< 12 December	14 December >

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW closure. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Olinda massacre[edit]

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

It is probably a false article. Almost all sources are not verifiable (dead links), and the only verifiable reference does not refer to the alleged "massacre".

In addition, in a quick search, the only results that mention the massacre are Wikimedia links. In all Wikipedia, the article was created by the same user, exception of the Spanish, created by an ip Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 23:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion on the Lusophone Wiki. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 23:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find anything through a google search. The first two references (The Straits Times (January 20, 1952) and The Bend Bulletin (January 21, 1952)) are both digitised and freely available online. Neither mentions anything about a shooting at Olinda, Brazil. It also seems rather suspicious that none of the perpetrator or victims are named. It does seem very likely that this is a made-up story. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another Bicholim conflict. Bilhauano (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything points to this being a lame hoax. --Lambiam 21:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is obvious hoax, it was created on the Wikimedia project, which means it is a hoax. Felicia (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, were 22 victims. This number would put the "massacre" among the five largest in Brazil, however, with no source! Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 07:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no historical record of this happening. Adriell (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the owner of this article, i translated the Spanish article in good faith, but i now suspect that this never happened, given that the sources are unavailable. As the Adriell said, there is no historical record of this event happening. --Cientific124 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If such a fact had existed, there would be numerous sources on.Fabiojrsouza (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there would be abundant sources if this was real - I can't find any. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pile-on, at this point. WP:HOAX. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:42, 19 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Suspense[edit]

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

article is unsourced Wikipedia:Fancruft and has little/no notability ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 22:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding any significant independent coverage. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Radio shows aren't handed an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie just because they exist — per WP:NMEDIA, the inclusion test is the provision of reliable source coverage about them in media outlets they're not directly affiliated with. Given that this is a Bengali-language show from India, it is possible that Bengali-language sources may exist, so I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody with Bengali-language skills can find some valid sources — but with zero sources present in the article at all, this can't be kept just because better sources might be possible: somebody would need to put in the work to show that better sources do exist. Bearcat (talk)
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I agree with Bearcat. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussions & Bearcat. Azkord (talk) 07:32, 20 December 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 per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. There is ample "significant national or international coverage" and overwhelming support for retention. (non-admin closure) Otr500 (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Halamish stabbing attack[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS - no lasting impact and no significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the immediate news reports on the attack and trial Nableezy 22:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 22:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy22:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 22:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps nominator missed Aftermath section. This was brought up at UN Security Council. There was talk of changing laws. A cursory and quick Google search will show articles a year later still discussing changing laws as a result of this heinous crime. One example https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Palestinian-Authority-to-pay-Salomon-family-murderer-35-million-553667. brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This subject meets WP:GNG and was widely reported both nationally and (to a lesser degree) internationally, with dozens of news stories already cited in the article. See also WP:NEVENT:
Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.

That criterion has been satisfied here. Catrìona (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes another spurious nomination. Wide international coverage, SUSTAINED national coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the arguments provided by my predecessors, who and which I agree with, I am a little worried about the nomination for deletion on 4 5 articles from Category:Palestinian terrorism by one and the same editor, whose POV is well-known. Debresser (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the GNG is not Wikipedia policy. WP:NOTNEWS is. There has been no sustained, significant coverage outside of the immediate news sources on the attack and the arrest and trial of the person charged with it. Arguments about notability miss entirely that policy trumps guideline. nableezy - 10:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong reading of NOTNEWS - this is not routine news reporting. The assertion on sources is false - and clearly false even in a cursory BEFORE. I added several sources sources not from the initial burst or the non-routine trial. This has impacted legislation. E.g. [1], [2], [3]. One is expected to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating.Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incident took place in 2017 and coverage also occurred this year per WP:LASTING. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of reliable sources to satisfy GNG for the event.--1l2l3k (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep of well-sourced article with demonstrable ONGOING and IMPACT that meet WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 15 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang J. Lutz[edit]

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)).

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

Much of the content on the article is unsourced, the other sources is his own book. Only one reliable reference exists on the internet for this person an obituary piece in The Guardian. There is a serious lack of reliable sources. It seems to fail WP:GNG Skeptic from Britain (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cannot just erase people or ideas from Wikipedia because of a difference in viewpoints, that's absurd.~ Mellis (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mellis has posted the same verbiage for numerous AfDs now, even though the articles are proposed for reasons other than any viewpoint. Now that's absurd. Ifnord (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of violations of nOT ADVOCACY as well as notability .The article as it stands is essentially pure advocacy, which is a sufficient reason for deletion--I would even consider G11 here., as I would for any bio containing the phrase "His wide-ranging and penetrating gaze". The clinical statements do not include any MEDRS references. He doesn't meet WP:PROF, for his one published paper is in Medical Hypotheses, a journal notorious for publishing wild speculations and pseudoscience (the a WP article avoids giving the name of the journal) ; the clinical trial mentioned is of someone else's hypothesis, which the article without a RS claims to be similar; he does not meet WP:AUTHOR, for his most widely-read book is self-published (this WP article avoids saying that).. Based on the Guardian obit, it might br possible be possible to justify an article by GNG, but if so it would have to be so much a different article that it would need to start over. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I agree with you. Sadly this article was advertised on twitter, so there is a meat-puppet problem. Low-carb advocates are now adding original research to the article, (check the talk-page). MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion has already happened [4], so why are we reinventing the wheel? I have added a section on independent confirmation of his work to the article, as replication is key to scientific validation. Anarchie76 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the two references you added, one is to a 1975 laboratory study of serum insulin determination in prediabetes, without mentioning him, and with no significant references to the paper by him or others associated with his work, the other to a pilot study of a diet whose main features were gluten-free & avoiding dairy.--this is not the same as his, and he is not mentioned in the paper Not only do these not confirm, but they are not even relevant. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the previous

Delete I don't think an obit in the Guardian is enough to meet GNG. Both of the biographies about him (My life without bread, Uncle Wolfi's Secret) are self-published (or rather, published by the same publishing house, which has published nothing else), written by a close friend of his, and have not been reviewed or mentioned in any sources that I can find - so no independent secondary coverage aside from the obit. Note also that the German wiki article on him (Wolfgang Lutz (Arzt)), referred to in the 2016 deletion discussion itself ~~appears to have been deleted~~. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not deleted, it was moved to here; the only source in the German article is the Guardian obit. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG with a single guardian source. The article is full of original research and if someone can compile more significant sources they could remake the page later. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 10:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 02:18, 20 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Timofeeva[edit]

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

Per WP:EXIST and WP:TOOSOON, this model has not yet received reliable and independent media notice, and the article does not attempt to establish any sort of notability. A previous PROD with this same rationale was removed by the article creator, who added some sources. But the sources are only a promotional listing and an article briefly listing the model's presence at one event. It is still too soon in her career for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG by quite a long chalk. Uninvited Company 21:04, 20 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kwan Pa[edit]

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

Band with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC, and no strong reliable source coverage to support one. The only notability claim being made here is "singing various kinds of songs", and the only "references" being cited at all are primary source video clips of them doing it. As always, bands are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they exist -- they have to accomplish something in their career that satisfies our criteria for musical notability, and they have to have reliable source coverage in media (not just YouTube videos) to support it. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability provided. Only sources given are videos with low view counts which do not indicate notability. A search does not show any significant coverage either, therefore it fails WP:NBAND. Hzh (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may be too soon for an article. I found one semi-reliable and brief intro piece: [5], but otherwise all info found on this group is routine retail listings and self-published social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 17 December 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. I didn't find that he was an AAAS fellow, which does confer notability. Natureium (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I. Jonathan Amster[edit]

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

There is not sufficient coverage available to write an article beyond a permastub. His academic tenure is average. WP:Prof#C1 is so vague as to be useless. Natureium (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 based on citations of his publications as shown in Google Scholar [6]. Wikipedia:Permastub is an essay and not a reason for deletion. Notability is established by meeting WP:PROF. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Straight-up pass of WP:PROF#C1 (which, contrary to the nomination, is not that vague at all in practical application). His h-index on Web of Science is 38, and on the more widely inclusive Google Scholar it is 43. This is well above anything I would consider a "gray area". XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. directly from NPROF. Also, NPROF is a guideline. You still need to be able to write an article, which is not possible when reliable sources have not written about this person. Natureium (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Limited usefulness" is not the same as uselessness. The results are comparable between two databases (and differ in an unsurprising way that is consistent with general trends). The subject's field of work is not one of the areas characterized by low citation counts overall (e.g., pure mathematics, law), or where other indicators have proven more meaningful (e.g., areas in the humanities where publication is more geared toward books and monographs than journal articles). The caveats simply don't come into play. And as for the concern that we still need to be able to write an article — the article exists. In all likelihood, it can't be made much larger than it is, but it doesn't have to be. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're arguing against yourself now. Not being a field characterized by low citation counts means that having a "high" h-index is not anything special. And we are not a directory. What is the purpose in having an article that only gives the information that one would find at the top of a CV? Natureium (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a field characterized by low citation counts means that having a high h-index is not anything special. No, it doesn't. It means that one would need an h-index of 35 or 40 to stand out, as opposed to one of 20. In some fields, citation counts and metrics derived from them are mostly meaningless, because pretty much everyone has low numbers, even notable people, but that doesn't apply here. XOR'easter (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per C1 and C3 (AAAS Fellow since 2010). Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons already articulated. I note that there is also some in-depth material about one of his discoveries at [7] and [8] (at least, I think these are both the same story); one is primary and the other only briefly mentions him specifically, so they don't contribute more to notability but they could probably be used to add more depth to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 14 December 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. Tone 11:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Alcatel[edit]

