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. Given the history, draftifying seems not practical. If this becomes notable in the future, any admin will happily restore it. Randykitty (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Hearts (Chevel Shepherd song)[edit]

Broken Hearts (Chevel Shepherd song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This song is not (yet?) notable independently of the artist. An attempt was made to incubate the article in draft space, but an anon persistently copied the content back to article space. —teb728 t c 23:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If you look at the history of Chevel Shepherd there has been an edit battle over keeping her article or redirecting to The Voice (U.S. TV series), where she competed. Thus we can conclude that the singer's notability is not even established yet. By policy the same is true of her releases, and this particular song's only claim to fame is that it was performed once on the show. (Successfully, I admit.) Delete this article and we will see if the singer's career develops further. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON as the song was just released. I think that draftify would also be acceptable as this may gain notability in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 25 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. As a reminder to all, nominators are encouraged to read WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Clarke (mayor)[edit]

Ralph Clarke (mayor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is one of a group of ancestral sketches previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Staniforth which was declined because many voters were opposed to the bulk nature of the listing.

There appears to be no claim of notability, but this article is better than the ones I speedied, so perhaps it's worth discussing here. UninvitedCompany 22:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to being the first mayor of a large British town. 2602:306:CF9B:2700:FDB7:2843:D5FA:3F34 (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is the nom familiar with WP:BEFORE? Especially D. "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability - 1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. 3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." It's also not a valid basis for nomination that the article does not have a "claim of notability". In this case, the subject of this article is covered in History of Chesterfield: pt. 1. Tudor and Stuart Chesterfield (1984) [1], The History of Chesterfield: With Particulars of the Hamlets Contiguous to the Town, and Descriptive Accounts of Chatsworth, Hardwick, and Bolsover Castle (1839), [2], History of Chesterfield: Records of the Borough of Chesterfield and related documents 1204-1835, Volume 5 (1980) [3], The book of Chesterfield: a portrait of the town (1977) [4], Adventures for land, 1642-1659 (1900) [5], and newspaper articles in 1881, 1892, 1920, etc. He clearly meets WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as I indicated in the first ill-formed bulk AfD) - the first mayor of Chesterfield, sources are available. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 24 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) Ifnord (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darnall Hall[edit]

Darnall Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability concerns. There appears to be no meaningful claim of notability. The previous AfD listing concerns previous, unrelated content under the same title. UninvitedCompany 22:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Certainly a notable building in the city of Sheffield, both as a residence hall and as the later Liberal Club. StaniforthHistorian (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator has just AfD'ed eight articles created by the same editor. Please don't expect us to believe that this is about issues of "notability". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination here is legit - the creator was creating Staniforth family related articles - some of which are not notable. This particular building was of local significance (standing between 1723 and 2010) and is covered in a number of sources. The - book - has fairly in depth coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 24 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 subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Nightclub[edit]

Axis Nightclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability to pass WP:NCORP. WP:Run-of-the-mill gay bar with no distinguishing characteristics. All sources are just passing mentions, mainly discussing drag performances rather than the venue itself. Reywas92^Talk 23:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. User:Reywas92 has nominated several articles for deletion at once, so now I have to scramble to find sources for multiple subjects, but I believe there's sufficient coverage for an article. There are now several references in the article, and I've not even searched newspaper archives, local or otherwise. Sure, more sources are needed to help flesh out this article, but I believe there's a story to be told here, and Nina West's close affiliation with the bar also contributes to coverage and notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sources added are still passing mentions and routine local content. I don't see notability here. Reywas92^Talk 21:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ORGDEPTH - no significant coverage --DannyS712 (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC) See below --DannyS712 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG as explained by Another Believer. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on improvements made during the course of this AfD (thanks to Another Believer) (I previously said delete, but changed my mind) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:47, 22 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 that subject meets at least WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Goore[edit]

Charles Goore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is one of a group of ancestral sketches previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Staniforth which was declined because many voters were opposed to the bulk nature of the listing. That such an approach was perhaps justified is demonstrated by the fact that this article covers one of the more notable subjects. Nonetheless, this very minor historical figure fails WP:GNG. UninvitedCompany 21:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose The man was a former Lord Mayor of Liverpool. StaniforthHistorian (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, sorry but this afd is a waste of time ie. nominator's "very minor historical figure" is their subjective opinion, no analysis of the numerous references included in the article, no discussion of numerous references/books etc that a gsearch brings up. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree, a waste of editors' time when it appears that the nom has not bothered to do WP:BEFORE. The articles may have been created by someone with a distant connection to the family, but the lack of WP:BEFORE brings in to question the nom's motives, too. In this case, see for example Britain's History and Memory of Transatlantic Slavery: Local Nuances of a 'National Sin [6], Motives of Honor, Pleasure, and Profit: Plantation Management in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1607-1763 [7], and many more. Clearly meets WP:GNG RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (note in the ill-formed bulk-AfD - I mentioned this one as a keep "meets NPOL, Mayor of Liverpool twice"). Sources quite obviously exist, and well, he was the Mayor of Liverpool twice. I will note that some of the nominations by UninvitedCompany are of non-notable figures (and scrutiny is warranted in the topic area of Staniforth genealogy) - though I urge them to do a better BEFORE prior to nomming. Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Staniforth[edit]

Allan Staniforth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously listed for deletion in a bulk request at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Staniforth which was turned down on on procedural grounds by people who believed that each article should be listed individually. Subject fails WP:GNG as the available sources are either passing references or not independent. UninvitedCompany 21:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject meets WP:AUTHOR #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." His books on race and rally cars have multiple citations and reviews, eg Maximum Mini: The Definitive Book of Cars Based on the Original Mini [8], How to Build Motorcycle-engined Racing Cars [9], Frogeye Sprite: The Complete Story [10], Build Your Own Kit Car [11], How To Build a Cheap Sports Car [12], review in Motor Sport magazine [13], and even in a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering thesis, Redesign of an FSAE Race Car’s Steering and Suspension System [14]. I'm sure there's more to be found. I am starting to wonder whether WP:BEFORE has been done for all these nominations. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ran searches before coming to read the discussion, adding a couple of sources to the page. It seems pretty clear that his journalism career can be sourced, and the he is notable within the world of build-it-yourself car racing hobbyists. I am not certain on what grounds Nom regards sources as "non independent." A hobbyist is INDEPENDENT of other hobbyists with the same passion for car racing. And while a group of them are devoted to building cars using Mini engines - an publishing books and article about it - they do not work for Mini. I would say that they are no less INDEPENDENT than a series or group of WP editors who edit on the same topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor AI[edit]

Nestor AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Marginally notable but promotional article created by now-blocked promotional accounts. The article has been created entirely by now-blocked accounts with only tweaks by neutral editors. It does not exactly qualify for G5 because the accounts were not blocked then.

If someone wants to rework this article within seven days, they can. A Soft Delete will permit a neutral editor to create a new article after this one is deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft delete as per nomination. No prejudice against an unconnected editor creating a non-spammy version. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:38, 23 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 and redirect to List of foods of the Southern United States. Randykitty (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hot hamburger plate[edit]

Hot hamburger plate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tagged for no references for nearly ten years. Googling it came up with blogs and recipes, but no coverage. valereee (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of foods of the Southern United States as there are apparently no good sources available but it exists and is a legitimate search term for wikireaders. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that in theory, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned there? Am I missing it? valereee (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added it there valereee (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm just finding primary sources so this looks like OR but maybe NorthAmerica1000 can turn up something. Andrew D. (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – My own searches have provided no coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've lived in the southeastern United States for a couple of decades, but I've never seen this on a menu or in any publications. OK, an online search finds it on some menus, but not enough to establish notability. It's not in the Wikibooks Cookbook, either, but that would be a more appropriate place. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of foods of the Southern United States as it doesn't seem to have reliable coverage larger than mentions. Sounds tasty though. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• but it doesn't appear to include bacon ...... mmmmmmmm ... bacon. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pink[edit]

Jonathan Pink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Blatantly promotional page largely not based on the cited sources, many of which do not mention Pink at all or do not say what they're cited for. After removing 4KB worth of such badly-sourced spammy content and finding that I could just go on removing, with next to nothing remaining and but a single possibly-useful source, I don't see that Pink is actually notable - no more so than in 2007 when a previous version of the article was deleted. Huon (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:Vanispamcruftisement. TJRC (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article reads more like a promotional biography.TH1980 (talk) 01:11, 23 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Oad[edit]

Ravi Oad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 20:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)  Request withdrawn Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 20:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep Wikipedia's notability criteria is not restricted to a particular geographic region. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that above !keep vote addressed a nomination rationale that the nominator subsequently changed without comment or redaction. Bakazaka (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable --Binod Basnet (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an author i have to vote for a keep but that doesn't mean it doesn't meet notability criteria. He has been appeared in Television show Nepal Idol & has won it. Let me tell you that Nepal Idol is an international franchise show. Secondly, he has been featured in wide independent media. He has released several music videos which we can find on google news & i'll add more referneces. Let's talk about it for more. Azkord (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO as the winner of Nepal Idol. What rationale does the nom have for saying "not notable"? RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable person. You would not find enough sources in English but there are many in Hindi. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Sources provided in the discussion appear to satisfy both WP:GNG and the suggested criteria in the essay at Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes). RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Alum Rock earthquake[edit]

2007 Alum Rock earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Minimal effects and no lasting impact. No encyclopedic or education entry can be created. This is a good example of scientific interest not aligning with encyclopedic notability Dawnseeker2000 20:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have been avoiding these earthquake AfDs, because the earthquake wikiproject seem determined to delete many articles that meet WP:GNG, and even some that meet their own criteria. This nomination is a classic example. How can you say "No encyclopedic or education entry can be created" when an encyclopaedic entry exists? How can scientific interest, as shown in the existence of reliable sources, not align with encyclopaedic notability? In this case, in addition to the sources included in the article, I also find 'Geodetically inferred coseismic and postseismic slip due to the M 5.4 31 October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake', Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2009, J. R. Murray-Moraleda and R.W. Simpson [15], 'The 2007 M5.4 Alum Rock, California, earthquake: Implications for future earthquakes on the central and southern Calaveras Fault', JGR Solid Earth, 2010, by David H. Oppenheimer, William H. Bakun et al [16], 'Response of Alum Rock springs to the October 30, 2007 Alum Rock earthquake and implications for the origin of increased discharge after earthquakes', Geofluids, 2009, Michael Manga and Joel Rowland [17], 'Moderate Earthquake Ground-Motion Validation in the San Francisco Bay Area' Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 2010, by Ahyi Kim, Douglas S. Dreger, and Shawn Larsen [18]. Definitely meets WP:GNG. The previous AfD for an article about this 31 October 2007 earthquake was started on 31 October 2007. Clearly, the editors who thought it was not notable, and would never be notable, did not have crystal balls - the existence of articles published several years after the event is evidence of its notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I feel odd !voting here since I created the article, but I concur with pretty much everything RebeccaGreen said above. ceranthor 16:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Still a memorable earthquake per reliable sources. Excelse (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:HEY, I agree with RebeccaGreen on this deletion mania of useful, well sourced earthquakes, including this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not close. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 22:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OWN reminder. WP:STEWARDSHIP of a topic is admirable, but a STEWARD does not OWN that which he helps to manage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 24 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 19:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brockton Time Capsules[edit]

Brockton Time Capsules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails WP:GNG as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article makes no claims of notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regional and urban time capsules find it hard to achieve notability when they are buried. It is when they are dug up and the contents presented to the public that they receive substantial coverage. Another issue with Time Capsules is that with the little coverage they receive when buried they tend to be lost to history.

