginning of the period, 1840, through the end of the period under study, 1972. American presidents exhibit a similar cycle in facial hair. Not one of the first 15 presidents has either a beard or a mustache. Ten of the next 12 presidents, from Abraham Lincoln through William Howard Taft, have a beard or a mustache or both. And no president since then has had facial hair.

16 newspaper, magazine, and news website sources

Sources
"U.S. Presidents Had Some Hairy Histories". The Wichita Eagle. Associated Press. 1986-08-17. Archived from the original on 2018-08-06. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: John Quincy Adams was the first president to wear facial hair. He had long, curved sideburns, known as muttonchops. Martin Van Buren wore an exaggerated style of side whiskers that framed most of his face. In the same tradition, Zachary Taylor wore long, straight sideburns. Abraham Lincoln had perhaps the most famous presidential beard, the researchers point out. It differed from the others' because he wore it without a mustache. Ulysses Grant was the first president to sport a full beard, and his successor, Rutherford Hayes, also had a full beard, which was longer and bushier. James Garfield wore a beard that was similar to Grant's. Chester Arthur broke away from the bearded look, favoring long sideburns and a mustache. Grover Cleveland wore a stylish mustache that sloped downward and covered his upper lip. Benjamin Harrison's long, shaggy beard was the last one to be seen among American presidents. Theodore Roosevelt and his successor, William Taft, were the only two chief executives since Harrison to wear facial hair. Roosevelt had a mustache that curved down around the side of his mouth. Taft waxed his mustache to curl upward. Hobson, Daniel (2005-04-11). "To shave, or not to shave? Historically, it varies". The Manhattan Mercury. Archived from the original on 2018-08-06. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: During the 19th century, it became acceptable for presidents to sport facial hair. Think Martin Van Buren, the first president with facial hair, and his large mutton-chops. Or Abe Lincoln with his chin curtain. Or Theodore Roosevelt and his big-game-hunting mustache. But after Roosevelt's successor, William Taft, left office in 1912, facial hair was out - at least on the national stage. But local politics doesn't always conform to national political fashions. Whittaker, G. Clay (2013-11-13). "A History of West Wing Whiskers". Men's Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: If you ever wonder when you’ll see another beard in the White House, the best answer you’ll get is in a book. The era of mustachioed statesmen is long gone, according to Dr. Allan Peterkin, Pognologist (beard scholar — yes, that’s a real thing) and author of One Thousand Mustaches: A Cultural History of the Mo. ... Things may change some day, but until they do, take a nostalgic look at presidential facial hair’s golden age. The article discusses John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft. Lee, Christopher (2000-04-03). "Presidential hair a no-no?". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: Consider the numbers: Of the 41 men who have served as president, only nine had facial hair. And it may have brought some of them bad luck: two of the four presidents who were assassinated had beards. The last president to have facial hair took office long before stores started selling disposable razors in the check-out line: William Howard Taft (1909-1913), whose bushy mustache curled up at the ends to give him a walruslike visage. ... One of our most distinguished presidents, Abraham Lincoln (1861-65), was the first to sport facial hair in office. His beard-without-mustache became a signature look of sorts. And Honest Abe's facial hair appeared to spark a trend: Eight of the next 11 presidents wore a beard or a mustache, including Teddy Roosevelt (1901-09). The article further notes: U.S. presidents who had facial hair while in office: B E A R D S Abraham Lincoln, 1861-65 Ulysses S. Grant, 1869-77 Rutherford B. Hayes, 1877-81 James A. Garfield, 1881 Benjamin Harrison, 1889-93 M U S T A C H E S Chester A. Arthur, 1881-85 Grover Cleveland, 1885-89; 1893-97 Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-09 William Howard Taft, 1909-13 "The Official Power Ranking of American Presidential Facial Hair". GQ. 2013-02-13. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: Here’s a fun fact for you: Of the 44 men that have been President since Washington’s 1989 inauguration, only a dozen have ever sported a beard, mustache or other face-follicle configuration while in office. Strange, huh? You’d think that voters would like a guy who could grow a good chin coating. But really, it’s only been twelve guys—there’s even a Wikipedia page to prove it. And so, for your viewing pleasure this President's Day weekend, we’ve put together a worst-to-best breakdown of the few, yet glorious, facial hair styles in two hundred-some-odd years of American presidential history. The article lists Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, William Howard Taft, James A. Garfield, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Chester A. Arthur, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, and Zachary Taylor. Kopf, Dan (2017-02-19). "It's been more than a century since a US president had facial hair". Quartz. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.The article notes: The last time facial hair graced the face of a US president was March 4, 1913. This was the day William Howard Taft and his voluminous mustache were replaced by the clean-shaven Woodrow Wilson in the nation’s highest office. ... Taft was the end of a run of great facial hirsuteness in our nation’s highest office. Abraham Lincoln started the trend in 1861, when he entered office as the first president with a beard or mustache—only sideburns had previously appeared in the White House. From 1861 to 1913, nine of eleven US presidents had facial hair. The following table shows which US presidents had sideburns, beards, and mustaches. If you don’t think sideburns count as facial hair, tell that to John Quincy Adams’ mutton chops. LaBianca, Juliana (2018-02-16). "The Surprising Habit Every President Since 1913 Had in Common". Reader's Digest. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: In fact, no president has sported facial hair in more than a century, when William Howard Taft—and his handlebar mustache—left office in 1913. The clean-shaven look for American leaders dates back to the country’s early days. George Washington and the Founding Fathers all had smooth faces, and it wasn’t until 1825 that John Quincy Adams—who had long sideburns—introduced facial hair to the office. Unfortunately, the whiskered trend didn’t stick until Abraham Lincoln revitalized it during his presidency, starting in 1861. From there, it was mustache mania: Of the 12 presidents in office between Lincoln and Taft, all but two wore either a beard or mustache. Rosenfeld, Laura (2014-11-04). "No-Shave November 2014: Why don't more presidents have facial hair?". Tech Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: While President Obama may be unique in his lack of ability to grow facial hair, he's certainly not alone in bringing a clean-shaven face to the White House. Surprisingly few presidents have had facial hair. Out of 44 presidents, only nine of them have grown beards and mustaches. These hairy men include Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Theodore Roosevelt and William H. Taft. If you want to split hairs, some presidents have also had prominent sideburns, including George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren and Zachary Taylor. "Almanac: Abraham Lincoln's beard". CBS News. 2017-10-15. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: [Abraham] Lincoln took her advice, of course, and statues in Westfield depict the brief meeting he had with her four months later while en route to his inauguration as our first bearded president. Four of his successors -- Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, and Benjamin Harrison -- all had full beards. While Chester Alan Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft all rate honorable mention for sporting mustaches. Rosenthal, Phil (2015-12-03). "Paul Ryan has a beard. Will he ever win another election?". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: Not counting Richard Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow arriving at 3 p.m., there hasn't been presidential facial hair since 1913, following the failure of William Howard Taft and his handlebar mustache to win re-election. Taft's predecessor, Teddy Roosevelt, had a mustache. So did Grover Cleveland and Chester A. Arthur, while Benjamin Harrison, James Garfield, Rutherford B. Hayes, Ulysses S. Grant and, of course, Abraham Lincoln had beards. As fate would have it, Lincoln and Garfield were assassinated. But like Taft, Harrison was not re-elected. Hayes chose not to seek a second term. Cleveland lost his re-election bid but returned to the White House four years later, defeating Harrison. Throw in the bushy sideburns of one-termers Martin Van Buren and John Quincy Adams, and it doesn't speak well for a man with aspirations. Genovese, Peter (2014-03-01). "Best beards ever: Morris Museum exhibit explores fuzzy history of facial hair". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: Abraham Lincoln's beard was more famous, but [associate curator at the Morris Museum] Angela Sergonis' favorite presidential beard belonged to Rutherford B. Hayes. ... Illustrations of 15 presidents with facial hair by artist John Gordon Gauld are also part of the exhibit. Last president to wear facial hair: Howard Taft. Last president with a full beard: Benjamin Harrison. John Quincy Adams, according to Sergonis, sported "awesome" long sideburns or mutton chops. Ghosh, Shubham (2017-01-20). "Donald Trump inauguration: US hasn't seen a president with facial hair for over a century, and there's a reason for that". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: If you follow the over-two-century-old history of the American presidency closely, you will see that the last US president to sport a moustache was William Howard Taft, a Republican who was in power between 1909 and 1913. None of the 17 presidents who ruled in the next 103 years has had facial hair. With America choosing another clean-shaven man as president, the gap is only going to get wider. And if we take into account the last president to have a beard, history dates even further back into the 19th century. Republican Benjamin Harrison (1889-93) was the man. ... Facial hair symbolised strength and dominance and was in vogue during and after the American Civil War in the mid-19th century. Until the trend of sporting facial hair set in with Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, John Quincy Adams was the only president to have it in the 1820s. Petkovic, John (2015-02-13). "The Ohio Presidents: trivia and tidbits on eight Ohioans who made it to the White House (photos)". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: Facial hair might be big among latter-day beardo cults, but you'd be hard-pressed to see a presidential candidate donning even stubble. The last US president to wear facial hair was Ohioan William H. Taft, who had a mustache. Ohio's glorious run of presidents dovetails with the facial-hair era, which began with Abraham Lincoln. There were six Ohio presidents between Lincoln and Taft. Five had facial hair and three had the kind of flowing beards that craft-beer hounds would drool over: Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield and Benjamin Harrison. Williams, Alex (2015-12-16). "Paul Ryan's Beard Triggers a Style Debate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: There was a time when beards were the political mainstream. Starting with Abraham Lincoln in 1861, beards were popular with presidents for a half-century. But no president since William Howard Taft (1909-1913), with his extravagant handlebar, has padded through the White House garden with visible whiskers (unless you count Richard Nixon’s Flintstone-esque five o’clock shadow). Dubin, Murray (1996-10-30). "Plan to Face the Nation? The Advice Is to Shave First in Washington, Hardly Anyone Wins by a Whisker These Days". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2018-08-06. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: The last one seen on Pennsylvania Avenue belonged to Benjamin Harrison, an Ohio Republican and president of the United States from 1889 to 1893. He was not our most distinguished chief executive, but he was the last to have a beard. Since then, chins and cheeks with hair have been an unacceptable face for presidential politics. ... And it is not just beards. The last mustache was on President William Howard Taft, in office from 1909 to 1913. No major party candidate for president has had a beard in recent memory. The last mustache was on the face of Thomas Dewey, defeated by Harry Truman in 1948. Some blamed his lip shrubbery for the loss. Olin, Dirk (1988-10-31). "In Politics, the Mustache Is the Kiss of Death". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-06. Retrieved 2018-08-05. The article notes: It remained for the next election to spawn our patron saint of facial hair. Grace Bedell, a savvy 11-year-old adviser to Abraham Lincoln, provided the seminal inspiration: "All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husbands to vote for you and then you would be President." Even so, Lincoln wisely waited until after the election to sprout his growth. ... The subsequent election of Ulysses Grant ushered in a veritable one-party state. Seven chief executives in a row bore facial hair. And the first smooth-skinner to emerge, William McKinley, was gunned down by an anarchist (read: long-hair), which opened the door to the mustachioed Teddy Roosevelt. Now, unfortunately, the pendulum has swung as far the other way. With the advent of the safety razor and the departure of William Howard Taft, power has come to be projected through an altered symbolism of personal hygiene. Since 1912, the Oval Office has not been gained by anyone bearing so much as mutton chop, goatee or fu man chu. And it's been 40 years since the either party has even nominated a facially hirsute candidate.