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

No sources, no substantial information, not exceptionally notable, better suited as a sentence in a respective article. –eggofreason^talk 18:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn, tagged since 2009, could have been prodded. Szzuk (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding sources of substance. Vanamonde (talk) 09:35, 21 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Technologies[edit]

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

Delete Declined PROD. I can find no sources that indicate this French company meets the notability standards. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no secondary sources about the company and the company's website only has contact information. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article which was repurposed from an article about another similarly-named company (a Canadian biotech company). Searches find routine announcements by both companies, but nothing sufficient for WP:NCORP. (A page on the French company which is the current subject was also deleted on the French Wikipedia.) AllyD (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the deletion page is here. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a brief article and the only citation given is to an external link which is to the company's own website. Vorbee (talk) 09:08, 20 December 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. While needing improvement, consensus is clear that article meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debt-trap diplomacy[edit]

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

Fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. It is speculative, un-academic, biased, un-enciclopedic, with a lot of allegations, assumptions, talking more about what others are saying about, rather than what China is doing, inaccurately presenting commercial (bank) loans/investments in a bad light as if IMF or WB aren't doing the same thing. Daduxing (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominator's comments appear to reflect that they dont like it, it looks like a well referenced article reflecting what has been happening over a number of years, a subtler version of Gunboat diplomacy, oops, but my bias may be showing. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oh, and here are some more articles that use/discuss this term: from The Economist - "The perils of China’s “debt-trap diplomacy”", The Australian - "US warns on debt-trap diplomacy", ABC News - "Are China's cheap loans to poor nations a development boost or a debt trap?", BusinessWorld - "Diokno denies PHL exposed to China ‘debt trap’ diplomacy", Business Daily Africa - "Why thinking of China debt trap diplomacy is a fallacy", The Post and Courier - "China’s debt-trap diplomacy hits some potholes". Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The topic is widely discussed in media and notable for inclusion, but the article as currently written is heavily dependent on the US-dominated narrative that paints everything that China does in a negative light. Before the recent rise of China, the developing world had long been heavily dependent on the West for loans and not infrequently "trapped" into financial crises, yet the article covers none of the history. As Financial Times has shown, China only holds 20% of Africa's foreign debt (the majority still held by the West), and African public opinion has largely rejected the negative US narrative, see "Why thinking of China debt trap diplomacy is a fallacy", "The language of “debt-trap diplomacy” reflects Western anxieties, not African realities". These views need to be added for balance. -Zanhe (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a search on the topic shows that its has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not done prior to the submission of this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hadn't heard this specific term but I have heard about this general concept. Seems to be sufficiently referenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Likewise - I heard of the concept, not this specific term. Per my BEFORE it is quite clearly notable. There is perhaps room for a rename to Debtbook diplomacy (which is also fairly widely used), and there might be scope for a merge if someone finds a viable topic (e.g. possibly - Checkbook diplomacy (which creates debts) or Commercial diplomacy (less likely)) - but it is fairly obvious that the term is notable. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a thing. A very real, very notable diplomatic tool.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Do a DuckDuckGo search and boom!, the first result is a CNBC report on Chinese debt trap diplomacy and neocolonialism in Latin America. I've added a whole new section to the article as a result. XavierItzm (talk) 22:18, 19 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hope Broadbent[edit]

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

"Sources" cited are either "Who's Who" entries, mentions/quotations in sources of which he is not the subject, or sources which are not independent of him. Declined PROD (which I accidentally self-seconded: apologies). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Azkord (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Azkord (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a working civil servant. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 15 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Grant[edit]

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

Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete An example of pure, likely professionally written puffery. No in-depth sources. Notability is not inherited: most of the major sources are about her sister. I removed five sources: Youtube, IMDB, an NYTimes source that did not even mention the subject. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable yet, maybe someday valereee (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 20 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KSN Junior College[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Muhandes (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no sources at all of any kind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any English language sources to justify the inclusion of this article Spiderone 10:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and does not appear to be degree issuing institution is only coaching institute as for JEE or NEET as per this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:29, 18 December 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 Hypixel. Redirecting for the time being, citing TOOSOON. A redirect allows for quick restoration of the content when GNG is met. Tone 11:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hytale[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Hytale" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

An example of WP:TOOSOON, and the subject fails WP:GNG. Next to no (and by that I mean none) third party coverage exists outside of YouTube and Reddit. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May have been too soon at the time but media has picked up on it. [9] [10] I will clean it up once more information is announced. Nixinova T C 00:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per nom. Big part of page is unsourced, and only uses unreliable sources. As Nixinova said, it has sources, so it could possibly be merged into the Hypixel article, instead of having its own article, since it doesn’t have many things to be able to be talked about. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 08:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few articles on the announcement, but an announcement is not sufficient to show notability. --Izno (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google search shows that reliable, independent sources exist; they are simply not included in the article. The subject does meet WP:GNG, it just needs improvement to clearly demonstrate it. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, @Jmertel23:, it's routine news, no actual additional in-depth coverage. But if you can find them, please provide them. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:TOOSOON/WP:SUSTAINED. The subject has been announced but has not shown that it has notability as it has not been covered in the depth expected for notable topic. I'm sympathetic to a redirect to hypixel if nowhere else. Merge. --Izno (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has a sufficient amount of information and enough media coverage to meet notability guidelines. Nixinova T C 21:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article might not be significant as of today, it might gain sigificants in the near future. Jsraynault (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jsraynault:, that's WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Not an argument. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely WP:TOOSOON. The results from VG/RS is pretty much the same news coverage from a couple of days ago. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the refs are a full page in pcgamer and also variety, they are unarguable, toosoon doesn't apply with refs this good, the game could be canned and it would still be suitable for inclusion. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this counts as WP:TOO SOON. There's a bunch of great sources on this, including USGamer, but we're not the news see WP:NEWS. Right now this is news, and who knows if this game will ever get released? Right now, merge to Hypixel. Keep expanding from there. Then if it gets too big maybe think of making a new article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect to Hypixel). Still WP:TOOSOON, only sources are WP:NOTNEWS. There is no information beyond sources just saying the same thing from the few bits the developer has said. Hypixel already covers the couple sentences one could squeeze from the current sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added 2 more full page reviews to the article [11] [12]. These websites are very reputable. Szzuk (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Szzuk:, even if they're RS'es, that's just the same announcement again, hence WP:TOOSOON. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. It has the significant coverage to pass GNG - even if the game is never released. It obviously will be released and it appears the game is a lot nearer to completion than many had thought. Unless Toosoon has changed it doesn't specifically cover computer games and we rely on WP:V and GNG. Szzuk (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not that cancelled games can't have articles, but "it obviously will be released" is WP:CRYSTAL. It's announced at this point, plenty of announced games get cancelled before release. "it appears the game is a lot nearer to completion than many had thought", where did you get that idea? Who are the many who thought that? It was formally announced a week ago and none of the references used say anything about a release date. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - a) You admit cancelled games can have articles and b) I doubt you want to argue that these aren't Reliable Secondary references. So the base position here is keep; if it is released the article is keep, if it is cancelled the article is keep. Szzuk (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of cancelled games have articles. Silent Hills, Insane (cancelled video game), Command & Conquer (cancelled video game), etc. But these were in development for a long time and were cancelled at some point. Hytale was announced a week ago. Not that this matters, I do think it is in development, but you are however WP:CRYSTALBALLing with "it obviously will be released" and "it appears the game is a lot nearer to completion than many had thought" is WP:OR. Please provide sources to back up your claims. So I'm still saying WP:TOOSOON, because at this point the reliable sources referenced have too little to go on. Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information and WP:NOTNEWS. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:ATD all we're really discussing is a keep or a merge to Hypixel. When the article was nominated for deletion there were just 2 primary refs, now it has 5 RS refs and deletion of this content isn't reasonable. Szzuk (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - All the references are discussing the same trailer and have no in-depth information beyond what the trailer shows. They all came out at the same time in response to the same announcement -- a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. WP:GNG requires in-depth and lasting coverage. Trailer (or any announcement, press release or such) is neither. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you'd object to a one sentence merge saying that "Hytale has been announced", on the developers page, using 5 RS refs? Szzuk (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said above, "Hypixel already covers the couple sentences one could squeeze from the current sources." Attaching more references is just WP:REFBOMBing since they all say the same thing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Move Uh, yes, hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and this whole editing thing, and I'm not entirely sure how to properly comment on the subject matter, how to follow the format, etc., but I am an adamant fan of Minecraft, Hypixel, and Hytale, and I will leave my thoughts here. I've been following the story of Hytale since Dec. 9th, the day the website was released, the game announced publicly and properly, and all of the other fun bits. My recommendation is that Hypixel Studios be given it's own page, and that Hytale be moved (for now) to that page. There is no real information outside of the trailer, some blog posts on the website, and scant rumors here and there that really amount to nothing more that rumination and speculation. As stated above by others, all online articles about the game are incredibly similar, a trait which is obvious to any reader. This would fall under WP:NOTNEWS (I have no idea how to make them hyperlinks, go me!). In addition, there is no lasting coverage of the game thus far. All online articles were published within a few days of each other, and nothing has been published since, aside from an article in a French newspaper. However, it is also evident Collins-Laflamme and Touchette have plans for the future (who can you think of that announced a game-production studio with the intention of making one game?). I think this justifies the creation of a Hypixel Studios page, which would mean that it would have to be moved off of the Hypixel (Minecraft Server) page. CharlesJend (talk) 03:54, 21 December 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) CoolSkittle (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Perlovsky[edit]