--comment by ∞∞∞∞∞ (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Truth is, I'd back a speedy delete for failure to make a claim of notability. Complete GNG failure. That being said, to address what I think is an objection on User:NdajiyaSuberu's part, whether time capsules find it hard to achieve notability, or tend to be lost to history or not, is none of our concern. Wikipedia is not for promoting time capsules. Ravenswing 03:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 09:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:13, 23 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 Speedy keep, per clearly satisfying WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keqin Li[edit]

Keqin Li (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Substub with COI edits Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 19:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as being a fellow of the IEEE is the actual example in the guidelines for how someone passes WP:PROF#C3. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment So while this is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3, shouldn't this also be an example of WP:TNT, if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title (in this case notable subject) might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the article history shows a good faith effort to provide non-useless content. The nominator deleted that content and then brought this to AfD. Additionally, WP:TNT is an essay, and my own read is that it provides advice on issues of complexity and incoherence, or unambiguous totally promotional content, neither of which appear to me to be at issue here. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly checked the history and I agree here. The nominator actually removed the (in my opinion) solid enough content and then nominated it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and trout nominator. It's hardly the sign of a good faith nomination to delete almost all of the content from the article and then claim that it should be deleted all the way because it's so short (the more-complete pre-nominated version is here). Even in its shortened state, the article clearly demonstrates a pass of WP:PROF. And the claim that the anonymous editor who expanded it from its sub-stub state should be reverted and their edits used as an excuse to delete the article is, without evidence, a personal attack. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nevermind, just saw the former content was in a better state because the things were removed around (including a reference of the official site of the subject, which while it is a primary source, it is still vital). I have no objections then, clearly passes WP:PROF#C3. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Passes WP:PROF without even breaking a sweat. It could stand a good clean-up, but really, what couldn't? XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 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. Consensus appears quite clear on keeping and nominator appears to want to withdraw the nomination. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Giles[edit]

Sam Giles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although the individual has published a few good academic papers, by comparison with other high profile academics in the field of palaeontology listed on Wikipedia (for example, Jenny Clack, Mark Norell or Michael Benton), her contribution is very minor and does not pass the WP:SCI. I feel that maybe in the future this individual should be considered for a wiki page, but at present I cannot see any reason for it being retained. The research section also boasts of more of self promotion and several of the sources are directly linked to academic studies, rather than actual newsworthy science. None of the sources show indicate that this person is clearly notable. My suggestion is for the page to be considered for deletion. I am new to editing Wiki, but am a semi-retired paleontologist and have noticed a bunch of wikipedia paleontologist pages that I feel do not warrant their own page, by comparison with such individuals mentioned above and therefore intend to do a bit of a clean up and contribute where I can. User:Xioa72 (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2018 (CET)

• Keep I would firstly note that WP:SCI is not Wikipedia policy, but a failed proposal, so it can't be used to assess articles. The relevant guideline is WP:NACADEMIC, which has 9 points, the first of which is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Those sources do not need to be scholarly, but WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE. There are a lot of non-independent sources included in this article (her own papers, and sources from or by universities she is or has been affiliated with). However, there are several which are both independent and reliable, eg [19], [20], and (not in the article) [21], [22], [23], and which do indicate (to a non-paleontologist) that her research has had a significant impact on the field. The subject of this article may not be as notable as the others you referred to, but, if she meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability, that is not a reason for this article to be deleted. (I would have to say that these sources are not "the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1", and other editors may not agree that she meets any criterion of WP:NACADEMIC, or even WP:GNG.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your reply, that's much appreciated. Yes, you make some good points. However, I was unaware of the pages you mention - I'm new to Wikipedia editing (sorry), but looking at those pages, and specifically what is required for individuals of notability, this reiterates my previous statement that this individuals contribution to her field does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability sensu WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Compare with those mentioned previously, or other palaeontologists who have made major, significant contributions in this field such as Darren Naish, David B. Norman, or even Robert T. Bakker. I don't see any evidence that this individual is deserved of their own Wikipedia page. There are 100's of palaeontologists who have contributed equal to or much more to the science, who don't have their own page (yet). User:Xioa72 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2018 (CET)

• That's a reason for them to have articles, not, necessarily, for this person not to have one. There is a specific point about that somewhere, with a shortcut which I don't remember right now (I am fairly new to editing too). Maybe I'm thinking of Other Stuff Exists WP:OSE (or doesn't exist). And that's one reason for AfDs - other editors assess the subject's notability against relevant criteria, and a closing editor or admin assesses the arguments to keep, delete, merge, redirect, etc, and makes a decision (hopefully on consensus). Some areas have very specific agreed criteria, others don't, so the general criteria apply (and sometimes people who don't meet specific criteria do meet general ones). If you are aware of palaeontologists who have contributed a lot who don't yet have articles, if I were you, I would try to put my energy into writing articles about them, rather than arguing for deletion of existing articles. I'm not trying to say don't put articles up for deletion, some definitely don't belong in an encyclopaedia, but that in itself doesn't help expand Wikipedia's coverage of significant people / discoveries / developments in theory, etc. I hope I'm making myself clear! And hopefully other editors will weigh in too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes, I see. Yes, it's a very steep learning curve this editing process. I had no idea how difficult it would be; Bakazaka kindly provided me with some links on editing, which I shall follow. Yes, I would like to focus my energies into creating pages, but one must appreciate that such individuals as the one under discussion, whose contribution is rather minor, dilutes the efforts of paleontologists whose contributions are significant in this field. You are most definitely making yourself clear, and I much appreciate your sentiment and comments. It's all very useful. User:Xioa72 (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2018 (CET)

• Well, you can make something less dilute by removing the factor you don't want, or adding more of what you do want (I'm using 'want' very broadly there, not trying to imply there's anything personal in it). RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I can see 5 or so mentions in mid-quality RS, but it doesn't quite hit the mark. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Xioa72 Welcome to Wikipedia. Whether or not other more 'deserving' people don't have articles or vice versa has zero relevance to the discussion of whether this person is notable enough. If you know of people who are notable and don't have pages, by all means create those pages! valereee (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for kind welcome, valereee. Yes, I would agree with you, although as included in a comment above, it is important that Wikipedia recognises paleontologists who have genuinely made significant contributions in this field that have aided in the progression of the science as a whole. My intentions are to edit paleontologists whose pages require expansion, sensu Emily Rayfield, Per E. Ahlberg, and to weed out others who do not meet the notability criteria as a paletontologist/academic, as defined by WP:NACADEMIC andWP:GNG, as pointed out by RebeccaGreen; thank you. After which, my intention is to create new pages for paleontologists deemed worthy, but here it is important for one to test the waters to appreciate the difficulty and obstacles that may/may not be in place for adding/removing pages. I hope this is clear and would be deemed useful to the wiki community. User:Xioa72 (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2018 (CET)

• comment From the UofM article: here: :"For several decades, scientists have placed polypterids down near the base of the family tree of ray-finned fish, a large group believed to have originated around 385 million years ago.

But a new study that used CT scans to probe three-dimensionally preserved fossil fish skulls shakes up the fish family tree by concluding that the emergence of polypterids occurred much later than researchers had thought. The findings also suggest that the origin of all modern ray-finned fish may have occurred tens of millions of years later than is generally believed.

The international research team was led by Sam Giles of the University of Oxford and includes University of Michigan paleontologist Matt Friedman. A paper summarizing the findings was published Aug. 30 in Nature."