Sources

"U.S. Presidents Had Some Hairy Histories". The Wichita Eagle. Associated Press. 1986-08-17. Archived from the original on 2018-08-06. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

John Quincy Adams was the first president to wear facial hair. He had long, curved sideburns, known as muttonchops. Martin Van Buren wore an exaggerated style of side whiskers that framed most of his face. In the same tradition, Zachary Taylor wore long, straight sideburns.
Abraham Lincoln had perhaps the most famous presidential beard, the researchers point out. It differed from the others' because he wore it without a mustache. Ulysses Grant was the first president to sport a full beard, and his successor, Rutherford Hayes, also had a full beard, which was longer and bushier.
James Garfield wore a beard that was similar to Grant's. Chester Arthur broke away from the bearded look, favoring long sideburns and a mustache. Grover Cleveland wore a stylish mustache that sloped downward and covered his upper lip.
Benjamin Harrison's long, shaggy beard was the last one to be seen among American presidents. Theodore Roosevelt and his successor, William Taft, were the only two chief executives since Harrison to wear facial hair. Roosevelt had a mustache that curved down around the side of his mouth. Taft waxed his mustache to curl upward.
Hobson, Daniel (2005-04-11). "To shave, or not to shave? Historically, it varies". The Manhattan Mercury. Archived from the original on 2018-08-06. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