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

Apparent autobio/CV for marginal academic figure Orange Mike | Talk 13:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. At least 11 of his works (books and articles) are cited over 100 times. If there is a COI, that should be noted on the talk page (and possibly tagged also). Thsmi002 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per C1 and probably C8 (editor-in-chief of Physics of Life Reviews). His books also seem to have some reviews in reliable sources. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:PROF with highly cited works. It can be edited for neutrality Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 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. Consensus is that this book meets notability standards and that the article should be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Tremor of Bliss[edit]

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

This is a book found in 32, count ‘em 32 libraries on worldcat. It is not in itself worth an article, except as part of Sagecandor’s coatracking program. Qwirkle (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WorldCat lists books currently owned by libraries. what it does not take into account is the fact that popular works of fiction and of nonfiction, including bestsellers, will be owned in multiple copies by a large number of libraries for a few years, then deaccessioned by all but a handful of libraries of record. Even scholarly books regarded as imporant 50 or 100 years ago will be deaccessioned by most libraries when they fall from fashion.

E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn’t 50 or a hundred years, it’s eight, this isnt a bestseller in the general sense, its something that popped up for one month a a relatively specialized, obscure list. By comparison, Richard Rohr’s work from the same list has 10 times the holdings, and not surprisly, was viewed as notable from its publication. By contrast, this book only became “ notable” when a banned sockpuppet decided to use it for coatracking. Why you feel compelled to defend something eligible for speedy deletion escapes...or perhaps, it doesn't. Qwirkle (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly books are kept longer. Popular nonfiction is accessioned by many libraries when people stop taking it out, within a few years of publication. But I was only explaining why we don't rely on WorldCat as a metric. My Keep and that of others is based on SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, we should be assessing notability based on secondary coverage, not the number of libraries on worldcat. I'll let others assess notability, but IF editors decide this topic is not notable, please just redirect the page to Mark Judge (writer) instead of deleting altogether. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three points. First, the fact that a book squeaks by wikipedia standards for notability is seldom proof that it needs its own article. Next, minimal library coverage isn’t an infallible indicator, but it is a rather broad hint. Finally, note that there -is- an unquestionably notable book with the same foretitle, which, of course, isn’t on wiki, and its author, unquestionably more notable than Judge in real life, is stubletized on wiki. This article is a coatrack; it only exists to push politics on Wikipedia. Qwirkle (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: But, if the book has received sufficient secondary coverage, then we should have an article. I'm not saying the article should not be changed/improved if there are neutrality concerns, but we're discussing notability here, yes? I'm less concerned about a different book of the same name, unless of course some of the content in this article is actually about the other book (mistakenly or otherwise). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because something or someone is notable does not mean he, she, or it [must] have its own article. Qwirkle (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow, but I'll let others decide. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand Qwirkle's reason for wanting to delete this article. I vote keep based on below comments. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such a the Washington Times, Washington Post, Publishers Weekly, First Things, Intercept, Daily Caller, so easily passes WP:GNG. No valid reason for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That initial coverage was so significant that there were 32 copies of the book listed in Worldcat. Almost all news coverage relates to the Kavanagh hearing. This was not a significant work before it became politicized. Why should it have a separate article? (Aside from using Wikipedia to pander to partisan politics, of course.) Qwirkle (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book was reviewed when it was published in 2010, and did make one of Publisher's Weekly's lists, "Catholic" bestsellers. It would not have passed WP:NBOOK at that time. But it came into the news during the Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings and was discussed INDEPTH by major, mainstream media. So it passes WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an argument to merge it, or move content unique to it, if any, to a piece on Judge, or Kavenaugh, per WP:NOPAGE. Qwirkle (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage at multiple sources that are reliable. this one passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The nominator fails to present a policy-based argument and appears to be trying to make a point against Sagecander. A momentary glance of the article’s references would tell anyone this meets NBOOKS.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:43, 15 December 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 00:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Pop[edit]

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

Article appears to be an attempted WP:PROMOTION for a group that has not yet received any significant coverage in reliable sources. All I can find, even in Japanese articles via Google Translate, are routine promotional announcements of the group's existence that are typical for J-Pop. Also note that the article makes no attempt to assert any sort of notability for the group, except for an unconfirmed chart placement. I am familiar with some of the groups listed as "Associated acts" in the infobox but cannot figure out how they are connected to this group, except perhaps through shared management companies, which is another promotional gimmick in that genre. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Full of Advertisement with lack of reliable sources.Azkord (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like an advertisement; due to no reliable sources and a lot of unsourced information. also has a Spotify link, making this even more likely. Slurmboy (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is too promotional in tone and format.TH1980 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom's rationale. Simply a promotional ad for the group. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 15 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics[edit]

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)).

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

The only independent source cited that is about this "network" is Harriet Hall at Skeptical Inquirer. That doesn't constitute sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is a WP:FRINGE group and we need much more and better sourcing to be able to write a verifiably neutral article. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is mention of this group by Harriet Hall and briefly in The Skeptic's Dictionary but not enough to establish an entire article, per lack or reliable secondary sources would be best to delete. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect the one reliable bit to another article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The text now seems amply supported by references to independent sources and, therefore, there can be no case for a violation of WP:FRINGE. On the contrary, it evidently offers valuable information about a controversial scientific subject. -The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The "sources" that were added were not about THINCS, they were about the scientific consensus linking saturated fat and cardiovascular disease, which THINCS members repudiate. The only sources about THINCS are namechecks in the two overlapping articles by Harriet Hall. Any "information" about the "controversial subject" was blatant WP:SYN. The applicable guidance is at WP:FRIND. This does not reach that level. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one other reliable source that mentions the organization, but only briefly in the context of the broader topic. I don't think that's enough to make the organization itself notable. Now, it might be in the public interest to mention the organization somewhere, so that people who want to look it up can find out what it is (compare this discussion from October). But that would require only the most selective of merges. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics is mentioned in the "controversy" section on the lipid hypothesis article. I suggest the name be redirected there. I will probably expand that article at some point. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to a redirect to Lipid hypothesis. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to lipid hypothesis. The organization seems to be only briefly mentioned in the mainstream media, usually in connection to a paper published by some of its members.[13] Catrìona (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We cannot just erase people or ideas from Wikipedia because of a difference in viewpoints, that's absurd.~ Mellis (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ATA. That's not what this is about. The issue is the absence of reliable independent sources about the group. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cholesterol controversy currently redirects here. Perhaps this should be re-targeted to be about that topic instead. (some recently removed content was on that topic) There's been some evidence that topic has enough coverage to justify an article; I don't see referencing to support an article on this group. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected "Cholesterol controversy" to the controversy section on the lipid hypothesis article. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Skeptic and XOReaster hit the nail on the head with their rationale. Strikerforce^Talk 15:17, 17 December 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. (non-admin closure)

Arild Kristo[edit]

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

Does not meet any criteria listed here. Also seems to be a Filmmaker, and has one film as a wiki article. That film though has insufficient or dead references. Daiyusha (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Norwegian but GTranslate leads me to believe that [14] or [15] are the kind of sources that are indeed available and cover the subject in detail (GBooks has hundreds more hits but GTranslate does not work on them). Maybe someone from WP Norway can help now that it's listed there. Regards So Why 17:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I would like to withdraw my nomination, as I've not done WP:BEFORE properly. The photographer/Artist/Filmmaker has references in World Press photo, and has a painting in the Norwegian National Museum. The article was written with the word Photographer first. So I checked his notability in that field. He meets criteria for a Filmmaker though. Daiyusha (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry but this is an incomplete nomination as it is missing the crucial WP:BEFORE step. I found eight sources in about ten minutes, and added them. Googling his name, the third link leads to a bio page on World Press Photo, describing his career as a photographer and filmmaker. He also has at least two photos in the collection of the Norwegian National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design. Very obviously meets WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:29, 14 December 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 You Are Happy. Sandstein 12:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Song of the Worms[edit]