I think that might show notability right there? valereee (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see any reason for this page to be retained. One Nature paper should not warrant the erection of a Wikipedia page. Weak. Dino710 (talk) 11.18, 22 December 2018 (GMT) — Dino710 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Huh. Very interesting. First this article is AfD'd by a brand new account. Then the delete is supported by an apparent SPA created to defend the AfD for Dean Lomax, a paleontologist whose article was ultimately deleted. valereee (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not created to just defend the AfD -- apparently created to create the Dean Lomax article in the first place. Edit history was lost when article was deleted, I guess? And a couple weeks ago, deleted a photo of Dean Lomax that had been used in that article. More and more interesting. valereee (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User Dino710 removed the above three posts (Dino710 11:18 22 Dec, Valereee 12:10 and 13:58 22 Dec) on 24 Dec, and in their next edit removed two blank lines to tidy up (AGF) or to hide this change. Their edits were reverted. PamD 16:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree the sourcing could be a little better on this article, but I think she meets notability. Also noting per discussion by Valereee above that the circumstances of this AFD seem to be a bit suspicious. I'm a big advocate of trying not to bite the newcomers but creating a new account at Wikipedia just to start a delete discussion is not a thing we should encourage. Please participate and contribute to the encycopedia first, then maybe move up to admin things like deletion. --Krelnik (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Krelnik, am I missing something regarding your comment of suspicious? I agree with you, but I felt compelled to begin by removing those pages that are not of notability, and then edit and add others. I'm not quite sure why this would be deemed inappropriate? From what I have read, I have followed the appropriate guidelines but am by all accounts a novice wikipedian. User:Xioa72 (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2018 (CET)

• There is nothing wrong, strictly speaking, with jumping in and starting by nominating an article for deletion, but it's generally better to begin small and learn the lay of the land first. Make improvements to existing articles, hang out in behind-the-scenes discussions and comment on other people's proposals — just get a feel for how the social dynamics work and what standards people typically have in mind. It's the Wikipedia version of learning to walk before you run. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Three of the sources have HEADLINES about her research 'shaking up' or 'rewriting' the fish/vertebrate evolutionary tree. That's pretty much the definition of notability for a research scientist. valereee (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: appears to clearly pass criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. It does seem somewhat surprising and sad for a new editor to start off by trying to remove an article with their very first logged-on edit, rather than adding to the encyclopedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only an essay but is worth reading, and is partly relevant here. There are undoubtedly many notable palaeontologists, and other scientists of all disciplines, all eras, both sexes, who ought to have articles and haven't yet. Plenty to work on in a positive direction, and much more rewarding than taking time to propose deletions. PamD 16:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To help other new editors, I've added a hatnote on the failed proposal WP:Notability (science) (WP:SCI) to point them in the direction of the current notability guideline WP:Notability (academics). PamD 16:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The spirit of and reason behind the academic notability guideline is that researchers can be noteworthy because they have done influential work, even if we don't have biographical material devoted to them specifically. I think that the science-media coverage and the L'Oréal-UNESCO award are indicators enough for that, in this case. (Postdoctoral fellowships generally don't count for all that much in the academic-notability evaluation, but getting half a million pounds from the Royal Society doesn't exactly hurt, either.) Nor does the article read as particularly promotional; to me, it's a pretty humdrum academic bio. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just updated the Stats link, which had previously been to Lanham Estates. But I am concerned with its results, as RebeccaGreen clearly voted Keep, above. Could someone with more experience than I please check this out? Oronsay (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. (Summoned via Scottywong's talk page.) Enterprisey (talk!) 15:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey: There's still something odd in the stats as Dino710's delete vote isn't showing. Odd. PamD 16:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I definitely voted Keep! I don't know anything about how the stats are generated, but I can't see anything in what I said to give a Delete reading. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThanks everybody for responding to my comments and questions, and apologies for being a bit of a pain with all these queries. It is kind of you all to reply in such detail. Before replying to your comments, I decided to look into more behind the notability guideline WP:Notability (academics) and also into the h-index. This individual has a h-index of 8, which is far too low and from the mark of the WP:Prof#C1. Maybe I'm being a little too cynical and stuck in my old ways, but I must admit that based on these guidelines I really don't see how this individual passes these tests. What do you make of this Oronsay? Thanks. User:Xioa72 (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2018 (CET)
  • The h-index, and all other citation metrics, are merely one way of meeting one criterion of WP:PROF, and they are not uniformly helpful across all fields of science. "Success" by citation metric means passing WP:PROF, but its absence does not mean failure. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: on "self-promotion" mentioned above, it's worth noting that this article is largely the work of the celebrated User:Jesswade88, part of her major project to create articles about scientists, so is certainly not "self-promotion". PamD 16:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree per above. Mmcele (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is nothing self-promotional in this biography. Maybe work on your own contributions to Wikipedia (or science) User:Xioa72 before saying other academics aren't notable enough. Jesswade88 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although it may be WP:TOOSOON for real academic notability, her Google Scholar citations are on a steeply rising curve, so I think she'll get there soon. And she appears to have attracted enough media attention for WP:GNG notability instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Thanks everybody for your input. Based on what you have all said, perhaps I'm just too set in my ways. In this case, how do I reverse the suggestion for deletion? User:Xioa72 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2018 (CET)
  • You can withdraw your nomination, and if there are no other delete opinions the discussion can be closed early. But in this case there is another delete opinion and we're near the end of the discussion period anyway, so beyond expressing your change of opinion there's not much more to be done. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Langham Estate[edit]

Langham Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable London property estate Polyamorph (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a 14 acre neighborhood in the center of London with a long history. Meets WP:GEOLAND Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is not about the neighbourhood, it's about the real estate companies that owns properties on streets that we already have articles on, Bolsover_Street, Great Portland Street, Hallam Street etc. which I absolutely agre should exist, but where is the significant coverage for this particular property estate? Polyamorph (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you see it as a company, wbile I see it as a historic collection of properties purchased as a block. Sorry but a collection of properties this large and well located is notable. See the long list of refs and fact it is in the middle of central London. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I refer everyone to helpful comments on the talkpage [24] Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the test here is WP:NORG, not WP:GEOLAND. Will look to see if it's notable or not in a bit. SportingFlyer talk 23:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would like to defend this entry, as I fear that if the Langham Estate is not considered sufficiently notable then many other wikis covering land ownership in the centre of London (Derwent, Howard de Walden Estate, Portman Estate... etc.), others elsewhere or even other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langham entries should be considered for removal.

One case in point: the neighbouring estate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derwent_London has a similar footprint/value/impact. The Derwent wiki has been in place since 2008 and has not be challenged in this way. The same applies to the similarly aged entry for Langham's other neighbour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaftesbury_plc. It would be nice to see equitable treatment.

Langham Estate is similarly one of the largest holdings in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzrovia and the 16th largest in London -- it lies next to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Street (with some of the most valuable real estate in the UK). The Langham Estate is worth GBP 100s of millions , has been in existence for about a century and its activities have had an outsized impact on the economy and the lives of thousands in this section of London.

The article lists numerous references and they substantiate (notability: verifiable secondary sources over a sufficiently significant period of time) what has been written in the text. Its references are verifiable and come from reputable and independent sources (University College London Bartlett School of Architecture, The Independent, Financial Times, Evening Standard, Sunday Times, and a number of books... etc.). The fact that SOME of the articles might lie behind paywalls for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rosguill does not mean the reference material is not there. If necessary the references can and will be revised to show hard copy reference sources -- but then what would that change? I took much time to carefully justify everything I wrote in this text.

Let me know. I am sorry you think this article unsuitable.

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. The article is about a company, not a landmark, so WP:GEOLAND does not apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article does specifically say it is about the company, so it must meet WP:NCORP, as other editors have noted. I do find some coverage not included in the article: 'Langham Estate deal near', Mortished, Carl, The Times (London, England), Monday, August 9, 1993, Issue 64718, p.31; 'Langham offer lower as bidder disputes figures', Kinloch, Bruce, The Daily Telegraph (London, England), Tuesday, April 27, 1993, Issue 42873, p.25 (171 words); 'Langham Estate £59m tag looks excessive', The Daily Telegraph (London, England), Tuesday, March 9, 1993, Issue 42831, p.23 (769 words); 'Could the owner of Langham Estate test good relations with move for Shaftsbury?', The Telegraph, By Ben Marlow, 29 Nov 2014; 'The Langham Estate snaps up West End office for £29 million', The Evening Standard, JOANNA BOURKE, Monday 20 April 2015. There are other articles which mention it, but the focus is often on the owner rather than the estate, or on neighbouring estates. These 5 articles, and The Independent article already in included as a source, all include the name Langham Estate in the headline, indicating that they regard it as notable, and they are all about it. They don't come under 'Examples of trivial coverage, eg standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: "expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" - or at least, many are about sales, but not routine, eg they're reporting on the progress of and problems with a proposed purchase. So I would say we probably have 6 sources which meet all the criteria of WP:ORGCRIT, significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and certainly enough to meet the 'multiple' criterion. Interestingly, I don't find much coverage before 1993, but that doesn't matter for establishing notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the Survey of London: South-East Marylebone: Volumes 51& 52 of UCL [Yale University Press; Slp edition (3 Oct. 2017)] gives a good account of the company prior to 1993 -- and the fact its previous owners lost 100s of millions of pounds with the entity -- it is considered notable enough to mentioned in this study.
• Keep, per sources presented. Notability is satisfied. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 28 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Love[edit]

Rick Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP with no proper references. . Just loads of his own writing. Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this this a profile in Mother Jones the same Rick Love? The Stealth Crusade: Inside one Southern university, Christian missionaries are being trained to go undercover in the Muslim world and win converts for Jesus. Their stated goal: to wipe out Islam.. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not appear to be the same Rick Love. I cannot find anything that connects this Rick Love to Columbia International University. DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 22:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. The few sources I can find are all primary. DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 22:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Created by a WP:SPA. Likely WP:AUTOBIO. Few mentions of this guy in low quality-RS, but definitely not close to notable. NickCT (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cannot find SIGCOV of him or his books. (after searching, I can say definitively that he is NOT the Rick Love in Mother Jones.) This one seems to be an active activist, but not one of whom WPRS have taken notice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 24 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 19:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euroffice[edit]

Euroffice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article. Unable to determine how this can pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was unable to locate any independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Citrivescence (talk) 05:33, 23 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 speedy keep WP:SK#1 (non-admin closure) Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 18:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social media addiction[edit]

Social media addiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Former redirect hijacked by SPA who made it overlong ("-30,692‎"?) Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 17:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Nothing wrong with article, passes WP:GNG, SPA isn't a problem if he's not doing anything wrong, we all have our interests. Smartyllama (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – The article has been around since 2011 (Well referenced and written). I do not see where a SPA hijacked or redirected the piece. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoessss: Right here. Note that most of the edits in the page history are from E.3. This page caught my eye after a suspicious request at the Commons graphic lab. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 17:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lojbanist attempted to close their own AfD as redirect, despite the above !votes. I reverted this obvious WP:BADNAC as it goes against not just one but several of the principles there. Not sure it's normally OK for me to do that as a non-admin, but given the sheer obviousness of the situation, I'm calling WP:IAR. Smartyllama (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: I was being bold by restoring the redirect. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 18:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping is not being bold, it's being disruptive. Let's have a discussion on this AfD page and see what happens. Smartyllama (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 18:43, 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. Sandstein 19:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community policing in Namibia[edit]