During the 19th century, it became acceptable for presidents to sport facial hair. Think Martin Van Buren, the first president with facial hair, and his large mutton-chops. Or Abe Lincoln with his chin curtain. Or Theodore Roosevelt and his big-game-hunting mustache.
But after Roosevelt's successor, William Taft, left office in 1912, facial hair was out - at least on the national stage. But local politics doesn't always conform to national political fashions.
Whittaker, G. Clay (2013-11-13). "A History of West Wing Whiskers". Men's Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

If you ever wonder when you’ll see another beard in the White House, the best answer you’ll get is in a book. The era of mustachioed statesmen is long gone, according to Dr. Allan Peterkin, Pognologist (beard scholar — yes, that’s a real thing) and author of One Thousand Mustaches: A Cultural History of the Mo.
...
Things may change some day, but until they do, take a nostalgic look at presidential facial hair’s golden age.
The article discusses John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft.
Lee, Christopher (2000-04-03). "Presidential hair a no-no?". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:
Consider the numbers: Of the 41 men who have served as president, only nine had facial hair. And it may have brought some of them bad luck: two of the four presidents who were assassinated had beards.
The last president to have facial hair took office long before stores started selling disposable razors in the check-out line: William Howard Taft (1909-1913), whose bushy mustache curled up at the ends to give him a walruslike visage.
...
One of our most distinguished presidents, Abraham Lincoln (1861-65), was the first to sport facial hair in office. His beard-without-mustache became a signature look of sorts.
And Honest Abe's facial hair appeared to spark a trend: Eight of the next 11 presidents wore a beard or a mustache, including Teddy Roosevelt (1901-09).
The article further notes:
U.S. presidents who had facial hair while in office:

B E A R D S
Abraham Lincoln, 1861-65
Ulysses S. Grant, 1869-77
Rutherford B. Hayes, 1877-81
James A. Garfield, 1881
Benjamin Harrison, 1889-93

M U S T A C H E S

Chester A. Arthur, 1881-85
Grover Cleveland, 1885-89; 1893-97
Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-09
William Howard Taft, 1909-13
"The Official Power Ranking of American Presidential Facial Hair". GQ. 2013-02-13. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

Here’s a fun fact for you: Of the 44 men that have been President since Washington’s 1989 inauguration, only a dozen have ever sported a beard, mustache or other face-follicle configuration while in office. Strange, huh? You’d think that voters would like a guy who could grow a good chin coating. But really, it’s only been twelve guys—there’s even a Wikipedia page to prove it. And so, for your viewing pleasure this President's Day weekend, we’ve put together a worst-to-best breakdown of the few, yet glorious, facial hair styles in two hundred-some-odd years of American presidential history.
The article lists Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, William Howard Taft, James A. Garfield, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Chester A. Arthur, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, and Zachary Taylor.
Kopf, Dan (2017-02-19). "It's been more than a century since a US president had facial hair". Quartz. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.The article notes:
The last time facial hair graced the face of a US president was March 4, 1913. This was the day William Howard Taft and his voluminous mustache were replaced by the clean-shaven Woodrow Wilson in the nation’s highest office.
...
Taft was the end of a run of great facial hirsuteness in our nation’s highest office. Abraham Lincoln started the trend in 1861, when he entered office as the first president with a beard or mustache—only sideburns had previously appeared in the White House. From 1861 to 1913, nine of eleven US presidents had facial hair.
The following table shows which US presidents had sideburns, beards, and mustaches. If you don’t think sideburns count as facial hair, tell that to John Quincy Adams’ mutton chops.
LaBianca, Juliana (2018-02-16). "The Surprising Habit Every President Since 1913 Had in Common". Reader's Digest. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

In fact, no president has sported facial hair in more than a century, when William Howard Taft—and his handlebar mustache—left office in 1913.
The clean-shaven look for American leaders dates back to the country’s early days. George Washington and the Founding Fathers all had smooth faces, and it wasn’t until 1825 that John Quincy Adams—who had long sideburns—introduced facial hair to the office.
Unfortunately, the whiskered trend didn’t stick until Abraham Lincoln revitalized it during his presidency, starting in 1861. From there, it was mustache mania: Of the 12 presidents in office between Lincoln and Taft, all but two wore either a beard or mustache.
Rosenfeld, Laura (2014-11-04). "No-Shave November 2014: Why don't more presidents have facial hair?". Tech Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

While President Obama may be unique in his lack of ability to grow facial hair, he's certainly not alone in bringing a clean-shaven face to the White House. Surprisingly few presidents have had facial hair. Out of 44 presidents, only nine of them have grown beards and mustaches. These hairy men include Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Theodore Roosevelt and William H. Taft. If you want to split hairs, some presidents have also had prominent sideburns, including George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren and Zachary Taylor.
"Almanac: Abraham Lincoln's beard". CBS News. 2017-10-15. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

[Abraham] Lincoln took her advice, of course, and statues in Westfield depict the brief meeting he had with her four months later while en route to his inauguration as our first bearded president.
Four of his successors -- Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, and Benjamin Harrison -- all had full beards.
While Chester Alan Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft all rate honorable mention for sporting mustaches.
Rosenthal, Phil (2015-12-03). "Paul Ryan has a beard. Will he ever win another election?". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

Not counting Richard Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow arriving at 3 p.m., there hasn't been presidential facial hair since 1913, following the failure of William Howard Taft and his handlebar mustache to win re-election.
Taft's predecessor, Teddy Roosevelt, had a mustache. So did Grover Cleveland and Chester A. Arthur, while Benjamin Harrison, James Garfield, Rutherford B. Hayes, Ulysses S. Grant and, of course, Abraham Lincoln had beards.
As fate would have it, Lincoln and Garfield were assassinated. But like Taft, Harrison was not re-elected. Hayes chose not to seek a second term. Cleveland lost his re-election bid but returned to the White House four years later, defeating Harrison.
Throw in the bushy sideburns of one-termers Martin Van Buren and John Quincy Adams, and it doesn't speak well for a man with aspirations.
Genovese, Peter (2014-03-01). "Best beards ever: Morris Museum exhibit explores fuzzy history of facial hair". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