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

Individual poem, with no particularly strong claim of notability as a standalone entity in Margaret Atwood's overall oeuvre. It was apparently "recently read on an English television station by Lia Williams", without specifying what television station or when, and it was purportedly used in a school syllabus for one year and one year only, but none of this is reliably sourced at all except for the fact that the poem exists — and it doesn't speak very highly of this poem's notability that in 12 years of this article existing, nobody has ever felt the need to add it to the ((Margaret Atwood)) navbox at all (mainly because I think very few people ever actually knew the article existed at all.) Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, appears in a number of publications including Poetry magazine of Feb 1974, You Are Happy (1974) by Atwood, Selected Poems: 1965-1975 (1976) by Atwood, Wicked Poems (2004) by McGough and Layton; main text of a Teachers & Writers Magazine lesson plan, one of a number of Atwood poems studied at university, more needed for a standalone article?, would suggest at least a "redirect" to You Are Happy but although a notable work no article yet. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What we would need is third-party coverage about it, not just primary source metaverification of it. A redirect to You Are Happy would certainly be an option, if somebody who's more knowledgeable about Atwood's poetry than I am (I'm not much of a poetry guy, I'm much more familiar with her novels) can actually start one — but obviously it would have to be in place before we could redirect this there. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Meeow, meow, meeoooowww, "Yes, Mitskie, Atwood is a catlover but that doesnt mean that everything she writes is notable" "Meeow, meeeerooowwwrr!!", "i'm perfectly aware of point no.5 of WP:NBOOK but whether this should apply to atwood's works is probably for another discussion .... look, this poem appears in the book You Are Happy; that is notable and i've just created a little wikiarticle on it so a redirect can be made, happy?", "PPPURRRRRRR....." Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to You Are Happy. I'm not seeing the independent coverage that could support a stand-alone article. Catrìona (talk) 05:21, 14 December 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 Bitcoin Cash. Most of the arguments to keep this have no basis in policy. Notability is not inherited from notable creators; no current guideline establishes notability based on cryptocurrency market share; establishing that this is distinct from Bitcoin Cash is necessary but not sufficient to establishing notability (I'm pretty sure I'm a distinct individual from Jimbo Wales, and yet he is notable, I am not); and notability is based on substantive coverage, not solely on the existence of reliable sources. I am not going to protect the redirect preemptively, but I would be open to doing so if editors ignore the consensus reached here. Vanamonde (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin SV[edit]

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)).

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

not notable Retimuko (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect to Bitcoin Cash - at present it's an event in the history of Bitcoin Cash, there's a story to tell here that actually got a little mainstream coverage ... but it's a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per David. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Bitcoin SV is an event in the history of Bitcoin Cash, it's also true that Bitcoin SV is a separate coin to Bitcoin Cash. Therefore it should have its own article. Just as there is a Wikipedia article for animal, there are also Wikipedia articles for cat and dog. Likewise, there is an article for cryptocurrency, and also articles for Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. As for coverage of the subject, there are plenty of articles about Bitcoin SV and the Bitcoin Cash fork generally. While the coverage may not be extensive in the Wall Street Journal, it is extensive in web pages devoted to cryptocurrencies. This is a similar situation to many niche subjects covered on Wikipedia. Chrisclear (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a policy-based reason, but an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. First thing you'll need, in any case, are references in Reliable Sourced - meaning mainstream coverage, not crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources, just cryptocurrency-specific blog coverage. This is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bitcoin Cash; insufficient coverage of this as a separate topic. The redirect will likely need to be full-protected per crypto Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Bitcoin SV just passed Bitcoin Cash in market cap, although I'm not sure if this is just a transient thing or not. I think what happened here is WP:TOOSOON. In the meantime it's notable enough for its own section in Bitcoin Cash. — Kjerish (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bitcoin Cash per others above. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It probably will be notable later, but WP:TOOSOON at the present based on sources available. Crypto-currency blogs DO NOT contribute to notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 12:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bitcoin SV has emerged out of Bitcoin Cash but it follows a fundamentally different road map and culture. Whereas Bitcoin Cash wants to enhance the protocol with many more new features Bitcoin SV wants to go back to the roots and even sunsetting some added technology (e.g. P2SH). In addition, where Bitcoin Cash wants to be a coin for anarchists and libertarians, Bitcoin SV wants to fit within the existing law of country states and in doing so become attractive to businesses. Bitcoin SV has a completely separate ecosystem from including its own consensus rules, block explorers, wallets, ticker on respectable and established exchanges and 3rd party services working exclusively with BSV. Having Bitcoin SV as a subsection of Bitcoin Cash will cause the page to be pulled in two directions which are not compatible with each other. Bitcoin SV has been documented in various online sites which might not have a printed format but have existed for multiple years and are respectable sources. Today Bitcoin SV has also been able to surpass the value of Bitcoin Cash for multiple hours and is currently only ~3 USD below Bitcoin Cash. torusJKL (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So if any of that can be shown, it needs to be shown in reliable sources - not crypto blogs. If you have any, please add them to the article - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article includes now the Bloomberg article Bitcoin Cash Wars End With No Relief for Biggest Cryptocurrency as a source. torusJKL (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bitcoin SV is notable. It is backed by two notable individuals: Craig Steven Wright and Calvin Ayre. It has been mentioned in traditional media outlets like CNBC. The particular block where the fork occurred can be cited from any block explorer. In addition, some commentators have pointed out that the creation of Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC coincided with the beginning of Bitcoin's November plunge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlysle (talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reliable sources about Bitcoin SV? This is a simple question, but a key one - at present, the article has ~~literally no reliable sources~~ edit: sorry! one RS - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not what "notable" means in this context. First, since notability is not inherited, the notable investors are irrelevant. Further, a block explorer is a primary source and not suitable to show notability. Similarly, the speculation about the November plunge is original research and not appropriate for the article. Coverage on CNBC is potentially relevant though; can you give us a link to the article? BenKuykendall (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I was able to find two CNBC articles that mention Bitcoin SV as a product of the split. Battered-down bitcoin jumps 15%, lifting cryptocurrency market value by $20 billion and Bitcoin crashes 37 percent in November, wiping $70 billion off of cryptocurrencies' market value torusJKL (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, these sources, though mentioning Bitcoin SV, are not significant coverage. The articles primarily cover Bitcoin and Bitcoin cash; the mention of Bitcoin SV is just one sentence in each article. Though they provide important information and should be cited in Bitcoin_Cash#November_2018_split, I think that they alone do not justify an article on Bitcoin SV. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Significant coverage: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Do people even look for sources, this is a pretty obvious keep to me. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of these are independent reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Crypto blogs aren't accepted as reliable sources nor evidence of notability, and several of those are pay-to-play outlets - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I should say that I think Wikipedia needs to update its standards, policies, and overall understanding of cryptocurrencies because most people saying to delete this article clearly have very little knowledge about the topic. There should be a notability standard that any cryptocurrency listed in the top 25 of market capitalization should automatically qualify for notability standards. Deleting this article would only be proof of how little Wikipedia users understand the crypto space, not serve to enhance the quality of Wikipedia. We shouldn't redirect to Bitcoin Cash, this isn't bitcoin cash, it's been forked, it's completely different, and it has a shit ton of money dumped into it in order to reach such a high market cap. There are about 23 million hits on a google search, not notable? Give me a break, this discussion is a joke. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The general notability guideline provides the criteria for the notability of cryptocurrencies. This guideline, however, does not rely on market cap. Market cap may be a measure of economic importance, but it is not a good standard of inclusion in an encyclopedia. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- An additional source (Fortune.com) covering the fact that BSV had overtaken BCH in market cap on 7th December^[1] has been added to the article. torusJKL (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Gal Buki, Which is essentially one and a half paragraphs in an article about something else. Not significant coverage. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 12:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Meyer, David (7 December 2018). "Bitcoin Is Tumbling Yet Again: Most Other Cryptocurrencies Are Following—But Not All". Retrieved 12 December 2018.

Redirect for now. Would like to see more coverage that focuses Bitcoin SV that's not about the recent fork. The Fortune article is titled "Bitcoin Is Tumbling Yet Again: Most Other Cryptocurrencies Are Following—But Not All". Yea it briefly passed Bitcoin Cash in marketcap but just that doesn't make it notable, though it may be worth noting at the Bitcoin Cash article. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is currently just one unreliable source in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ladislav Mecir, The problem isn't the reliability of the sources, it is due to the lack of significant coverage. None of the sources in the article are directly about BitcoinSV, it is just a paragraph or two in the overall story of the bitcoin cash wars. That fails WP:SIGCOV and these sources do not contribute to making the topic notable. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 14:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re "None of the sources in the article are directly about BitcoinSV" - no, Insertcleverphrasehere, that is not true. The source^[1] contains much more than one paragraph about Bitcoin SV. Actually, over the 50% of the article text is related to Bitcoin SV. The second source^[2] superficially contains about two sections discussing Bitcoin SV, but other sections discuss what the forks are, which, as the article explains, is what Bitcoin SV is in relation to bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash. The third cited article,^[3] also discusses Bitcoin SV in about 50% of its text. The same holds also for the article.^[4] Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislav Mecir, The first one looks like it might be acceptable, though it doesn't mention Bitcoin SV by name, from what I can tell this is what it is referring to. The second source is not significant coverage. Both 3 and 4 are primarily about Bitcoin Cash, with short sections about SV (it doesn't look like 50% to me). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kharif, Olga (14 November 2018). "Satoshi vs. Bitcoin Jesus: Bitcoin Cash Battle Turns Personal". Bloomberg. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
^ O'Brien, Ciara (24 November 2018). "This week we're talking about . . . Bitcoin. Again". Irish Times. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
^ Hankin, Aaron (15 November 2018). "What you need to know about the Bitcoin Cash 'hard fork'". Market Watch. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
^ Kharif, Olga (23 November 2018). "Bitcoin Cash Wars End With No Relief for Biggest Cryptocurrency". Retrieved 7 December 2018.