Community policing in Namibia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Entirely unremarkable. The title is misleading, as the topic only relates to Windhoek which has a special Police force, the Windhoek City Police. This City Police, in turn, has divided the town in zones, and, surprise, they occasionally patrol the streets. That's all there is. So I nominate this for lack of notability and as a textbook run-of-the-mill entry. Pgallert (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not outstanding information. Seems to be a common behavior and is thus unremarkable. –eggofreason^talk 16:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unremarkable, routine policing strategy. –dlthewave ☎ 22:54, 24 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 speedy keep. Clearly notable from sources provided. Guideline noted by nominator does not cover clubs. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S.L. Benfica (women's football)[edit]

S.L. Benfica (women's football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. SLBedit (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep- meets WP:GNG with presented sources in the article including that from BBC. Vague nomination. WP:NFOOTBALL is for athletes not teams or clubs. See WP:NTEAM. Hitro talk 16:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The league where they play isn't professional. SLBedit (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the majority of top women's leagues and players around the world are not included currently under WikiProject Football's frequently debated notability guideline: WP:NFOOTBALL, often times there is enough media coverage about a player, team, or league that meets the WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT guidelines, which take precedence over WP:NFOOTBALL. Anyhow, it's an article about a club, WP:GNG is what to be considered. Hitro talk 16:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep It appears nominator is confused. WP:FPL and WP:NFOOTBALL apply to players, not teams. Amateur soccer teams can be, and frequently are, notable. I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A professional football team with many other available sources not in the article, an absolutely clear keep. SportingFlyer talk 20:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Can you provide a source saying it is a professional football team? SLBedit (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SLBedit: [25] but it has absolutely no bearing on the notability of the article. SportingFlyer talk 21:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had already read that source. "Assente numa gestão profissional" ("Based on a professional management") doesn't mean it's a professional team. Benfica have other amateur teams with a professional management. I didn't say it was relevant to the article's notability. SLBedit (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I started the article) - Like others I'm surprised at this nomination. In part it could be due to me not adding enough sources to the article when I created it - so sorry about that. But the team has played in the national cup if that still has any currency in these votes (I find it hard to keep up)? They won 20–0 and 16–0 in the first two rounds and were due to play in Madeira today but their flight was cancelled. When they won a pre-season tournament in Spain it received national media coverage.[26] In this tournament they beat Atlético Madrid, the champions of Spain who had knocked FullyProfessional™ Man City out of this season's UEFA Women's Champions League! I think this gives an indication of the Benfica team's level/standing. I think you could make an analogy with Manchester United W.F.C. who started off this season at the semi-pro second level but are generally steamrolling their opposition. The Benfica team's first league game resulted in a new national record win (28–0), garnering coverage in national and international media.[27], [28] As for professionalism, it seems improbable that all those Brazil national team players are there purely out of goodwill. They probably aren't being paid as much as they deserve (imo) but clearly this is no amateur team. As a football fan myself I accept there's often a level of revulsion towards 'franchise football' and these sort of artificial 'newco' teams, but Wikipedia is not the place for us to right great wrongs. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article for deletion because it's about a team not playing in a professional league, but I was wrong: that rule only applies to players and managers. SLBedit (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - NFOOTY doesn't relate to football clubs, as others have said Spiderone 11:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep As pointed out, a club can't fail WP:NFOOTBALL and this club has received international coverage. Number 57 12:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a major sport club in Portugal. There was widely coverage in Portugal about its foundation and everything. If you people want I can provide links in Portuguese, despite no knowing if you people actually speak Portuguese.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:23, 24 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. It's unfortunate that this debate suffered from only a low level of participation, hence no prejudice against relisting this after another few months, if improvement is not forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Cottrill[edit]

Geoff Cottrill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not meet the guidelines for WP:N; specifically WP:ORGCRITE. There is no significant coverage in any of the listed sources, and searching for additional independent sources yields no significant mentions. SiliconRed (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:ORGCRITE does not apply to people. Bakazaka (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Bakazaka—I misreferenced the guidelines. Still, there are no sources with significant coverage of Cottrill and I stand by nomination under the guidelines of WP:N. SiliconRed (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the subject of this article does meet WP:BASIC. Some of the dotpointed references do have significant coverage of him (they should be used in inline citations), and there are other articles, eg 'In Move To MullenLowe, Geoff Cottrill Demonstrates The Value An Ex-CMO Can Bring To An Agency'[29] - I am aware that Forbes is not always considered reliable or independent, but this is an article written by a Forbes staff member, not by the subject of the article or his firm. There are other sources too. I don't think this Wikipedia article makes clear how the subject is notable - eg the Forbes article linked above begins "Few CMOs are known for being as bold, imaginative, effective and personally invested in the brand they represent as Geoff Cottrill." RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article seems to be by a conflict-of-interest, single purpose creator. There is nothing in the article and its present sources to make me think it meets WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 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. —Bagumba (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Coleby[edit]

Dwight Coleby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod without rationale. Simply does not pass WP:NBASKETBALL, nothing but routine coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. UninvitedCompany 21:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - none of the leagues he played in meet WP:NBASKETBALL and a search indicates that he doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG and also fails to meet WP:NHOOPS. Papaursa (talk) 20:01, 23 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Donnelly[edit]

Nathan Donnelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, and not even a released artist yet. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-

Hi Slatersteven, and thank you for starting this discussion. I agree that at the time you started this discussion, the article was certainly focused on my connection to the subject, which is what intrigued me to create the article. That being said, I do believe there is a level of notability associated with the subject that deserves an article, for which I will continue to add during the review time-frame. The subject does have released music and instrumentals available online under different monikers which the history of which will added to the article, along with the subject's significance to indie music scenes and performance venues in Toronto, Ontario. I will see to it that these get added to the article with references as soon as possible. WikiNLD (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.65.135 (talk) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Violation of WP:NOT as it appears to be a personal webpage for WikiNLD - I would also suggest that they should self-disclose their COI - which looks pretty obvious. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable source coverage, fails WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability whatsoever. Curiocurio (talk) 00:50, 22 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sona Kar Nagpur[edit]

Sona Kar Nagpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM including WP:NFOE. Passing mentions here and there. No in-depth coverage can be traced. Hitro talk 10:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I fully agree that there are no reliable sources to justify the existence of this article Spiderone 14:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of reliable references and authenticity of information is also   dubious. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:39, 24 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. Whether a claim is true or even believable is not the question for AFD, only whether the subject is notable for having made it. In this case the consensus of the discussion is that she is. RL0919 (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tuti Yusupova[edit]

Tuti Yusupova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is winding down, but I did find another one of these awful longevity myths articles. My first and primary argument is that the coverage of her is not at all meaningful. More than half of the news articles about her report this with an effusive degree of credulity that a serious reference work should not replicate, and all of them have little meaningful coverage of her. The parts that might actually count towards notability are conspicuously unsourced. Being a local celebrity is not itself notable, and per WP:PAGEDECIDE there's nowhere near enough for an actual article. Furthermore, the state of this is appalling; all kinds of irrelevant filler material (fully 1/4 of this is a huge long quote from her, which has ridiculous wikilinks in a failed effort to puff it up), and the infobox is a leftover from the worst days of the GRG. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Keep per WP:GNG. It does not matter whether the editor finds these reports credible. I matters only that there was WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources for a significant period. Gazeta probably qualifies as such, as would the filmed documentary mentioned in the article which appears to have been made by a professional film studio. The policy does not require that we have that source to hand, just that we know it exists. FOARP (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Wikipedia does not uncritically report obvious falsehoods simply because what are ordinarily reliable sources fell for something hook, line, and sinker. WP:OTTO. And that's before even considering whether a few bits of local coverage and a couple places on a slow news day ran this is anything approaching significant coverage, and whether there's enough here for a page. Clearly, I think the answer to both is a resounding "no". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wiki does most definitely report falsehoods if that's what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say this woman was 17 feet tall and pale green, then that's what goes in the article about her. To do otherwise is to engage in WP:OR. You need to read WP:THETRUTH FOARP (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a...frightening...view of Wikipedia. We are not transcription monkeys. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Keep per WP:GNG. I am not in a position to examine the non-English sources, but it appears that she passes the GNG test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

The veracity or otherwise of her claims is a wholly separate issue. Veracity determines how we write the article, but notability determines whether we write the article.

The nominator @The Blade of the Northern Lights relies heavily on WP:OTTO, as they have done in other similar discussions. However, WP:OTTO is an essay; it is not a policy or guideline.

The nominator also addresses the current state of the article, but that is not an issue for AFD. This is a deletion discussion, to decide whether we should have any article, whereas the content of the article is a matter for the usual editorial processes to improve the article in accordance with policies and guidelines.

The current lede is actually not a bad summary of her status:

was an Uzbekistani longevity claimant. At the alleged age of 134 years, 270 days, she was claimed to be the oldest living person in the world and oldest person ever, her claimed age exceeding that of the currently recognised claimant Jeanne Louise Calment by 12 years.

Note that at no point does the lede support the veracity of her claim. It repeatedly notes notes that the claim has been made, without passing judgement on its veracity. It offers a comparison with the oldest verified person, which illustrates the extraordinary nature of her claim ... but in the absence of either verification or disproof, it correctly offers no editorial comment on the claim.

Note that each point of act in the lead is qualified by "claimed" or "alleged", rather than asserted as truth

1. "longevity claimant", not long-lived
2. "alleged age", not age
3. "claimed to be", not was
4. "her claimed age", not her age

So @TBOTNL's assertion above that this is a case where en.wp uncritically report obvious falsehoods is a bogus accusation; in TBOTBL's own words,TBTOBL states an "an obvious falsehood".

The lede as as currently written seems to me to be entirely in accordance with the relevant policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:NOR.

At the bottom of the article, there is a mention of a submission to the Guinness Book of Records. It would be helpful to know whether the GBOR has published any assessment of her claim, but unless and until there is a WP:RS which judges the veracity of the claim, any editorial commentary is pure WP:OR.