Abraham Lincoln's beard was more famous, but [associate curator at the Morris Museum] Angela Sergonis' favorite presidential beard belonged to Rutherford B. Hayes.
...
Illustrations of 15 presidents with facial hair by artist John Gordon Gauld are also part of the exhibit. Last president to wear facial hair: Howard Taft. Last president with a full beard: Benjamin Harrison.
John Quincy Adams, according to Sergonis, sported "awesome" long sideburns or mutton chops.
Ghosh, Shubham (2017-01-20). "Donald Trump inauguration: US hasn't seen a president with facial hair for over a century, and there's a reason for that". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

If you follow the over-two-century-old history of the American presidency closely, you will see that the last US president to sport a moustache was William Howard Taft, a Republican who was in power between 1909 and 1913. None of the 17 presidents who ruled in the next 103 years has had facial hair.
With America choosing another clean-shaven man as president, the gap is only going to get wider. And if we take into account the last president to have a beard, history dates even further back into the 19th century. Republican Benjamin Harrison (1889-93) was the man.
...
Facial hair symbolised strength and dominance and was in vogue during and after the American Civil War in the mid-19th century. Until the trend of sporting facial hair set in with Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, John Quincy Adams was the only president to have it in the 1820s.
Petkovic, John (2015-02-13). "The Ohio Presidents: trivia and tidbits on eight Ohioans who made it to the White House (photos)". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

Facial hair might be big among latter-day beardo cults, but you'd be hard-pressed to see a presidential candidate donning even stubble. The last US president to wear facial hair was Ohioan William H. Taft, who had a mustache. Ohio's glorious run of presidents dovetails with the facial-hair era, which began with Abraham Lincoln. There were six Ohio presidents between Lincoln and Taft. Five had facial hair and three had the kind of flowing beards that craft-beer hounds would drool over: Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield and Benjamin Harrison.
Williams, Alex (2015-12-16). "Paul Ryan's Beard Triggers a Style Debate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-05. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

There was a time when beards were the political mainstream. Starting with Abraham Lincoln in 1861, beards were popular with presidents for a half-century. But no president since William Howard Taft (1909-1913), with his extravagant handlebar, has padded through the White House garden with visible whiskers (unless you count Richard Nixon’s Flintstone-esque five o’clock shadow).
Dubin, Murray (1996-10-30). "Plan to Face the Nation? The Advice Is to Shave First in Washington, Hardly Anyone Wins by a Whisker These Days". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2018-08-06. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

The last one seen on Pennsylvania Avenue belonged to Benjamin Harrison, an Ohio Republican and president of the United States from 1889 to 1893.
He was not our most distinguished chief executive, but he was the last to have a beard. Since then, chins and cheeks with hair have been an unacceptable face for presidential politics.
...
And it is not just beards. The last mustache was on President William Howard Taft, in office from 1909 to 1913. No major party candidate for president has had a beard in recent memory. The last mustache was on the face of Thomas Dewey, defeated by Harry Truman in 1948. Some blamed his lip shrubbery for the loss.
Olin, Dirk (1988-10-31). "In Politics, the Mustache Is the Kiss of Death". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-06. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
The article notes:

It remained for the next election to spawn our patron saint of facial hair. Grace Bedell, a savvy 11-year-old adviser to Abraham Lincoln, provided the seminal inspiration: "All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husbands to vote for you and then you would be President." Even so, Lincoln wisely waited until after the election to sprout his growth.
...
The subsequent election of Ulysses Grant ushered in a veritable one-party state. Seven chief executives in a row bore facial hair. And the first smooth-skinner to emerge, William McKinley, was gunned down by an anarchist (read: long-hair), which opened the door to the mustachioed Teddy Roosevelt.
Now, unfortunately, the pendulum has swung as far the other way. With the advent of the safety razor and the departure of William Howard Taft, power has come to be projected through an altered symbolism of personal hygiene. Since 1912, the Oval Office has not been gained by anyone bearing so much as mutton chop, goatee or fu man chu. And it's been 40 years since the either party has even nominated a facially hirsute candidate.

The AfD close for List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure

The closing admin in the September 2010 AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure wrote:

The result was keep. Col. Warden has provided multiple sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic. For the most part, the "delete" !votes are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT: merely calling it "unencyclopedic trivia" does not make it so, as long as it is substantiated in reliable sources. No policy/guideline says that topics deemed subjectively by Wikipedians to be trivia are inherently non-notable; WP:TRIVIA refers to "Trivia" sections in articles and does not apply here. I understand that a lot of people are wondering, What does facial hair have anything to do with a president? I know I would too. But the simple undisputable fact is that the sources are there. The other ridiculous titles provided by the "delete" !voters are simply examples of WP:WAX and straw man argument; the difference between those and this article is that this article has significant coverage in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I quote this here to emphasize that WP:TRIVIA does not apply to this article and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:WAX are not policy-based reasons for deletion.

Since 2010, even more sources have covered the topic of "Presidents of the United States with facial hair" as a group.