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 12:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle (rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper who doesn't appear to have ever charted; and the articles a single non-notable award that he has apparently won. It also doesn't help that the article is written like a press release. (I didn't notify the article creator because it appears that s/he just came in, created the article and left.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some better, even possibly good, references via this search for "Samson Andah". (Not saying the subject is notable, or not, though.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if co-writing a number 1 ARIA charting song counts, Que Sera according to this reference ? Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The SMH reference is not reliable for song writers. However, consider this by ASCAP and this by APRA: Samson Andah (aka Miracle) is same as Blessed Samuel Joe-Andah. As a songwriter he has co-written other material performed by Justice Crew. Furthermore, Miracle's Mainland peaked at No. 15 on the ARIA Urban Albums Chart and No. 5 on their Hitseekers Albums chart in July 2014 (see ARIA Report 1274). By June 2017 the artist was performing and recording as Blessed (see here) and has same birth details as Miracle.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are you too !voting as keep then, given the charting? Aoziwe (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Redirect to Blessed (musician), for the reasons give above. Additional RS: 1, 2, 3 and 4.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional charting co-write: "Freak Tonight" as covered by Scarlett Belle in August 2010, which reached No. 29 (see here) Miracle and original performer, Israel Cruz, also guest on vocals.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above - a mix of both reviews and charting justifications. It should be noted that while Miracle may just remain the most suitable primary name, it may at some stage make sense to shift to his name if he is going to have different stage names "Blessed". Nosebagbear (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Few of the sources which are provided in article looks like press release and few are not working but his engagement with Sony Music claims he is notable somehow. Azkord (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few sources verify that the subject has received significant coverage for years.[21] Qualitist (talk) 00:15, 19 December 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. There is no consensus regarding whether the sources are of high-enough quality to satisfy GNG. No other policies/guidelines regarding notability have been discussed (not including discussion regarding daughter of topic.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Foley (lawyer)[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill lawyer, no indication of notability. All references are to simple directory listings or in one case a passing mention, which could apply to pretty much any lawyer. The article was recently PRODded by another editor, and the PROD declined apparently based on the inclusion of the references, with comment "Evidence of notability and sources available should be discussed at AfD"). TJRC (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When you strip out her personal life and the estate agent blog the only real source is the 1939 Brisbane Sunday Mail piece of less than one hundred words stating she was "the fourth girl to qualify since 1900". That is not enough for a Wikipedia article. The Australian Women's Register entry reflects this - there is no claim of widely recognized contribution to her field, or any other claim of significance, award or achievement...nothing to satisify WP:ANYBIO. --Pontificalibus 08:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the subject does not meet ANYBIO, but I suggest they do meet GNG. Approximately at least 50+ (as far as I looked - could be as many as 100?) independent reliable references/sources here I suggest show, for example and include, very wide reporting and sustained coverage over a number of years for each of several events and topics such as the subject's admission to the bar (very wide coverage), her marriage (not (just) personal columns) but standalone articles and social pages (very wide coverage) and her ongoing involvement in CUSA (sustained coverage) also allowing some additional material to be added to the article. ("Ordinary" people do not get this level of coverage.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She appears to have been the subject of an article in 'Clare Foley and her daughter Mary Finn', in Susan Purdon and Aladin Rahemtula (eds), A Woman's Place: 100 Years of Queensland Women Lawyers, Supreme Court of Queensland Library, Brisbane, 2005, pp. 205-213. Taken together with this newspaper article this just gets her over the line for significant coverage as it is all coverage of her. She appears notable as she was one of the first Australian female lawyers and thus WP:MILL doesn't apply. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, with sources identified by previous editors. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources identified above are not sufficient. The book appears to be a discussion of every woman who has had a role in that jurisdiction, and I can not see how much of it is about this individual rather than her daughter. ; the newspaper article is a brief notice. these do not constitute substantial discriminating sources. A good case could be made for the first women to qualify in the profession there to have a WP article, but after that the reason of significance as a pioneer becomes more and more attenuated. The "over 100 sources" listed above seem to be every article in which her name was mentioned, including social notices for marriages and engagements, and many repeat each other. I think this is the level of coverage which one would expect for every professional in a small professional community, and not a single on of them gives any reason in her career for it being in any respect at all noteworthy. If the profusion of local sources can be used this way to satisfy GNG, it's time to revise the guideline so it better expressing hte policy on which it is based, NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT DIRECTORY. Those policies are what we must keep sight of. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are easily sufficient to pass WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re DGG's comment "I think this is the level of coverage which one would expect for every professional in a small professional community" - it's clear, looking through the digitised newspapers, that the same level of coverage was not given to all the men who qualified as solicitors - it was still notable when a woman qualified. The next woman who qualified after Clare Pender/Foley got some coverage, but not as much. Clare Foley is also notable in that she continued working in the legal profession after her marriage, and throughout her life, when other women solicitors worked for a few years before marriage only. This is not indiscriminate, nor is it a directory - adding all of the 11 men who were admitted at the same time as Clare Foley would be. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What area of law did she practice in? It seems the sources have nothing to say about her career, but only about her personal life. It would seem her only claim to fame is happening to be a woman at a time when there were few woman lawyers. There is no record that this presented her with any particular difficulty that she campaigned against for example. From the sources in the article, it seems she simply qualified and then enjoyed a mundane career in a family legal firm. Compare her entry which notes no contribution to her daughter's which notes several.--Pontificalibus 10:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest then that her daughter, Mary Finn, would qualify for a Wikipedia article? As a judge of the Family Court of Australia, it seems that she would meet WP:JUDGE, #1 "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". In which case, if Clare Foley is determined not to be notable enough for an article, perhaps her bio could be included in her daughter's? although there isn't yet an article about Mary Finn, so suggesting a merge is not really practicable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would agree with that. A Mary Finn article including details about her family (four generations of lawyers) would seem like a good idea.--Pontificalibus 13:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. It seems it is difficult to find good sources for the subject but still, as some comments above have demonstrated, there is enough notability. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Valero-O'Connell[edit]

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

Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON the subject is a freelance artist working on her first graphic novel. She was nominated for 2 Eisner awards but i don't think this is enough to meet #4c of WP:NARTIST. The sources are too weak mostly interviews passing mentions and affiliated stuff. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this page should be deleted; Valero may indeed be an up and coming artist but I believe she has a relevant place on Wikipedia, especially given that her novel with Mariko Tamaki (Laura Dean Keeps Breaking Up With Me) will be coming out in 2019. The graphic novel is highly anticipated and I expect it will have its own Wikipedia page in the future that Valero can be linked back to. For her to be nominated for two Eisner awards in the same year, even before the publication of this novel, shows that she will be a name in the comics industry to look out for. If this page were to be deleted, it would pop up again within a year. This is also not her first graphic novel, it is her second. Reneeidk (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Dom from Paris (talk)