I have to agree with User:FOARP that the nominator's stance is pure WP:OR/WP:SYN. Like so much else emanating from WP:LONGEVITY, it has a strong whiff of WP:THETRUTH about it, and the nom's repeated reliance on essays such as WP:OTTO and WP:MONKEYS rather than on policies and guidelines is alarming, and it contravenes WP:ACDS#Expectations.

The nominator's stance is based entirely on their own personal assessment of the likelihood that the claim is true, rather than on sources. TBOTNL's stance is indeed reasoned, but it amounts to original research and/or synthesis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• PS I checked the assertion by the nominator @The Blade of the Northern Lights|TBOTNL that fully 1/4 of this is a huge long quote from her. That doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

There are actually two quotes from her, which amount together to 115 words out the total word count of the DYK-check wordcount of 562. That's 20%, which is not fully 1/4.

TBOTNL describes these quotes as irrelevant filler material. So take a look at them:

• "During World War I, I had already had two children," she said. "I experienced the burden of those times. I remember it very well, and the period of collectivization. What can I say, our people suffered greatly ... But I have never been afraid of difficulties. I was busy plowing fields, paving ditches, picking cotton or selling fertilizer. I was always working and was always in motion. Perhaps that is why there was no need to see a doctor."

That's not irrelevant filler material. It describes her experiences of life through two major upheavals: the broader conditions, the work she did, and her state of health. It could be summarised more tersely as reported speech, but it is not Irrelevant and not filler.

• "I lost count of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren", she said before her death in March 2015. "I just say, 'May they be healthy!' Sometimes I confuse their names, but that's okay, as long as they are healthy"

That quote is less focused, and would probably better trimmed to the first half. But the fact that someone had so any descendants they couldn't count them is relevant, as is the fact she was alive after the birth of great-great-grandchildren: it's a consequence of longevity, which creates different familial relations to shorter lives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• PPS Unlike all the other AFD nominations I have seem by @TBOTNL, this one does show some signs of WP:BEFORE. However, it gives no mention any attempt to find more or better sources (as required by WP:BEFORE), and its assessment of the current sources is declaratory rather than analytical:

1. More than half of the news articles about her report this with an effusive degree of credulity that a serious reference work should not replicate, and all of them have little meaningful coverage of her
   Which sources fall into which category? If TBOTNL has actually done the claimed checking, why not identify which sources have these problems?
2. Being a local celebrity is not itself notable. Indeed, but which of the sources listed does TBOTNL claim are local? None of them seem to me to be local news sources, unless we were to define a news source based on in her own country as "local" ... which would be preposterous, because it would mean that Fox News, NBC, NYT etc were "local news" for any United States-based topic and The Times/Guardian/BBC/Channel4 were all mere "local" news for UK-based topics.

It would be helpful if TBOTNL clarified those points. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable sources back up this unsupported claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing which is fully lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV for at least the last six years of her life. I agree that the article as written is balanced, and I don't see anything appalling in it. Whether her birth date is true or not, all the rest is plausible - someone dying in 2015 could well have had 2 children by the time of the 1914-1918 war. As for being a "local" celebrity: there are sources in Turkish and in Russian from China (russian.people.cn). Uzbekistan is not in either Turkey or China (nor Russia), so they are certainly not 'local' if that means 'from the same country' (though 'local' is usually distinguished from 'state' and 'national' in such things as politics, media coverage, etc, in Wikipedia guidelines - 'local' in that sense would mean the town of To‘rtko‘l, in this case). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Johnpacklambert Does it really matter if the claim is unsupported by reliable sources as long as the claim is being COVERED in reliable sources? Got here via list of women-related afd valereee (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the amount of SIGCOV in RS makes the subject notable. schetm (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Selby, Jenn (2015-04-02). "Tuti Yusupova: Woman who claims to be the real world's oldest person died this week aged 134, government officials say". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  2. Connor, Laura (2015-04-02). "Is this the oldest person to ever live? Family says woman was 134 years old - and government backs claim". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.

     The article notes, "In a BBC video aired when Tutu was 128, the centenarian said her health was fine in general but her hearing wasn't what it used to be. In a Russian documentary about the woman's life, Tuti said she spent a lot of her later years watching TV programmes after decades of hard labour."

  3. Trott, Russell (2009-01-29). "'128-year-old woman' in Uzbekistan". BBC. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  4. "Uzbek is 'world's oldest woman'". BBC. 2009-01-29. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.

     The article notes:

     Turkey's Cihan News Agency says Tuti Yusupova's birth is documented as 1 July 1880, but there is no independent confirmation of her age.

  5. "La anciana uzbeca que nació en 1880". ABC (in Spanish). 2015-01-20. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tuti Yusupova to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That the subject was profiled in a Russian documentary and a BBC video strongly establishes she is notable.

  Cunard (talk) 08:47, 28 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 19:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Garbers[edit]

Kate Garbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This subject lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources required for WP:GNG. Several of the sources are self-published, several don't mention the subject at all, and the others only mention the subject in passing. A search for more sources turns up nothing but additional passing mentions. This was recently accepted from AfC and I attempted to clean up the promotional tone and improve the sourcing, but it doesn't look possible. I've placed a line-by-line analysis of the sources is on the talk page. ​​ Bradv🍁 15:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bradv. As noted on the Talk page, this article was begun by another editor during a WMUK Editathon earlier this year. I did not have the time or insight to develop it much further myself, so pushed it to AfC to see if other could help it meet the minimum standards. Thanks for your efforts, but clearly it seems to be falling short. Paul W (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A first look for sources suggests that the charity Unseen has significant coverage, and would merit a Wikipedia article. Garbers' role as founder and director of Unseen would fit within such an article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If that article existed (and satisfied WP:NORG), I would happily redirect this there as an alternative to deletion. However, it is unclear to me whether Garbers still works for the organisation, as the corporate page linked in the article shows her as resigned. Bradv🍁 16:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Response The subject is listed here as a director on Unseen's site under its current Senior Leadership Team. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; coverage is in passing, not independent of the subject's company, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I cleaned up the article, added reliable sources about the subject, who has received multiple awards. She appears to be often sought out as an expert by the media on modern slavery and human trafficking, which is why the subject is quoted a lot, and not in passing. Reuters news service alone has quoted the subject seven times, as evidenced here. The subject has received numerous awards, including a UK national award for fighting modern slavery. As such, she was named as one of the 100 most influential women in the west of England, the Social Change Award here with an Influencer Award for her efforts in combatting slavery. In 2018, Amnesty International recognized the subject here as one of six women for her work campaigning against modern injustices. The subject also worked with Parliament and contributed to the UK's 2015 Modern Slavery Act. The article now reflects all of the above, including reliable sources. It now meets notability guidelines and easily passes WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the nom and the fact that it's total spammy garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The page Unseen (organization) now exists, possibly due to this AfD debate, but it's a sentence long and makes no claim for notability. Maybe some kind of merge would work here but the organization's merits are questionable and some of the merits of Garbers are as well. I have spoken at a TEDx event before, and that doesn't make me notable. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The awards, the quotes from her in national sources, and the profiles of her in the references for the awards (including the national Mirror) add up to meeting WP:GNG. The article does not state that she is notable because she has given a TEDx talk, it states that she is notable for "work combatting human trafficking, including contributing to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the National Referral Mechanism Review". That is buried in the Awards section, and should be included in the lead para as well, as it is a concrete example of how she assists and advises government ... I would suggest including the Influencer Award in the intro para too, but definitely the contribution to the act and the review. (I don't think "total spammy garbage" is a valid basis for arguing for deletion - in fact, it sounds like WP:USELESS.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep agree per above, now she meets notability guidelines and easily passes WP:BASIC. Mmcele (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are reliable sources specificaly about her and her work, passes GNG. MurielMary (talk) 00:26, 26 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. Relisted three times already, no further comments in almost two weeks. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Ijebu[edit]

Baba Ijebu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Organization is notable per WP:ORGCRIT.

Is Nutin (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is plenty of WP:SIGCOV, neither in passing nor WP:SPIP: Premier Lotto Staff, FIRS Bicker over N790m Tax Debts[30]; Court stops Baba Ijebu’s bid to de-register lottery agents’ union[31]; N789.6m debt: Premier Lotto staff prevent FIRS from sealing firm[32]; Celebrating Baba Ijebu gives back to society[33]; Commissions from selling Baba Ijebu tickets feed my family[34];Baba Ijebu Revealed: Inside Nigeria's most notorious gambling den[35]; 'Baba Ijebu' lottery operators arrested and prosecuted[36]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Company has several publications on independent and notable sources. Mantosa (talk) 14:32, 10 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 Bobby Cochran. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somethin' Else![edit]

Somethin' Else! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBAND. One reliable source. No proof of any hits, radio play, television appearances, national tours. Saw several descriptions of subject as a "cover band". No claims of notability for band itself Rogermx (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Here are a few third-party references that can be added to the article. Looks like they're all from when the band played in the U.K. in 2016.^[1][2][3]

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't seen anything in the references that establish notability of the band. They are mainly about Bobby Cochrane. Rogermx (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bobby Cochran who has achieved notability as a longtime sideman and inductee to the International Rockabilly Hall of Fame. This particular band is a questionably notable side project that has only gotten one concert review that I can find (currently reference #1 in the article), and all other coverage is just routine listings in articles that are actually about Bobby or his more famous uncle. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, I agree that a redirect would be a better solution. Thank you Doomsdayer.Rogermx (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bobby Cochran. The references provided by the keep vote really speak to Cochran, makes sense to send it there. Ifnord (talk) 15:21, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Randell (musician)[edit]