General notability guideline

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If WP:IDONTLIKEIT were a valid reason to !vote "delete", my !vote would be delete... because I think the concept is silly. But there's no question that the issue of facial hair for U.S. presidents has been the subject of published material in multiple reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I said above that I favor deletion, and not on the basis of "I don't like it", but I recognize that it may not be the consensus here. What concerns me is that: (1) treating it in list form fails to match the page content to what is notable, (2) that what does seem to be notable and encyclopedic is the history of how facial hair has been viewed as part of the political process, (3) that simply as a list, we already have images showing facial hair or the lack thereof at List of Presidents of the United States, which means that readers get zero additional information from having this additional list, (4) that when taken only as a list page, the facial hair characteristic is a trivial one, (5) that consequently, it makes much better sense to treat this subject via a regular (non-list) page, and (6) that once doing that, there is no good reason to restrict the topic only to Presidents. So, in the event that the consensus is not to delete, I strongly recommend that the page be moved to something like Facial hair in American politics, with the page subject substantially expanded to include its history for all US political positions over time (not just successful Presidential candidates), and treated in non-list form. I also believe that such an outcome would be consistent with the discussion so far, in that it would be consistent with all the arguments for deletion, and has not been rejected in any of the arguments for keeping. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Tryptofish and to an extent TJRC immediately above. I think this is a notable topic based on the number of reliable sources which discuss it, even if it does seem a bit silly. The list format it takes isn't really discussed by the sources, but it's clearly notable. I don't know what a good move candidate would be, keeping the list inline, but a) this should not be deleted since it passes WP:GNG generally and b) it may be presented better in something other than a list format. SportingFlyer talk 00:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Often-discussed topic in reliable sources. Well written intro and presented list. Articles about men's facial hair are numerous on Wikipedia, so are presidential topics, it's not a trivial or random thematic combination (Washington Post) to discuss Presidents and beards. The article had 2500 views in a single day, recently prior to the AfD. The article is linked to by the Press see [25] by National Constitution Center in Yahoo! News. -- GreenC 03:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Facial hair of presidents has been covered often in notable sources.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came here expecting to vote delete, because I personally believe that this subject is trivial and useless. However, after looking at the article, I was quite impressed by the number and quality of sources, and the fact that the main topic of many of these sources is in fact the facial hair of US presidents. These sources would seem to demonstrate the notability of the topic. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 10:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy side-discussion growing out of sock comment.
~~DELETE~~ Is this a churnalism pop magazine, or is it Wikipedia? If this is Wikipedia, is it the US Wikipedia or the global Wikipeida written in English? I find it extremely disgusting to see American excepionalism running rampant behind a thin veil of sorry wiki excuses for ignoring the purpose of Wikipeida. Pladderballe (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Was about to do a WP:DENY revert here, but figured I'd abstain since I've participated in this discussion. This user has 16 edits comprising edit warring with Tyw7 at brownie points, responses to being blocked for it, and this -- presumably found via Tyw7's contribs. If anyone does rv, feel free to remove this message, too. — `Rhododendrites ^talk` \\ 20:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] No, don't do it, anyone. There is actually a valid point about American exceptionalism amid the rest of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] ?? That you agree with one of the points does not make it a good faith !vote and does not provide any indication it has any basis in understanding of our policies and guidelines. But I guess I'll respond to the underlying point, which I do not believe is a good point at all. In what way are those of us !voting to keep examples of disgusting American exceptionalism? Systemic bias is something to be aware of and to correct whenever possible -- not by throwing our guidelines out the window, not by deleting those articles on US (or NA or EU) articles, but by improving the coverage of other topics. Ultimately Wikipedia is based on existing publishing infrastructures/industries, and will reflect where those industries are biggest/most active. If, on the other hand, this is not about discrepancies in sourcing but specifically about the prime minister lists that were deleted, I cannot comment too much as I was not part of those AfDs and never even saw the articles, so have not had any cause to analyze the sources. If the sourcing was equivalent, then they should not have been deleted, and your issue is not with participants of this AfD but with that one (or with anyone who held them to a different standard -- but that should be called out specifically, not with broad strokes). That they were deleted doesn't mean those !voting to keep are examples of American exceptionalism -- it just means we see this article and evaluated this article in a way you disagree with. — `Rhododendrites ^talk` \\ 21:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Please don't personalize this so much. If it's bad faith, the closing admin will evaluate it accordingly. My reasoning is that facial hair (without the context that is lacking in a list) is a trivial characteristic that should not be given more weight because these were Presidents of the US as opposed to heads of state of a smaller nation, and I personally am not basing that on any other AfDs. (And I certainly do not think that you are disgusting!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] should not be given more weight because these were Presidents of the US - Could you point to where someone is doing this? You have not directed this at anyone, but someone must be doing this in order to make this something other than a straw man. If it's just a general point of wanting to delete something just because the only instance we have is US-specific, I defer to what I wrote above. If there are more sources about one topic than another, we often have a topic on that topic and not the other, even if they're country-specific. We don't create equivalent articles just to keep things even, but we do try our best to do so by finding sufficient sources (again, if those exist, the other articles shouldn't have been deleted, and we don't delete another article just to keep things even). If more people have written about US Presidents with facial hair than have written about leaders of another country, that's not American exceptionalism except insofar that all of Wikipedia necessarily reflects the biases of people who publish about such things. As with anything, we defer to what reliable sources say to determine what's important and what's trivial rather than what a small subset of Wikipedians says is important or trivial. If people don't think the sources are sufficient to make it notable, that's fine, but I don't think it's appropriate to say it should be deleted because we only have one on US Presidents. Create one on another head of state if sources exist. I'm sure there are aspects of heads of state in many other nations that there would not be sourcing about in the US, even. Ah well, I'm typing more than I wanted to, again. I find this AfD disappointing, but I'm not actually that attached to this article, so lest I fall into a pit of "someone is wrong on the Internet", I will take my leave again. PS: Though I know you were not really implying that I am disgusting, I'm glad for the reassurance, since a relative used just that word about me recently when I brought over some durian for them to try. :) — `Rhododendrites ^talk` \\ 22:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] I think it's time to drop this part of the discussion. It's a lot of words following a comment you were thinking of reverting. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy side-discussion growing out of sock comment.

~~DELETE~~

Is this a churnalism pop magazine, or is it Wikipedia?

If this is Wikipedia, is it the US Wikipedia or the global Wikipeida written in English?

I find it extremely disgusting to see American excepionalism running rampant behind a thin veil of sorry wiki excuses for ignoring the purpose of Wikipeida.

Pladderballe (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to do a WP:DENY revert here, but figured I'd abstain since I've participated in this discussion. This user has 16 edits comprising edit warring with Tyw7 at brownie points, responses to being blocked for it, and this -- presumably found via Tyw7's contribs. If anyone does rv, feel free to remove this message, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't do it, anyone. There is actually a valid point about American exceptionalism amid the rest of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?? That you agree with one of the points does not make it a good faith !vote and does not provide any indication it has any basis in understanding of our policies and guidelines.

But I guess I'll respond to the underlying point, which I do not believe is a good point at all. In what way are those of us !voting to keep examples of disgusting American exceptionalism?

Systemic bias is something to be aware of and to correct whenever possible -- not by throwing our guidelines out the window, not by deleting those articles on US (or NA or EU) articles, but by improving the coverage of other topics. Ultimately Wikipedia is based on existing publishing infrastructures/industries, and will reflect where those industries are biggest/most active. If, on the other hand, this is not about discrepancies in sourcing but specifically about the prime minister lists that were deleted, I cannot comment too much as I was not part of those AfDs and never even saw the articles, so have not had any cause to analyze the sources. If the sourcing was equivalent, then they should not have been deleted, and your issue is not with participants of this AfD but with that one (or with anyone who held them to a different standard -- but that should be called out specifically, not with broad strokes). That they were deleted doesn't mean those !voting to keep are examples of American exceptionalism -- it just means we see this article and evaluated this article in a way you disagree with. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't personalize this so much. If it's bad faith, the closing admin will evaluate it accordingly. My reasoning is that facial hair (without the context that is lacking in a list) is a trivial characteristic that should not be given more weight because these were Presidents of the US as opposed to heads of state of a smaller nation, and I personally am not basing that on any other AfDs. (And I certainly do not think that you are disgusting!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