I stand by what I said; while true that we cannot truly predict the effects of her new novel, it is indisputable that she has created other works. Having her own page would help link many of her works back to her, including work with Lumberjanes, Steven Universe, and Gotham Academy. Reneeidk (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This page is fine as it is. Not all great comic artists have books, many can only be sourced through news articles. Additionally, it is not her first graphic novel but her second that is in production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenRen1310 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nominator, the sources are pieced together very minor mentions that do not in total merit an article. She probably will in the years to come though. The Vice article is the strongest source but it is an interview and not RS. A search did not find additional sources. WP:TOOSOON, GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to make an official argument one way or another, since I oversaw the class that made this, but I do want to note that I have expanded the article with various sources - specifically reviews for her work and coverage that calls it the best work of this or that year. There's a review by SciFiNow, another by CBR, one by Autostraddle, one via The Mary Sue (reviews by them are seen as generally OK), an IGN review, a short review by i09, and her work as been highlighted as part of the best of the year by The Comics Journal and The Verge. We could justify an article for her graphic novel What is Left, which she did solo, and for Gotham Academy /Lumberjanes crossover, for which she did the artwork. Maybe the notability isn't as overwhelmingly solid as it could be, but it's definitely there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm of the mind that interviews can show notability for a topic depending on where they are published. It's just that the claims made in the interview are primary. For example, the artist was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, which is a pretty major publication that doesn't interview just anyone, so the fact that the LAT thought that Valero-O'Connell was major enough to interview should be seen as a sign of notability. That does need to be given some weight. (I'm ambivalent about the VICE source as reliable, as they do gonzo journalism. Because of that, I'd see it as purely primary.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the LA times actually does interview anyone they want... it's a newspaper. The LA Times item is not RS, it's an interview.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the sources and I haven't really changed my mind, CBR, Autostraddle, The Mary Sue, IGN, i09, are contributor pieces and not from staff. The top 30 from TCJ comes also from a contributor who says "I will happily review any comics sent to me. I especially like to review minicomics." and who starts his list with "The usual caveats apply here, as I've not read a bunch of key short-form comics from 2016" so is making this list a proof of notability? The Verge list also comes from a contributor who has made this one post since joining. The SciFiNow review was not written by a staff memeber either. I don't see any of these showing that she meets any of the criteria in WP:NAUTHOR. The LA times is a reliable source but this Interview has no critical comment whatsoever about the subject and as per WP:INTERVIEW "anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent. If it's primary and non-independent, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability.". Just because the LA times has published an interview with this person doesn't automatically make her notable especially as it was a joint interview with a more notable person. For an interview to help towards notability the interviewer has to be a recognised journalist as it says on the interviewer's profile she is a "Web producer working in entertainment for the Los Angeles Times. She helps provide digital content for the Arts and Entertainment sections and has also written for the Travel, Books and Images sections. A Long Beach native, she graduated from UCLA" There is no mention of her being a journalist or having a degree in journalism. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources added. The LA Times is WP:RS. EDIT: Satisfies the GNG. ♟♙ (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the LA Times is a reliable source. An interview is however not a reliable source, per WP:RS. They also interviewed the leader of the LA Janitor's union, a foster father who takes in terminally ill children, neither of whom are notable by our standards.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS does not even contain the text "interview". Please explain where the RS guideline states that an interview, conducted by a reporter and published in a major, mainstream news outlet, is not reliable. The false equivalencies you provided RE: the janitor and the foster father are irrelevant to this AfD. ♟♙ (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's plainly clear, and widely accepted at AfD, that interviews are not reliable sources for determining notability. The very nature of an interview means the reporter is not independent form the subject: they have to get up close and personal with the subject, and the resulting report often contains large swaths of text that are quotations in the voice of the subject. Thus, not independent of the subject. But i think you know this already. "The janitor and the foster father" are good examples to rebut the idea that being written about in the LA times is a selective honour that automatically confers notability. Sorry if you can't see that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's plainly clear, and widely accepted at AfD, that interviews are not reliable sources for determining notability. - Where at WP:RS does it say interviews conducted by a reporter representing a RS, and publishing IN said RS, are unacceptable as RS? Is a regular news article that contains direct quotes from a subject of the article also not a RS? Or just one that contains several or more direct quotes? Is this noted in the relevant guideline? I am simply not finding it. ♟♙ (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not think subject passes notability guidelines. Skirts89 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 13 December 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 12:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paintball Sports Promotions[edit]

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

Non-notable sports league. Paintball leagues do not have any particular WP:NSPORT criteria, so must be evaluated under GNG or WP:NCORP. Reviewing under such, it does not appear to pass, lacking sufficient reliable sources in the case of the former and lacking WP:CORPDEPTH in the latter. There are minimal mentions available. I had prod'd this, but the prod was disputed. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; inadequate sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 17 December 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 12:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Professional Paintball League[edit]

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

Non-notable sports league. Paintball leagues do not have any particular WP:NSPORT criteria, so must be evaluated under GNG or WP:NCORP. Reviewing under such, it does not appear to pass, lacking sufficient reliable sources in the case of the former and lacking WP:CORPDEPTH in the latter. There are minimal mentions available. I had prod'd this, but the prod was disputed. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; insufficient sourcing. [22] was the best thing I found, and its mention of this group was fairly trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 17 December 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. There is clear consensus the article requires editorial/fact-checking attention. There is not clear consensus that a beatified saint is automatically notable, although there is some WP:COMMONSENSE value to the position. There is also no clear consensus the article should be deleted, nor kept. Therefore the no-consensus close. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorio Celli[edit]

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

Something isn't right here. I don't speak Italian, which is hampering this, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of sources. The claim of living to 118 is what tipped me off, that's clearly bogus, and for claims like this article is making it should be easy to find basic sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extraordinary claims require strong sources, which we lack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources per above. Orientls (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely the salient information is that he has been beatified by the Roman Catholic Church? Whether the claims about him are true or not, that certainly makes him notable. And there seem to be plenty of sources online that confirm this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of them come close to meeting RS, which leaves us with a highly implausible claim. Honestly I smell a hoax. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are sources over several centuries. Most of them seem not to give a birth date, eg this [23] from 1989 just gives his date of death (as ca 1343); this [24] (result 2) from 1854 says where he was born, that he died in 1343, and also gives the date his cult was approved; this [25] from 1702 gives the date of 1343, and also mentions the dates 1224, 1254, and 1276 (on pages 154-156). I have not put the text into google translate to try to work out what those dates refer to - what is clear to me is that they all agree on a death date of (ca) 1343, and the 19th and 20th century sources do not give a date of birth, probably because they were more rational than the 1702 writer. I would suggest that the article could be edited to remove the specific dates, and say instead "at the age of 15 ...." etc. I'm not sure how relevant some of the info is (eg the famous heretic he met; the grand union he witnessed ....) - they could surely be deleted. (Just checked that famous heretic - he died in 1276, so quite possible that someone who died in 1343 met or saw him, though probably as a child, and probably not while preaching.) Anyway - there seems no question that Gregorio Celli was beatified by the Catholic Church, and is therefore presumed notable; he died in 1343; some facts of his life are known (where he was born, the order he entered); and travelling to Rome in 1300 is quite possible for someone who died in 1343 - so is retreating to a contemplative existence (if "he had served for decades" is deleted from that sentence, the only thing that is lost is implausibility). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... yes, that makes a lot more sense. This is not my field of history (I'm better with East Asia), but your research makes a lot more sense out of this. I'll see if I can contribute anything of value. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NCATHOLIC notability guide or essay on notability seems the most useful - it says, "an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: #3 Are in the process of possible canonization and are recognized by the titles "Venerable" and/or "Blessed"." This certainly applies to Gregorio Celli, and google shows that there are sources over several centuries. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a beatified saint passes WP:NCATHOLIC Atlantic306 (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Pope who beatified him thereby identified that he was notable. Whether the claim as to his longevity is correct or not has no bearing on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NCATHOLIC is an essay, and, as such, irrelevant. I see no evidence that there is community consensus that all Catholic saints are notable. No opinion otherwise. Sandstein 12:14, 20 December 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Liccio[edit]

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

Another highly dubious article, same problems as with Gregorio Celli. Unsubstantiated and unsourced claims of sainthood and extreme longevity, the sources in the article certainly aren't of the caliber to support even what they purport to. Someone might want to take a look at the images in both articles too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks well backed claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely the salient information is that he has been beatified by the Roman Catholic Church? Whether the claims about him are true or not, that certainly makes him notable. And there seem to be plenty of sources online that confirm this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, saints' lives are often rather unbelievable, like biblical figures (eg Methuselah) and legendary figures (eg King Arthur), which doesn't mean that they are not notable. In this case, like Gregorio Celli, the WP:NCATHOLIC notability guide or essay on notability seems the most useful - it says, "an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: #3 Are in the process of possible canonization and are recognized by the titles "Venerable" and/or "Blessed"." Giovanni Liccio was beatified "Blessed", and there are sources eg Butler's Lives of the Saints, Volume 11 [26]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; meets WP:NCATHOLIC. I'm guessing the DOB is wrong: in his entry in Butler's Lives of the Saints, it just says he was born in the first half of the century. Catrìona (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain the ridiculous age. I can't open the link now, but if no one has I'll make whatever adjustments are necessary to his purported age. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a beatifed saint passes WP:NCATHOLIC Atlantic306 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Beatification implies notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 15 December 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 Galbena River (Strei). Taking into account the verifiability issues highlighted at the end. A merger from history is possible if good sources are found; if not, a RfD is possible. Sandstein 12:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fărcădin River[edit]