Brett Randell (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, no coverage of him that I could find. Sources are somewhat shaky at best. JC7V (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The sources show significant coverage mostly by way of his Rise EP. Is the page perfect? No. Does it have enough notability to stay? I believe so, by a slim margin. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Willsome429, That seems like WP:COAT. The Huffpost piece was only by a contributor and AXS isn't a site to show notability. And no, there isn't enough high quality sources for him, mostly for his album or PR type pieces. It's a shame that we allow articles like this to stand when he obviously isn't notable. JC7V (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. The sources are poor. Especially the Bolderbeat source, which says on its "about us" page: "if you're a band looking for some interwebs press, hit us up..." Sources like that, soliciting bands to promote themselves, make the article seem like it's reaching pretty deep to dredge up something. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as creator, The huffpost article should establish notability, its not an interview even! regarding other sources that are not that credible, well I have removed the Bolderbeat source, if its causing an issue. Regrading the axs' credibility, axs is basically examiner.com, and if examiner/axs is not notable how come it has a Wikipedia page?. I am open to any modification required to meet any guideline that has not been met. Pisaspaatii (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, Pisaspaatii (talk), per wikipedia guidelines and multiple reviews, Examiner.com has been identified as a user contributed content farm and as such is not considered a reliable source. Having a wikipedia entry doesn't change that fact. As for AXS as a separate entity from Examiner.com, it is merely an event/venue promotional service. Content from it is the result of using the service and can not be considered independent, third party coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per comments on sources above. Regarding the Huffington Post piece: it's worth noting that earlier this year they closed down their unpaid contributor function, cited it had grown to over 100,000 writers contributing unveted content such as this. See: https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/huffington-post-ends-unpaid-contributor-blogger-program-1202668053/ . Bottom line: Huffington Post "contributor" (rather than staff) articles are not reliable sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:49, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee S. Mimms[edit]

Lee S. Mimms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the sources I have found indicate that this person is clearly notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I exhausted all the links in the AfD find sources template, and no significant coverage showed up. Passing mentions did, but that isn't enough to prove notability. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 01:07, 28 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. Most keep votes were weak but consensus appears that subject passes WP:NPROF. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer R. Mandel[edit]

Jennifer R. Mandel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only thing potentially notable about her is the "seminal discovery" that I can only find coverage of in a puff piece by her university. Beyond lack of notability, there's not enough material available to write an article. Natureium (talk) 18:16, 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 Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't meet the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I've removed that bit of puffery, which was indeed inappropriate, and not a substantive claim to notability. However, her list of publications provides a stronger claim; a methodological paper on which she was the first author has been cited 500+ times, which is considerable impact for a person who has been a professor for four years. As such, I think she meets criterion 1 of NPROF, although I acknowledge that it isn't a slam-dunk case. Vanamonde (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Vanamonde. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vanamonde. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vanamonde. Guettarda (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Vanamonde. Or, draftify until notability can be more fully assessed --DannyS712 (talk) 04:11, 27 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. Editors disagree about whether the sources for the article have the independence and depth needed per WP:GNG etc. I can't decide this by fiat. Sandstein 19:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoRuck[edit]

GoRuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete Moved from Draft space even though references fail the criteria for establishing notability. From WP:NCORP, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references clearly are either written by customers or participants, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV or rely on member of the company for details, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, of course, any reference can be dismissed as not independent because the person talked to a representative of the subject or participated in an activity (ie did some research). We should just outlaw all content on companies at Wikipedia - at least that would be an honest reflection of how some editors want our policy to read. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines are the way they are because much of the "independent" coverage is, in fact, churnalism and marketing and announcements, etc. There are many company articles that have good genuine third party independent coverage. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references are terrible. I'll go through them.

1. Is a primary, cant be used to establish notability.
2. This is a press release. It states in the newspaper, they can take adverts. You know it is an advert because it points to the company website.
3. /site subdomain. It is webhost and is not Forbes. it is Non RS.
4. This is a press release.
5. This is a press release.
6. This is a press release.
7. This is a press release. [37]
8. Ref 8 I cant read due to GDPR
9. Ref 9 states it is a blog. Non RS.
10. Ref 10 explicitly states it is a blog. Non RS.
11. Ref is genuine, a secondary report.

The reference out is press releases, blogs and churnalism. There is some coverage that may satisfy WP:SIGCOV for the marches.scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: there have been a lot of recent edits - #11 is a blog now. I'm curious which you thought was genuine. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG as there are lots more sources out there such as Time magazine. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Fails NCORP and per SCreep. One/two quasi-optimal sources, AFAIS and the rest can be charitably described as rubbish. Bad accept.∯WBG^converse 18:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tearing part the arguments presented:

(scope_creep):

1. https://www.goruck.com/what-we-do/ is no different than providing a citation to a company's own "About us" and therefore by what I would assume is traditional behaviour allowed
2. Blanket argument that the "/site" subdomain is personal blog space does carry 1/50th of full weight. Again I reference the fact that Forbes Editors do look and feature content out of the /site subdomain. Also I invite you to look beyond simple redlines. Notice the other work this writer has done.
3. https://www.jacksonville.com/shorelines/2016-12-30/goruck-challenges-mind-body-and-soul Again, I have to point out how clearly you did zero work in actually reading through the references provided (WP:BEFORE?) (or understand context) otherwise you would have connected the dots that a newspaper in/about Jacksonville Florida would cover a local small business in Jacksonville Florida' or cover an entrepeneur who grew up in Jacksonville Foridia
4. https://www.jacksonville.com/mandarin-st-johns/town/southside-beaches/2017-06-21/jacksonville-beach-based-goruck-launches Want to take a wild guess as to the argument? Oh yeah... JACKSONVILLE. Hint: You really should have read through to understand that many of the Jacksonville things are celebrating a Small business in the home community, but I guess you couldn't be bothered and just applied blind ruberics.
5. Your inability to access something because of GDPR is not a valid argument for deletion (and you should be ashamed)
6. https://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2015/07/mobile_becomes_obstacle_course.html Ok, time to prove it again. Local newspaper color/interest piece that focuses on the event. Mobile Alabama, thereby showing that this isn't just a Jacksonville thing.
7. https://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/campus/article_871c9e3a-1a8e-11e8-a46d-0792ad42ff54.html Again. An Independent Student Newspaper on the campus of Penn State, seems like it's fairly independent, reliable and covering the content in depth.
8. https://westseattleblog.com/2017/12/from-the-in-case-you-wondered-too-file-the-flag-bearing-marchers/ Again, local (if very narrowly focused) community reporting source documenting the happenings around the community. Seems like this would have been an obvious one, but when you come in with pre-concieved notions...
9. https://www.nianticlabs.com/blog/operationclearfield/ I can only assume that your "blog blinders" were on high alert because if you would have bothered to read, you would have seen this was was a personal narrative explaining how a specific event co-branded with GORUCK was like (i.e. REVIEW) you would have seen and understood the demonstration of notability

(High_King): Nom's statement shows that they misunderstand policy. If that was the case, any consumer reviews of a product would be barred from Wikipedia. The "blog opinions" are giving their narrative explaining their experience, something that I could have sworn was desirable. High King proposes a Catch-22 in their nomination: You can't write about a subject if you don't have experience about it, but if you have experience about it, you can't be trusted to write objectively/reliably about it. I also note that the claims of churnalism are patently false as having been in these events I can tell that the content was not written by the company, but is the individual consumer's reactions/responses.

(WBG) A very poorly articulated WP:PERX argument. As evidenced by the thorough analysis above of Scope Creep's delete argument, we come back to a weak argument.

In short I do admit some of the content is sub-optimal, however this is a relatively new creation and with multiple editors pointing out improvements, I feel WP:HEY is valid here. Hasteur (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. Strip away the posturing and all you are left with is an argument that we should accept non-independent, unreliable sources because... you've read them? And some of them are published in Jacksonville?? This is nothing but WP:ILIKEIT and a spectacular failure to observe WP:AGF to boot. – Joe (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Blogs, student newspapers, PR-journalism and what not.

Hasteur, you are somewhere miles afar from the current community-interpretation of the policies and it might be wise to drop your aggressive posturing. At the same time, I am quite dumbfounded as to what caused Legacy to accept a textbook example of decline. ∯WBG^converse 13:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the article talk page: If User:Hasteur thinks this is good to go I'm going with his assessment. Looks ok to me. I wonder if 'pac didn't realise that Hasteur was the creator. Either way, it suggests a thorough review wasn't actually completed. – Joe (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe, I now see that Hasteur mentioned at RUD about the company asking him to work on the article.Sigh....... ∯WBG^converse 12:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric - Stinks to high heaven that Hasteur would only mention this now after kicking up such a stink and accusing other editors of not understanding or misinterpreting policy. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't, Bradv had to dig it up. I think his failure to clearly disclose the COI throughout all these discussions is extremely disingenuous, although it may be technically within policy. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my other comment below, and the conversation linked in it. That indication of a COI may have unnecessary, in my opinion. I removed the COI notice from the article's talk page because of that response (although I linked to some details elsewhere on the talk page). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI-Subthreaders (Joe Roe—HighKing—Winged Blades of Godric) Please check your outright accusations of malfeasance. Please see THIS DIFF where I expressly called out the potential COI and why I used AFC to explicitly give a second view. I went back to the AFC project talk because it appeared that editors were doing what all 3 of you did: Follow bright line rules without spending more than 30 seconds on actually reading content/references. I guess slinging mud is more easy than defending your position on straight up facts. Hasteur (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, putting a comment on a Draft clearly follows the recommended guidelines on disclosing COI ... not. Convenient that the comment gets removed when the article is moved to mainspace and then you wig out with accusations of other editors not understanding policy/guidelines when it gets to AfD. And when that fail, start making personal comments on editors. Nice. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – coverage in blogs, PR campaigns, corporate web pages, and student newspapers, none of which satisfy the sourcing requirements at WP:NCORP. Bradv🍁 14:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WBG, nom and Joe Roe. The assessment of the sources is spot on. Praxidicae (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kvng It is a blog reference as a well. It was a simple mistake. Its written by a Niantic employee, who likes the kit, and linked to the site. It is entirely non RS, and not acceptable per WP policies WP:V and WP:NOT/WP:NOTBLOG. The time article ref which is now in the article, is a poor source as its more about the beach landings, as it is about the company. scope_creep^Talk 17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: a source does not need to be primarily about the subject to constitute significant coverage of the subject. The Time article contains a solid paragraph about GoRuck which I believe meets the significant-coverage requirement. If there is a second source like this, it's a keeper as far as I'm concerned. ~Kvng (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Ya know, when you look to see what is said in that article about GoRuck, it starts with the paragraph "GoRuck, founded by Iraq veteran...." and quotes a list of statistics such as number of events and revenues, then into pricing. Essentially three sentences, but impressive. Then I asked myself, how would a journalist know these things for a private company? Could he investigate? Is this an good example of "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject"? The more I thought about it, the more I realised those numbers could only have come from the company itself. So I searched around and eventually came up with this from the GoRuck website. So I really don't think the Time reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as all the pertinent information must have originated from company sources. If they'd written in more detail on the company, I'd be happier to accept this source but based on what is in there, it is a "no" for me. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI Just putting Hasteur's complaint here, closed off now. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The available sources do not pass the high bar of WP:NCORP, which was put in place to precisely to prevent the kind of underhanded promotional editing that it now transpires created this article. And to think, I was going to ask for their backpack for Christmas! – Joe (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on a follow-up conversation with the editor in question, I wouldn't characterize the situation quite so uncharitably, so I think that if you know someone generous enough to give you one of those backpacks, it would be OK to include it in your wish list. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I would. Conflicts of interest ought to be declared, and I shouldn't have had to search the far recesses of REFUND archives to find it. Bradv🍁 20:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

  Extended content condensed to ease summary-level reading. Expand to show a list of 13 sources and notes about them.