should not be given more weight because these were Presidents of the US - Could you point to where someone is doing this? You have not directed this at anyone, but someone must be doing this in order to make this something other than a straw man. If it's just a general point of wanting to delete something just because the only instance we have is US-specific, I defer to what I wrote above. If there are more sources about one topic than another, we often have a topic on that topic and not the other, even if they're country-specific. We don't create equivalent articles just to keep things even, but we do try our best to do so by finding sufficient sources (again, if those exist, the other articles shouldn't have been deleted, and we don't delete another article just to keep things even). If more people have written about US Presidents with facial hair than have written about leaders of another country, that's not American exceptionalism except insofar that all of Wikipedia necessarily reflects the biases of people who publish about such things. As with anything, we defer to what reliable sources say to determine what's important and what's trivial rather than what a small subset of Wikipedians says is important or trivial. If people don't think the sources are sufficient to make it notable, that's fine, but I don't think it's appropriate to say it should be deleted because we only have one on US Presidents. Create one on another head of state if sources exist. I'm sure there are aspects of heads of state in many other nations that there would not be sourcing about in the US, even. Ah well, I'm typing more than I wanted to, again. I find this AfD disappointing, but I'm not actually that attached to this article, so lest I fall into a pit of "someone is wrong on the Internet", I will take my leave again. PS: Though I know you were not really implying that I am disgusting, I'm glad for the reassurance, since a relative used just that word about me recently when I brought over some durian for them to try. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to drop this part of the discussion. It's a lot of words following a comment you were thinking of reverting. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The decision to have or not have facial hair is trivial, and con be multiple times reversed in life time. This is also as has been said by others the type of list that needlessly adds to the Amerio=centricism of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-WTF? Common sense and all....Trivia......Bearcat, Tryptofish et al∯WBG^converse 11:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tryptofish. AIRcorn (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Odd subject matter, but appears to meet WP:GNG and some !votes appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is a bad reason. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned above meeting GNG is usually the minimum requirement to keeping an article, not a requirement to keep an article. We also have WP:NOT, which helps us keep everything encyclopedic. Supporting this view not IDON'TLIKEIT. AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At first glance, I as more in line with the keeps thinking there were plenty of sources. However, the more I dug, the more unconvinced I was. Almost all of them really don't contribute to GNG very strongly either not being the direct focus of sources or honestly getting into local newspaper WP:FART territory. I'd agree with Tryptofish and others than one could maybe make a case for a main article on politics and facial hair, but not a list of presidents specifically. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : A typical Wikipedia list of the haphazard variety, without any encyclopaedic purpose whatsoever. The lengthy citations about presidents with facial hair do not sum up to notability for the article's subject. Multiple articles about a blonde actress or about a bunch of blonde actresses do not amount to notability of the set "blonde actresses." Willing to reconsider my suggestion if someone posts up a List of Presidents of the United States with Toupees. Or the list of Naturally Blonde Actresses. -The Gnome (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:NOT:
Some editors have cited Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as a reason for deletion. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does not support deletion of this article. I have gone through each section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content to explain why it does not support deletion:
1. Wikipedia is not a dictionary – this article is not a dictionary entry. It is a list.
2. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought – this article is not original research because numerous reliable sources have covered the topic and this article is based on those reliable sources.
3. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion – this section says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." This article is not a soapboax. This article is not a battleground. This article is not an advertisement.
4. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files – this article is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.
5. Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site – this article is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site.
6. Wikipedia is not a directory – this article is not a directory.
7. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal – this article is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.
8. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball – this article is not attempting to predict the future.
9. Wikipedia is not a newspaper – this article is not about news events. The sources are over a period of decades.
10. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information – this section says the following are prohibited: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is not a "summary-only description of works". This article is not a "lyrics database". This article is not "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" because it is not about statistics. This article is not about "Exhaustive logs of software updates". WP:INDISCRIMINATE therefore cannot be used to support deletion of this article.
11. Wikipedia is not censored – that Wikipedia is not censored does not support deletion of this article.
The lead of the Wikipedia:Notability guideline says:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
This article passes the general notability guideline since multiple book sources as well as newspaper and magazine articles discuss "Presidents of the United States with facial hair" as a set. This article is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. There therefore is no policy-based reason for deletion, so the article should be retained.

Regarding Americentrism:

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a policy-based reason for deletion. If "leaders of [a non-American country] with facial hair" has been discussed as a set, then a list would be permissible under Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. That such coverage may not exist for other countries' leaders does not mean the United States page now should be deleted.

Regarding reversibility of facial hair throughout one's lifetime
The article defines the inclusion criterion as presidents "wore either beards or mustaches during their tenure in office". This is consistent with the sources, which discuss presidents' facial hair during their tenure in office. That facial hair can be reversed is not a policy-based reason for deletion.

Regarding the sources

Some comments have said that the sources do not directly focus on the subject. Many sources I posted have as their main topic facial hair in presidents. Of those that do not, Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Other concerns are that the sources should be discarded because they are local or gossip sources. This is not true for these three book sources for example:
1. Strock, Ian Randal (2008). The Presidential Book of Lists: From Most to Least, Elected to Rejected, Worst to Cursed-Fascinating Facts About Our Chief Executives. New York: Villard. p. 65. ISBN 0345510429. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
2. Algeo, Matthew (2011). The President Is a Sick Man: Wherein the Supposedly Virtuous Grover Cleveland Survives a Secret Surgery at Sea and Vilifies the Courageous Newspaperman Who Dared Expose the Truth. Chicago: Chicago Review Press. pp. 75–76. ISBN 1569768765. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
3. Peterkin, Allan (2001). One Thousand Beards: A Cultural History of Facial Hair. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press. pp. 36–37. ISBN 1551521075. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
Quotes from these book sources and other sources here.