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

I am using this as a test balloon. I've been hitting a LOT of river pages as I do work on converting pages to ((Infobox river)) and have come across a large number of river pages like this that don't seem to have anything notable about them. I am nominating this particular page as a test balloon of sorts to see what makes a river notable. Seems to me articles like this fall under WP:MILL but am curious what others think. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before starting the articles of Romanian rivers, I consulted the Wikipedia rules for Rivers. It was stated that any river in the world, regardless of its size, qualifies for an article. There are no other conditions which should be used for screening the rivers. Consequentely, I have written all the articles regarding Romanian rivers. I find it completely unacceptable that after a Wikipedian has spent a significant amount of time to write articles which comply to prevailing Wikipedia rules to have all these articles deleted. Does anybody have any respect for the work of other wikipedians? The problem should be discussed by the active members of WikiProject Rivers. Other wise, the question arises, why do we have WikiProjects who define what has to be done in a certain area when persons who are not concerned about that WikiProject change the rules.Afil (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Afil: first, remember to sign your messages (ironic considering your user page). Secondly, this was a request for a discussion about what is notable. Not sure why you so quickly took it as some personal attack. Third, when you edit Wikipedia you do so at your own risk. This idea that you spent so much time on it and worked so hard is not relevant. Not to mention, how can you say you worked so hard? The article is one sentence long... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the length of the article, it is the information which is contained in the box which is important. As detailed maps are difficultly available it takes time and the satelite maps rarely identify the names of the rivers, getting the information is not as straightforward as you seem to think. Why don't you try to get the information about one of river, for instance a river which flows into lake Issyk Kul. Then talk about efforts in getting the information. Afil (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Afil: You are completely missing the point. I'm sorry you spent so much time on it but that doesn't indicate anything about notability. So far all you have done is complain about how much work you put into this, this is a discussion about notability. I would encourage you to refresh yourself with WP:GNG. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Afil: also please review WP:HARDWORK. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Galbena River (Strei), the river it apparently flows into. The only available evidence that this river exists is a line in this tourist brochure about Hunedoara county, see "Densuș". It is not mentioned in Anexe 7 PlanNationalManagement - vol.III (which has an enormous number of Romanian rivers), where it would have been around page 430. Galben(a) has code RW4.1.117.14.11, Fărcădin would have code RW4.1.117.14.11.X, but the only tributary I see mentioned is Breazova River (Strei) (code RW4.1.117.14.11.4). Right now we don't even know whether it's a right or left tributary, or its exact location (probably near the village Fărcădin). But I think it's good to have a proper discussion about notability criteria, like the one just started at WT:WikiProject Rivers#River Notablity, because the problem is not limited to Romania (8000+ river articles!). Not every tributary of the Wupper is notable either IMO. I wonder where Afil found that "any river in the world, regardless of its size, qualifies for an article", because I couldn't find that on WP:NGEO or WP:RIVERS. Markussep ^Talk 13:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is also listed in NGA's Geonet Names Server [27] which gives its location as 45° 36' 00" N, 022° 59' 00" E placing it downstream of Hațeg rather than near the town of Fărcădin. Nothing on Google maps at that location, but there is a small stream visible on satellite imagery flowing into the Galbena. Just a bit more on confirmation of its existence, no comment on whether that makes it notable or not. Kmusser (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the rule is easy: WP:GEOLAND. Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. All I can find at this moment is that Densus is located on the river from this source: [28] I'm finding it hard to search since not all sources use the half-crescent above the a (I'm not worldly enough to know its name) and because of the declension of the word "river" in Romanian. SportingFlyer talk 17:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, let the discussion play out on WT:RIVERS, and see what happens, then revisit this. That's the proper way to achieve consensus, not trying to stealthily pick articles off one by one. Smartyllama (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartyllama: for the record, there was absolutely no attempt to stealthily pick articles off one by one. I nominated this article as part of the discussion at WT:RIVERS, a thread that I ALSO started. The point of nominating this article, and only nominating one, was to start the conversation. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are we having the discussion in two places? The discussion there is perfectly fine. But one discussion is sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I would say that any actual river is notable enough for an article, but this seems to me to be no more than what we in English would call a stream, and they're not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the barrier for notability of rivers is extremely low; Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia. In this case, I'm not convinced the river exists; the town of Fărcădin is on the Galbena River, but Google maps finds no river of that name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 17 December 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 12:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanu Bhakta Dhakal[edit]

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

Not enough references which shows the actor is notable. Article does not meet WP:GNGACTOR. Azkord (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR FWIW. Rzvas (talk) 19:28, 18 December 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 List of Righteous Among the Nations by country. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanian Righteous Among the Nations[edit]

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

Currently a list of people with no linked biographies; we can assume that a vast majority of them are not notable. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, we should only include notable people (or those notable for WP:BIO1E), and if non-notable people were purged the list would be empty (or very short). Currently, this list just duplicates material which is publicly available at Yad Vashem website. Catrìona (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Righteous Among the Nations by country, where Albania already has a line. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Righteous Among the Nations by country, per Clarityfiend. Ifnord (talk) 02:26, 20 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivien Keszthelyi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Amateur driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appears to meet WP:GNG directly through substantial independent coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails any sort of notability guidelines. The page is also very clearly personally sourced; a clear message needs to be sent to people that we are serious to avoid this from happening more often. The page should only be reinstated if she qualifies for the W Series and does well in it. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment Are these not sources suitable for meeting WP:GNG? [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]

Qualification for the W series isn't required for a person to meet the general notability guidelines. Lee Harvey Oswald, for example, never qualified for the W series. (The fact that a person falls into a category to which one of the specific notability guidelines is applicable doesn't cancel out the applicability of the general guidelines.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, these sources not suitable for meeting WP:GNG. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, are you disagreeing that these sources are one or more of: multiple, substantial, independent, reliable, secondary? Largoplazo (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They do not look like to be substantial. For the countries that haven't much racers, even amateur series driver is an achievement, so the local media are eager to cover it. But does she notable for the international media? I don't think so. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment, nominator states above "But does she notable for the international media? I don't think so.", since when does WP:GNG require coverage to be by international media? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the reliability of the provided sources and that she has a 'significant coverage' in the sources. Also I have doubts that she satisfy "Presumed" criterion. So, the fact she passes WP:GNG have not proven yet. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Largoplazo has noted, there are certainly enough sources which are suitable for meeting WP:GNG. That is all that is required. The Nom seems to vary in how they consider the sources aren't adequate, sometimes saying they are not substantial (no, they're not books, but they are definitely not trivial), sometimes saying they are not reliable, sometimes that they don't add up to significant coverage ..... and then that they are not "international"! I do not find any of those comments convincing - this is a definite keep on WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:19, 19 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Mateljan[edit]

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

Notability not established, no independent non primary sources ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 06:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable references exist that discuss him. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indepdent references. Basically an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO for some sort of health food promoter who fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 18 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackberry Bush[edit]

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

Book with no assertion of notability. One of the reviews mentioned (and uncited) does not appear to exist and the other is published on Blogspot. The creator of the article, User:In.tripletime appears to be the son of the author, which is an undeclared WP:COI. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the independent coverage that would merit notability under WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Catrìona (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wanted to save this, as I love the cover (that's a reason to want to save something, right?) but there just isn't enough coverage out there to show where this book passes NBOOK. Of note is that the uncited review is from Examiner, which is on Wikipedia's blacklist and not considered to be a reliable source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:04, 14 December 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. Vanamonde (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thalapathy 63[edit]

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

See guidelines for notability of future films. This film has not begun principal photography, and films that have not begun principal photography are almost never notable.

Stubs about films that are not yet in production are often promotional rather than neutral or informative in nature. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of the better Draft:Thalapathy 63 which can move forward when it is not WP:TOOSOON Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I agree that this is my mistake to create this article thalapathy 63 I'm happy if you delete it. I have a thought that the Draft:Thalapathy 63 is copy pasted from the user and I have proofs from most websites that he copy pasted it.@Robert McClenon: rupa$$$ (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - article creator has given consent for deletion as seen above Spiderone 10:40, 16 December 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 only argument to keep this only lists generic reasons not to delete hypothetical articles: no substantive reason to keep this article has been provided. Vanamonde (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The First Podcast[edit]

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

Podcast with no assertion of notability. All "references" are primary source links to the podcast itself or news articles about topics that the podcast has covered (and never reference the podcast). The creator of the article, User:In.tripletime appears to be a host of the podcast, which is an undeclared WP:COI. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Am article creator, here to give points for consideration. Give it a chance! There's potential.

Notability of entertainers can be established by them having some sort of significant following.^[1] This criteria is, of course, vague and probably subjective, as discussed in WP:ARBITRARY. What counts as a significant following? While it is understandable that Wikipedia is not interested in cataloguing every fly-by-night podcast, there is obviously a common sense threshold^[2] at some point in terms of podcast fan numbers, beyond which it could be argued as silly by-the-numbers rule-following to not consider it for article candidacy. A show must not reach Joe Rogan numbers for an article about it to be appropriate; the sum of its points of significance can be argued to be sufficient. A show that ranks in the top 10 and top 25 iTunes charts on a somewhat regular basis^[3], is heard by thousands of people per month^[4], and has served as a platform for major politicians to announce their next campaign^[5] may very well be worth keeping.
Conflict of interest has been declared. Conflict of interest is not criteria in and of itself for article deletion, but a guideline for user behavior. No contentious or unsourced claims have been included in article. No significant further edits have been submitted by self beyond initial crafting of article. No attempts to hide unsavory information about article subject have been made.
Primary source links are not inherently bad. ^[6] If the information being cited is irrelevant, however, it can and should be removed.
References to news articles about topics are there to meet citation requirements for statements on Wikipedia.^[7] They are not intended as "proof of notability", but to demonstrate that the thing being claimed is, well, correct.
Article may qualify for improvement instead of deletion.