  So, Adrienne (2018-01-03). "Review: GoRuck GR1. This burly military-inspired pack might have too few bangs for too many bucks". Wired. Archived from the original on 2018-12-17. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The article notes: In bag-loving circles, GoRuck’s origin story has become the stuff of legend. In 2008, founder Jason McCarthy left the Special Forces, had his heart broken, and out of the rubble of his life built a bag based on his experiences overseas that could tackle both urban commutes and battles against insurgents. Their flagship bag is the GR1, which I have been using as my everyday bag for the past two weeks. This military-inspired bag has acquired a cult following, but I have to confess: I have a few complaints. ... If this bag cost $150, I would recommend it wholeheartedly, but at almost $300, and with features like (mostly cosmetic) MOLLE webbing loading it down, it's little difficult to stomach. If you are a badass, or aspiring badass who has scratch to spare, the GR1 is definitely a pack to consider. That said, commuters who have no qualms about carrying a wimpier, lighter, cheaper pack will be better served by another option. Villepigue, James (2012). Obstacle Race Training Bible: The #1 Resource to Prepare for and Conquer Any Course!. New York: Alpha Books. pp. 14–15. ISBN 978-1-61564-205-2. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The book notes: GORUCK Challenge Organizers are careful to stress that this is a challenge, not a race. And although physical stamina is certainly required, perhaps the bigger trial of this military-inspired event is working as a team to accomplish your goal. Along the way you must use your problem-solving skills, leadership, and strength to complete the course under the orders of a badass cadre (drill sergeant) while carrying a weighted rucksack around a city. The book notes: The official drink of the GORUCK is beer, so you know these folks don't take themselves too seriously. However, when you're out on a challenge in the middle of the night with a 40-pound rucksack on your back, a cadre who is ordering you to drop and give him 20 aἀer you've carried a heavy log for the past three hours, and a teammate who is simultaneously retching and weeping, you realize that you're going to have to earn that beer. The book also has sections about "What to Expect", "The Obstacles", and "Expert Advice" for the GORUCK Challenge. Van Dusen, Christine (2016-06-03). "Ruck my life: Walking, lunging, and bear-crawling through Atlanta in the GORUCK Challenge Light". Atlanta. Archived from the original on 2018-12-17. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The article notes: GORUCK began as a backpack manufacturer in 2008 but didn’t make many sales, so founder and former Green Beret Jason McCarthy diversified, creating the challenges as a way to employ veterans and acquaint civilians with military-style training while tapping into the public’s growing desire for the next big, punishing, dirty challenge. (Spartan Race hits this same target, as does Tough Mudder—both are booming. There’s even a documentary called Rise of the Sufferfests.) Why would people pay upwards of $100 to approximate something that members of the military are forced to do? Some say it’s a way to identify with the people who fight our wars. Others think it’s a form of rebellion, a response to an increasingly coddled, social media-obsessed, and therefore inauthentic life. Me, I just like to feel strong, and to see what my body can do. There are three levels of GORUCK Challenges, with the easiest taking up to five hours—and boasting a 100 percent completion rate—and the hardest involving a 40-mile hump over 24 straight hours. Only one out of two participants complete that level, which might involve crawling through cold mud, hoisting telephone poles, and bear-crawling with someone clutching your abdomen like a koala. For every challenge, you carry a rucksack stuffed with weights. Lawson, Timothy (2018-02-01). "Veteran-owned business organizes 50-mile rucking challenge for more than 700 participants. GORUCK derived the event from a challenge originally issued by Teddy Roosevelt and JFK". VAntage Point. United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Archived from the original on 2018-12-17. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The article notes: On Friday evening, more than 700 people gathered in the Georgetown neighborhood in Washington, D.C., to embark on a 50-mile challenge organized by the Veteran-owned business GORUCK. GORUCK’s business is two-fold. It sells ruck sacks and gear for “rucking” so individuals can have reliable, American made equipment. The second part is the GORUCK challenge. These challenges are led by a cadre of individuals that have served in our military’s special forces. Their experience and leadership motivate ruckers to pick up their weight and take on a challenge that will improve their body and their mind. ... Friday night’s challenge was inspired by an executive order that Teddy Roosevelt issued to his military: march 50 miles in 20 hours. Years later, John F. Kennedy echoed the challenge. GORUCK took up that order, and organized an event that sent challengers up and down the C&O canal, and then all over Washington, D.C., to cover at least 50 miles. The large group was broken up into teams of 2-to-5 people, and each team was to visit more than a dozen way-points before ending their challenge. Way-points included the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, World War II Memorial, the Supreme Court and other important landmarks in Washington. Van Dusen, Christine (2016-10-12). "No finish line. No sleep. Everything you wanted to know about the GORUCK Challenge". Atlanta. Archived from the original on 2018-12-17. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The article notes: ...It was the GORUCK Tough, a 12-hour, 15-mile, overnight team endurance event put on by former members of the military. ... GORUCK began as a backpack manufacturer in 2008 and expanded into endurance events as a way to employ veterans and acquaint civilians with military-style training while capitalizing on the public’s increasing interest in body-punishing challenges like Spartan Race and Tough Mudder. There are three levels of GORUCK Challenges, with the “Light” taking up to five hours and boasting a 100 percent completion rate. I did one of those in May. The hardest, known as the “Heavy,” involves a 40-mile hump over 24 straight hours (one out of two participants makes it through this one). The “Tough” (with a 94 percent completion rate) sits in the middle, and might involve crawling through mud, standing nose-high in cold water while hoisting your backpack overhead, and doing burpees until you want to puke. For every challenge, you carry a rucksack stuffed with weights, a water bladder, a headlamp, and any gear you think you might need. Bernstein, Lenny (2012-09-18). "As Washington sleeps, a few are put through the wringer". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-05-09. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The article notes: As you were getting ready for bed Saturday night, 20 men and one woman were standing in Rock Creek in shorts and T-shirts belting the lyrics to the “SpongeBob SquarePants” theme song into the moonless night. That is, when they weren’t face down in the shallow water doing push-ups, or on their backs doing flutter kicks, or crawling on their bellies from the creek into the mud at the water’s edge and back in again — all with 40-pound packs on their backs. That was in the first hour or so of their excruciating 12-hour ordeal on the D.C. streets Saturday night and Sunday morning, a sometimes strange journey through Georgetown, Dupont Circle, Foggy Bottom and the Mall as the city partied and slept. It’s called the “GoRuck Challenge”, a military-style endurance event led by former Special Forces personnel that stresses toughness and teamwork in the face of almost insurmountable challenges. It is less extreme than some events in the growing field of obstacle racing, such as the annual Spartan Death Race­, ­but it’s much longer and more difficult than events such as Run Amuck and Warrior Dash. Shapiro, T. Rees (2013-08-22). "'Don't quit': Why a Post writer signed up for 12 hours of hell. Twice". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-01-04. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The article notes: A nervous energy zips through the participants, and some begin to question themselves. Later that day, tourists celebrating the holiday in the nation’s capital will stop the teams and ask: What are you doing? The answer is the GoRuck Challenge, a grueling test of endurance that offers participants “a day in the life of Special Forces.” The objective of the challenge is not to finish first. It’s to finish. ... The GoRuck Challenge gives civilians a dose of Special Forces training. A former Army Special Forces soldier, Jason McCarthy, 34, founded GoRuck and modeled the challenge on the rigorous training he endured to earn the coveted Green Beret. ... He started the event in 2010, when he was still in graduate school at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. Since then, GoRuck has led more than 750 challenges across the country. More events are planned for Paris, Tokyo and Sydney. In four years it has gone from a company that took in slightly more than $50,000 in annual revenue to one that expects to bring in $12 million this year. ... I completed my first challenge in March. It was a lung-burning, leg-wobbling, heart-throbbing experience that left me incapacitated for two days. My shoulders ached from the weight of my brick-laden backpack, my feet had blisters, and the skin on my legs had been rubbed raw from the 20 miles we walked around the District. But within a few weeks my wounds had healed and I was hungry for more. The article provides further background about the company: Last month, he opened the first GoRuck retail location in Florida, and he hopes to open one in the District in the next year. He plans to expand GoRuck gear with a new line of outerwear, including jackets and pants. For now, GoRuck remains a small business, with 38 full-time employees. McCarthy takes pride in hiring combat veterans who have struggled to find employment. This source and some of the other sources contain quotes from people affiliated with the company. Hallett, Vicky (2013-07-23). "Give Your Buddies a Lift". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-05-10. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The article notes: “Expect to carry or be carried by other participants.” That’s the disclaimer at the end of the written description for the Goruck BootCamp at Thomas Circle’s Balance Gym (1111 14th St. NW, balancegym.com). And it succinctly explains why this weekly class, held Wednesdays at 7 p.m., isn’t just any military-style sweatfest. Designed to prepare folks for Goruck’s increasingly popular events — grueling team missions based on special operations training — the 45-minute sessions promise a workout that’s unlike those normally found at gyms. “We rarely get to carry well-balanced things on deployments, and we have to deal with those things for an extended period of time,” says instructor Devin Reagan, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan before joining the Goruck Cadre (goruck.com). Lopez, Gerardo (2013-01-16). "GORUCK Challenge: 'La buena vida' en las calles de Hollywood". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2018-12-17. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The article notes: Era la una de la mañana en una fría noche de enero y nos encontrábamos esperando en el estacionamiento del legendario edificio de 'Capitol Records ' en Hollywood, California. Un grupo de 18 hombres dispuestos a asumir el reto 'GORUCK Challenge'. La Clase N º 379 tomó las calles de Hollywood y comenzamos nuestra caminata hacia nuestro primer objetivo, el 'Hollywood Bowl'. Sin saber lo que venia, nos trasladamos en unísono, pero aun no nos comportábamos como equipo, la mayoría de nosotros marchábamos hacia adelante sin decir una palabra. Un grave error del que pronto sufriríamos las consecuencias. Tercha, Michael (2013-04-23). "48-hour Goruck "Selection" weeds out the best". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2018-12-17. Retrieved 2018-12-17 – via YouTube. The YouTube video description notes: Spencer Patterson, of San Diego, James Vreeland, of Detroit, and Grant Shymske, of Fort Bragg, survive the 48-hour GORUCK "Selection" endurance event at Forest Preserve District of Cook County's Poplar Creek Trail System in Hoffman Estates. The event, based on Special Forces training, demands candidates crawl, march, swim, and be otherwise tested while not sleeping for two days. Patterson, Vreeland and Shymske were the only three of their class of 11 candidates who finished, earning each of them a "Selection" patch. For more video, visit http://chicagotribune.com/video, subscribe to this channel, or follow us @TribVideo. Bender, Kristin J. (2013-03-06). "Oakland firefighter is first woman to complete grueling 48-hour endurance challenge". Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2018-12-17. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The article notes: For nearly 48 hours straight last week, Paige Bowie shouldered a 50-pound rucksack while she ran, hiked and pumped out grueling military-style exercises designed to break down Special Forces trainees. She became the first woman to complete a grueling endurance challenge called the GORUCK Selection, which has only been held four times in Florida, Washington, D.C., and the Bay Area. Sixty-six other tough men and women have attempted the challenge, but only 13, including Bowie, have finished. ... Part of the challenge of the race is that participants must carry at least 45 pounds in their brand name GORUCK sacks. The company started organizing endurance events, which range from four to six hours to the 48-hour event, to test their gear for combat. And at any point in the race, the cadre can weigh the pack and boot a participant who is under the weight requirement. ... The GORUCK Selection is relatively new and has only been held three previous times in Neptune Beach and St. Augustine, Fla., and Washington, D.C. Markus, Don (2012-02-03). "No limit for the Goruck Challenge". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2018-12-17. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The article notes: The Goruck Challenge, which grew out of former Green Beret Jason McCarthy's desire to market a military-grade rucksack, will be coming to Baltimore next weekend for the second straight year. It is the second stop in 2012 on what has become a 70-event tour in the United States and Canada and a seven-event tour overseas. With most of the participants wearing one of McCarthy's $300 rucksacks filled with bricks, the challenge lasts between eight and 10 hours, with participants covering 15 to 20 miles and performing tasks that involve carrying heavy objects — including one another — that have some connection to the city where the event is being held. ... Among the tasks Maier completed was carrying a tree trunk weighing several hundreds of pounds over the Key Bridge to Roosevelt Island and running through Rock Creek Park "at 3 in the morning in water that is waist deep." The challenge finished by ascending the steps of the Lincoln Memorial en masse — like a bunch of real-life Rockys at the Philadelphia Art Museum, the finish for that city's event. Chapman, C. C. (2013). Amazing Things Will Happen: A Real-World Guide on Achieving Success and Happiness. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-34138-4. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The book notes: GORUCK is a lifestyle brand that makes a variety of rucksacks and other equipment. The company also hosts the GORUCK Challenge, which it markets as 10 to 13 hours of "good living." In reality it is a grueling half-day of physical punishment that will test you to your limits. If you imagine boot camp crammed into half of a day, you have an idea of what it might be liked. Of the challenge, Jason McCarthy, founder and chief executive officer of GORUCK, says, "The biggest challenge to overcome is your own mind. Yes, there are physical challenges, but the hardest ones are all in your head."