Regarding creation of a "Facial hair in American politics" article:
A "facial hair in American politics" article would comply with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because numerous sources have discussed the subject. Such an article would be complementary to this "List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair" article. That another article can be created is not a valid reason for deletion of this one. Content decisions about whether to create a new article so this one can be merged into the new article are not for AfD to decide. I would not object to having a facial hair in American politics#List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair section.
Cunard (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
^WP:Fillibuster, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 11 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. So Why 15:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solaiman Shukhon[edit]

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

Sources do not indicate notability . Most of the sources are his self written blogs, websites of organisation he worked and rests are interview in media, where he talks about himself, not acceptable for indicating notability. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: -It's true that Sources do not indicate notability but there'll be more sources which can make him notable. If not, article can be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.32.240 (talk • contribs)

Comment - These are just some passing mentions about him. No significant, independent and reliable coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG; doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or any more specific notability criteria so far as I can tell either. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:59, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inste Bible College[edit]

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

No independent sources linked, and I have been unable to find any. No evidence of notability. Tacyarg (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional puff piece for an unaccredited school. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)j[reply]
Delete Search finds no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Obvious WP:PROMO created by SPA. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TNT promotional expansion of the About Us section. [26] Per the about us section - state licensure - "INSTE Global Bible College is authorized by Iowa College Student Aid Commission (Iowa College Aid) to operate in Iowa as a non-degree specialty vocational training program." and so it needs to fulfill WP:ORGCRIT rather than WP:NSCHOOL As it is affiliated with Open Bible Standard Churches "The college is affiliated with the Department of Global Missions of Open Bible Churches as an institution of Christian higher education." you could create a redirect to Open Bible Churches there afterwards. And it should be INSTE Bible College not Inste Bible College. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:08, 5 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 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. A hatnote can handle the other subject if needed. So Why 15:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ICZN[edit]

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

Redirect disambiguation page to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. The other listed target is International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the publisher of the code, and not notable for anything else. Any time readers encounter "ICZN" in the wild it will usually be for the code. Even in internal discussions, any attempt to lazy-link [[ICZN]] is usually in reference to the code, not its publisher. Disambiguation can be done with ((about|the standard referred to as ''ICZN''|its publisher|International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)). The organization is also already mentioned in the second sentence of the code article's lead. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life has been notified of this discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - So related that a hatnote is indeed best, —Paleo Neonate – 23:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish and PaleoNeonate: Moved this here from MfD; AfD is the proper venue to nominate disambiguation pages for deletion, see WP:Deletion venue. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Code appears the primary topic for "ICZN", so ICZN should redirect to the Code with a hatnote to the Commission as above. PamD 08:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions, the list of Animal-related deletion discussions, and the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak to moderate Redirect - the Code has about 5x the daily page views, and about 1.5x the number of inbound links. A quick sample of those inbound links show that most are legitimate, though include a few links from footnote refs. The current links to ICZN from talk pages and the like show a mix of references to both the code and the commission (or sometimes the true target isn't clear.) I worry the link differential, which was one of SMC's primary reasons for the change, isn't enough to support making one the "primary" topic, but combined with the page views and the above opinion of those more versed in biology than I, I can support the redirect. MarginalCost (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Here, it's clear that "ICZN" most often refers to the Code rather than the Commission. It is important to be aware, though, that the Commission always uses "ICZN" to refer to itself, not the Code (see, as just one example, [27]). The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature article is completely inconsistent, using "ICZN" to refer to the Code in some places and the Commission in others, particularly in the references. For these reasons, I would prefer to keep ICZN as a disambiguation page. If the change is made, then the introduction to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature should make clear the Commission's usage, and the article should be fixed to use the initialism consistently. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Gorthian (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom's proposal to use a hatnote for this WP:2DABS page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:09, 6 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makarii Marchenko[edit]

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

Non-notable figure associated with a better known bishop. Seems to have been eccentric, but no biographical details (birth or death dates) or other evidence of notability in his own right. Park3r (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 23 July 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?} 14:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a minor perhaps somewhat comical historical figure but he is chronicled in many reliable sources books and not being the main subject but still covered passes WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 3 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. Nomination withdrawn, meets WP:NPROF(non-admin closure) Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tressie McMillan Cottom[edit]

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

no indication this person meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF John from Idegon (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep - There is a long list of citations that are independent of the author herself. she has been interviewed by Trevor Noah, she has done a TED talk, she has a significant position in the American Sociological Association, has been interviewed by NPR, and The New York Times, The Harvard Review, Mother Jones, Inside Higher Ed. cbratbyrudd ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:53, 2 august 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like she meets WP:NPROF criteria #7 - the references provided demonstrate that she is "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - per PohranicniStraze John from Idegon (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with PohranicniStraze and cbratbyrudd. She is certainly notable!! Jesswade88 (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cbratbyrudd, article uses many reliable sources, including the New York Times and NPR. Appears to meet GNG. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strongly agree with cbratbyrudd. Megs (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a prominent academic and public figure. Certainly meets notability standards. Amyc29 (talk) 02:18, 4 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. Before renominating, consider redirecting to one of the lists it appears on per WP:ATD-R. So Why 15:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dechert[edit]

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

Current references are largely not WP:INDEPENDENT or are only fleeting in character. A BEFORE search finds a plethora of references, however, all seem to be WP:ROUTINE for law firms such as elevation of associates to partners, cursory inclusion in stories noting it is the counsel for a litigant, or press releases. Chetsford (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I removed a lot of promotional info and a self-serving award section, which took with it almost all of the references. This article has been around for 12 years - yet nobody saw any interest in adding any reliable sources. There are some - you have to Google "Dechert lawsuit" versus just Dechert. They've been hit over the years and recently with multiple lawsuits by people they fired or who otherwise had issues with the firm. I think with the size of the firm (928 attorneys and 35th largest in the US [[28]]), the notable alumni and the moderate sourcing I can Google (which isn't yet in the article), this just squeaks by. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I saw the reporting on lawsuits they've received I'd characterize any non-precedent establishing court case against a mid-to-large sized company as WP:ROUTINE. Companies are sued daily for various employee grievances and all the coverage of those Dechert occasionally gets are limited to specialty media like Law.com and Above the Law. They're not exactly making the front page of the Washington Post and they're not breaking ground on new case law. Being the "35th largest in X country" at anything doesn't exactly plus me. And, having notable former employees does not infer notability per WP:INHERITED. Chetsford (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's weak versus normal. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. Chetsford (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Doesn't meet notability criteria as per WP:ORGCRITE. Simply existing doesn't make it notable and coverage appears to be routine. Wikipedia isn't a PR website.CoronaryKea (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A large law firm with international presence [29][30] should be notable. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep - Firm is on the lists of World's largest law firms by revenue and largest U.S. law firms by profits-per-partner; the other firms on both lists (including those with much lower rankings) have pages with similar content and are not targeted for deletion. Msclguru (talk)

the other firms on both lists ... have pages with similar content and are not targeted for deletion Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the fact that we have inappropriate content in one section of WP isn't reason to include it across WP. If you can provide the names of the other two law firms on both lists I'll be happy to tag them for deletion, though. Chetsford (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:13, 3 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 Crystal Gayle albums discography. Since all information is already in the list, a merge seems unnecessary. If something is indeed missing, it can be merged from the history. So Why 15:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best Always[edit]