(Am aware of self-interest in having this article remain undeleted, but have attempted a neutral rationale. Also am aware that Imgur links are not ideal as references, but I used them for the sake of ease. They can be demonstrated elsewhere if needed. Don't demolish a house while it is still being built.^[8]) In.tripletime (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that multiple AfDs have been created by the same user in immediate succession for completely unrelated articles to which I have contributed. Said user appears to be in good standing with the community, and this is not an attempt to suggest the AfDs were created in bad faith whatsoever. However, it is possible that he or she is being a bit overzealous or dislikes me or my contributions on some level; and, as such, the consideration for deletion of this article could be the result of external and perhaps irrelevant issues. In.tripletime (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means#Use_common_sense
^ https://i.imgur.com/ZKNIPR3.png
^ https://i.imgur.com/3Ghd3dL.png
^ https://audioboom.com/posts/7075408
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#%22Primary%22_does_not_mean_%22bad%22
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
^ Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

Strongly insinuating that something was done in bad faith, and then pointedly backing off from the suggestion, is still assuming bad faith, my friend. I nominated *two* of your articles for deletion after I noticed that more than 50% of all your edits are on COI/self-promotion topics. Please keep in mind that the AFD process is an adjudication of current notability, not hypothetical future notability. Above, you have basically made a "Can anyone really define notability?" argument, and then shown no further evidence of notability in the form of reliable secondary sources (and quoted a bunch of essays, which are not guidelines or policies). Axem Titanium (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Axem has made the right call, I'm not finding the independent coverage that would merit notability per WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. Catrìona (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t see anything here or at the article that proves it meets the WP:GNG, and the sole “keep” !vote so far has a pretty obvious conflict of interest. Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. This is not a case for giving the article a chance, but a case of the subject not being notable enough and the subject asking us to wait until they become notable. When subject is notable, an article will be created. Until then it's WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 02:33, 20 December 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 09:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonestown: The Women Behind the Massacre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only listed source for this A&E Biography special is a link to A&E's website. Not sufficiently covered in independent sources to merit a stand-alone article. Levivich (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said in previous nom, a low-notability and low-effort 'round number anniversary' doc that advances no new information about the story. Nate • (chatter) 08:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faster Fene (Books)[edit]

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

Page does not fufill WP:NB / Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Also, page is unsourced from 1 editor. ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 14:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been significantly improved since the nomination and now has references to substantial coverage in reliable sources such as the Mumbai Mirror piece which shows the popularity of these stories and the fact that they have adapted for film and television, passes WP:NBOOK, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - following the improvements made Spiderone 10:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would assume that a series of 20 books made into a movie is notable. I'm unable to search for Marathi references; I don't even know the transcription in that language. The closer should fix the disambiguation if kept; I think (book series) would be correct. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 17 December 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 09:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AKD Investment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article. Fails WP:NCORP. Any useful content could be merged into AKD Securities or AKD Group. Edwardx (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:26, 13 December 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MUST DIE![edit]

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

Non notable artist, with minimal online coverage and no charting singles. aNode (discuss) 03:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability under WP:MUSICBIO, does not meet guidelines for WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing is poor, and a Google search uncovers no other significant coverage - mostly links to buy or listen to his music and a few niche promotional publications of questionable reliability. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:10, 20 December 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 List of Sindhi-language poets. There is consensus here that while the topic might be notable, the list as it stands is not worth keeping. Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poets of Sindh[edit]

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

We already have a list on the topic. I don't see why should we have this type of article. AhmadLX (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see any problem in having an article as well as a list - eg, there is an article on English poetry (poetry from the United Kingdom written in the English language), and a List of English-language poets, and probably there could be (if there aren't already) an article on Poetry in the United Kingdom or Poets of the United Kingdom (which included other languages), and a List of poets from the United Kingdom. (And there's National poetry, "a list of articles about poetry in a single language or produced by a single nation.") In this case, the scope of the List of Sindhi-language poets is actually different from this article about Poets of Sindh, because not all the Poets of Sindh write in Sindhi. However, the current article on Poets of Sindh appears to be a List of poets of Sindh, not an article about them. If it was an article, it should organise them by themes like period, language, style, etc, and say something about each period, etc. As a list, it should surely be systematically organised - the current contents are semi-alphabetical (sometimes by the name placed first, sometimes by the name placed last, and sometimes completely out of order). So as it is, it does not seem very useful (though I know AfD is not supposed to be about the quality of the article, it would seem useful to either be an article or be a list). As to whether the topic is notable - there seem to be plenty of sources about eg Sufi poets of Sindh, Persian poets of Sindh, mystic poets of Sindh, classical poets of Sindh, suggesting that an article or list of Poets of Sindh could be divided into those topics. The book Shah Abdul Latif Bhitai and Other Sufi Poets of Pakistani Languages (comes up on a google search, but no preview) says "Many prominent poets of Sindh have produced, besides Sindhi and Persian, Urdu poetry also", also suggesting possible divisions for an article on Poets of Sindh. But while the topic does appear notable, I am not sure if this article/list is worth keeping. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse RebeccaGreen's very sensible and pertinent comments. The current content is not an article but a list; it's poorly but not wholly uncited; the topic is surely notable; and it could be made into a list and structured into Sindhi, Persian, and Urdu sections. The existing List of Sindhi-language poets could then be merged into the Sindhi section. Just my tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, possibly merge, to List of Sindhi-language poets until somebody rewrites this as a proper article rather than a content-fork list. Sandstein 09:33, 20 December 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, probably WP:SOFTKEEP . If SmartSE objects to the Keep !voters' arguments, I may reverse this close immediately; however, seeing no opposition, closing for now as keep. Lourdes 03:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanners (company)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing coverage in reliable sources that demonstrates this meets WP:NCORP. The references cited are either in specialist trade publications or local sources of dubious reliability. It just seems like an old, but small run of the mill wine merchants. My own searches have not turned up anything better. SmartSE (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable. Here's yet another source. Andrew D. (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable long-standing, multi-generational family-run business with an interesting history for the British wine trade, that is regional in breadth. Sumorsǣte (talk) 12:35, 15 December 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 TheBlaze#Notable weekly shows. Well, this is a WP:SOFTREDIRECT; so refund (or redirect) applies in case someone objects. Lourdes 02:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the Record (American TV series)[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this TheBlaze program is notable. Article has been unsourced since 2013, and has been 'notability' tagged for a year and a half. Some WP:BEFORE work yielded no coverage of this program. This does not look to come close to meeting WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TheBlaze#Notable weekly shows Defunct show without much GNG/N otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 15:27, 13 December 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. If Slater is opposed to the rationale of the keep !voters, I'll reopen the discussion; but seeing no real opposition to valid keep arguments, am closing this for now. Lourdes 02:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portakal Çiçeği Tower[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Well no expansion or RS added since the last AFD. Not seeing any real notability. Its been a year, more then enough time to make this worthy of keeping. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added more info from the TR wikipedia page, the building is a notable building most importantly because it is a record holder for tallest building in the city which is a major metropolis, in other words, Ankara, the capital of Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2R0T2E3 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although this would also qualify for "Speedy Keep" because there is no legitimate rationale in the deletion nomination. Quoting my own comments in last AFD " Because there should exist coverage in Turkish and/or English, because it is a very tall building, and per List of tallest buildings in Ankara it is the tallest building in Ankara". And "Note, at worst this should be merged or redirected to its row in List of tallest buildings in Ankara; it should not be outright deleted." and "Actually, can this AFD be closed "Speedy Keep", because there is no valid deletion rationale in the nomination. There is no assertion that wp:BEFORE has been attempted. Articles are not required to include sources, in fact. "I doubt this passes GNG" is not something worth others' time and effort to address, IMHO." Also in the last AFD No such user stated "I researched a bit and there is some coverage about the building [37][38],[39] which confirms the little data we have in the article, and it must have gained some attention being so tall and modern. Not speaking Turkish, it's hard for me to assess reliability and depth of this coverage, but then the nominator didn't seem to either." This new AFD's nominator also appears to have done no other wp:BEFORE work, besides ignoring the sources provided in the last AFD. --Doncram (talk) 18:23, 16 December 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 Queen (Nicki Minaj album). Lourdes 02:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Radio (Nicki Minaj Radio)[edit]

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

Aside from a couple of accusations made in this podcast (already mentioned in the articles of the artists involved), this does not have encyclopedic relevancy. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / Merge this to Queen album or Nicki Minaj. This podcast was obviously a publicity stunt to help her album's sales. As a "podcast" it has no notability. Trillfendi (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Queen, non-notable podcast. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:51, 13 December 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. Lourdes 02:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Loginov[edit]

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

Little-known Russian actor. There are no significant rewards and roles.--RTY9099 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR FWIW. Rzvas (talk) 19:29, 18 December 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.