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

Non-notable, title is also ambiguous given that there are other equally non-notable records by this name (e.g. [31]) Could not find reliable sourced coverage. Only mentions I am able to find are in record guides/databases. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crystal Gayle albums discography. This one was released during a down period in her career, between her initial stardom and more recent comeback. It seems to have been ignored by the music press at the time and I can find no reliable reviews or media notices. Redirecting to her discog will preserve the content if anyone can dig up useful additions in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Crystal Gayle albums discography. Many artistes do not have separate articles on albums and singles in their discography articles, making one wonder what the album article is for - presumably, it is for redirects from articles such as this one. Vorbee (talk) 08:01, 3 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. So Why 15:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamuna Boro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jamuna Boro

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

Does not comply BLP or WP:GNG. Run off the mill BLP. Moreover, by-passed AfC submission which was previously declined due to same reasons as patroller stated on the page. EROS ^message 04:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with in-depth coverage from several reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Does not pass WP:NBOX or WP:GNG.PRehse (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read all the article,it doesn't pass(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the current sources are not reliable or are routine sports coverage, but subject passes WP:GNG based on the Telegraph article and a BBC Hindi article [32] (from which the Magical Assam ref content is apparently derived). Bakazaka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify

Source	Analysis	Suitable
[33]	Clickbait article by digital marketer	No
[34]	Promotional article	No
[35]	Newspaper article	Yes
[https://www.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/world-youth-boxing-championships-jamuna-boro-in-prequarters/article5920051.ece#	The Hindu article]	Yes, but it is incorrectly cited

This should have never been accepted from AFC. » Shadowowl | talk 15:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added BBC News ref to article, which brings number of reliable independent sources with significant coverage of subject to three, going by the above count. Bakazaka (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has reliable sources, particularly The Telegraph and the BBC news refs, that significantly cover the topic. Passes WP:GNG.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 00:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 49.148.186.251 (talk)
Keep since meeting the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete-Routine media-buzz, when someone from remote communities make it big.Fails NSPORTS and that is what matters.Also, fails GNG (Three news articles does not make-th it, for then we have to invoke BLP1E).∯WBG^converse 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in different years and different sources are about different events, so it might be helpful to specify which WP:BLP1E criterion applies. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 8 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. So Why 15:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sidd Chaudhuri (basketball)[edit]

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

Non notable high school basketball player. Doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NHSPHSATH The-Pope (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, not a top 5 recruit. Will likely play in college, but can be created at that time if GNG is met. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Not notable yet. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:NHOOPS and the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. This kid is not Josh Green. Someone needs to stop pretending he is. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:36, 11 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. So Why 15:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by genital modification and mutilation[edit]

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

Apparently POV fork of several articles, including Prevalence of circumcision. Possibly also a case of OR. The "male" column is entirely based on a study on male circumcision. It does therefore not account for genital modifications as described in the main article. This makes the title defective in relation to the contents. Also, male circumcision is in some cases a medial procedure/treatment or a religious rite. The article appears to connect this with "mutilation" which is not generally an accepted view, see Circumcision controversies _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine criticisms, Jake Brockman. Good reasons to improve it, not delete it, though. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will never find reliable data on any other genital modifications besides circumcision (for the male). Therefore this list will always be disconnected from the title. It could be renamed to something like "List of countries by circumcision rate" but then this would duplicate existing articles. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your speculation, Jake Brockman. The title used is directly lifted out of the related WP article: Genital modification and mutilation. Please refer to WP:DEL-REASON for valid reasons for deletion. And as for "appearing to connect circumcision to mutilation", please see Genital modification and mutilation#Circumcision. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitably OR and unencyclopedic list. Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate, Stifle? Are you saying the following WP articles are also "unencyclopedic"?

— WisdomTooth3 (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Talk:List of countries by genital modification and mutilation#Data issues for a conversation about data/presentation issues. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 00:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An incomplete list of stats. Ajf773 (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and possible OR. Attempting to link male circumcision with genital mutilation is a bad idea. Hzh (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV pushing that male circumcision equals genital mutilation. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:51, 6 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ERG Renew[edit]

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

Procedural AFD. PROD expired, but it existed previously as a redirect, so can't be PRODed. PROD reason was: "Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP notability guidelines; has no sources outside of the company." News coverage is press release reprints. David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NCORP; no WP:CORPDEPTH. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 00:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search finds only routine coverage of corporate activity and passing quotes from corporate officers, mostly published in niche trade publications, so it is unlikely that article could be sourced to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not finding better than announcement coverage, such as a 2016 Belfast Telegraph item – via HighBeam (subscription required) . These confirm this as a firm active in its field, but I am not seeing the in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 12:43, 10 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 per below. WangDaNian, if you want a copy in a draft, let me know. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LingoDeer[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable app that fails WP:SIGCOV (GNG) and WP:NOTE. A WP:BEFORE check turns up no in-depth sources concerning the subject, and what sources do exist are trival mentions of the app as part of a wider list covering many award winning android apps. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources trivial. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Because the app is relatively popular in language learning circles (the Language Learners' Forum and a few groups on Reddit), I thought an entry on Wikipedia might considered. I was wrong. LingoDeer has to go a long way before it is as popular as DuoLingo. Until then, we can keep this article off Wikipedia. Let's delete it. Thank you for reviewing. WangDaNian (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are many mentions, but largely in passing and in blogs and lists. Since the author agrees with deletion, I believe this can be speedied under WP:G7.

@WangDaNian: By the way, there is no need to wait until the app is as popular as Duolinguo, just until it's covered by more than one major news source independent of the app (i.e. not paid promotion or anything). So, one or two reviews by large news sites and it'll be ready. If you're interested in learning more about criteria for inclusion, good articles to consult (for software) are WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT and WP:NSOFT. If you want to learn more about article creation, there's a dedicated helpdesk where you can ask questions, and submitting your article to Wikipedia:Articles for creation will get your new article reviewed by a more experienced editor (though there is about 7 weeks of backlog right now). Thanks for being so understanding, and I hope you have better luck with your next article!— Alpha3031 (t·c) 11:13, 3 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.