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

  Cunard (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Kvng (talk · contribs), who wrote here about the Time article that "If there is a second source like this, it's a keeper as far as I'm concerned", to review the sources I have posted above.

  Cunard (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Thanks Cunard, this definitely takes it over the hump for me. ~Kvng (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kvng, Cunard has been asked not to post his wall of text in the past because 1) It is totally unnecessary 2) Most of the references he posts fail the criteria for establishing notability. So .. you say it "takes it over the hump" for you. Can you point to any two references that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I'm very glad to see someone doing some work to dig up sources and analyze them, even if that produces a "wall" of information to be studied. Adding information from some of those sources may help improve the article. However, to ease summary-level reading of the discussion, I've put ((collapse top)) and ((collapse bottom)) around Cunard's list. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to the Time piece, [38] and [39] for the company. If we want to talk about notability of the event, then many more apply. Also I don't have a problem with participants quoting refs here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seriously? One reference says GORUCK began as a backpack manufacturer in 2008 but didn’t make many sales, so founder and former Green Beret Jason McCarthy diversified, creating the challenges as a way to employ veterans and acquaint civilians with military-style training while tapping into the public’s growing desire for the next big, punishing, dirty challenge and the other says GoRuck’s origin story has become the stuff of legend. In 2008, founder Jason McCarthy left the Special Forces, had his heart broken, and out of the rubble of his life built a bag based on his experiences overseas that could tackle both urban commutes and battles against insurgents.??? Neither meets the criteria for establishing notability. Both fail WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, seriously. Based on what I see elsewhere on this page, I will not engage with you further. ~Kvng (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remane GoRuck Challenge. There is in-depth coverage for the company and the challenge, but there is MORE about the challenge, including this and this. New opening sentence for the lede - The GoRuck Challenge is an organized teambuilding event founded by American sporting equipment company GoRuck. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per CNMall41, who is correct that the sources support the article existing at GoRuck Challenge, similar to Spartan Race. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have an opinion about the name of the article (or the styling of the name), I suggest to participate in the RM discussion taking place at Talk:GoRuck. That should be the primary place to discuss the name of the article. This is the place to discuss whether or not to delete the article. Strictly speaking, I have the impression that not all of the events organized by GoRuck are properly called "GoRuck Challenge" events. On their website, they show a number of different types of events, and only one category is called "GoRuck Challenge" events. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That RM discussion is purely typographical and does not involve what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This absolutely IS the appropriate venue, not the talk page. This is essentially a merge into a new page and an appropriate WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With the additional sources identified by Cunard, I think it's clear that this company (or its challenge events) has received enough coverage by multiple independent reliable sources spanning multiple newsworthy events over a period of several years (three articles in The Washington Post, two articles in the Chicago Tribune, two books, Wired, Baltimore Sun, U.S. Dept. of Veteran's Affairs, Mercury News, Time). The Washington Post even said that among enthusiasts, the company's origin story "has become the stuff of legend". —BarrelProof (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The reason why Cunard's wall-of-text is harmful to the process is because Cunard is invariably incorrect in his assessment of the sources and ignores WP:NCORP which is the actual applicable guideline for organizations and corporations. Cunard quotes significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as a catch-all for each and every one of the 13 references and then goes on to selectively quote from each one, while often willfully ignoring parts of the reference that show that the reference does not meet the criteria for establishing notability. And I'm pretty sick of this behaviour as it invariably leads to busy editors assuming that Cunard has done a bunch of in-depth analysis and invariably agree with his poor analysis.

Lets look at his "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" references one-by-one

All that said, the suggestion to turn the article into one about "GoRuck Challenge" has merit as is supported by at least two references. But the company is not notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, take it to ANI if you cannot work things out with Cunard. Disagreeing with their analysis doesn't make them wrong, it just means you disagree. I for one welcome the analysis, even if I don't agree with it and it is easy to collapse if needed. If "it invariably leads to busy editors assuming that Cunard has done a bunch of in-depth analysis" then that is an issue with those editors, not Cunard, as Wikipedia requires competency. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't require walls of text with selected extracts from sources that often leave off parts of the sources that clearly show that the source is not acceptable. He has been asked by me and by others to stop this practice. Yes, I agree, probably needs to be taken up at ANI. The only issue I have with Cunard is his postings of walls of text. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's mighty rich coming from someone who I seem to recall had a very significant Topic ban for misinterperting sources. I would note that WP:POT seems to apply quite heavily to HighKing and their willful disregard of the WP:HEY standard suggests that their prejudiced view is not going to be changed short of a Act of Jimbo/WP:OFFICE action. If anything the attempt to silence opposition that does not support their viewpoint speaks to a far more disruptive and poisonous behavior. Hasteur (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LoL - I take it you still upset and being caught hiding your COI? If you're going to bring up a topic ban dating from 2011, at least try and get the reasons for the ban correct. (Hint: It wasn't about misinterpreting sources). HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The event put on by the company still falls under WP:NCORP and it's not notable either. It's still a "delete" for me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is still a delete for me. I dont see any distinction between a company A, and a company A holding events. It is still covered by WP:NCORP. There is no standalone rationale or merit for an events article, as it will still be the company name at the top of the article, so NCORP still applies. scope_creep^Talk

HighKing⁺⁺ 's review of the Cunard's references are spot on. The first one is a shopping page. scope_creep^Talk 20:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I disagree with Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs)'s assertion that "most sources mentioned by those advocating to 'keep' have been convincingly debunked".

  I support retention because the sources I have found prove that GoRuck as a brand has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Whether the article should be focused on the company (and live at GoRuck) or be focused on the event (and live at GoRuck Challenge) is a content decision. The AfD nominator has noted, "All that said, the suggestion to turn the article into one about 'GoRuck Challenge' has merit as is supported by at least two references. But the company is not notable."

  Renaming the article to be about GoRuck Challenge may be the right approach, but that decision should not be made at this AfD. BarrelProof noted above, "Strictly speaking, I have the impression that not all of the events organized by GoRuck are properly called 'GoRuck Challenge' events. On their website, they show a number of different types of events, and only one category is called 'GoRuck Challenge' events." There is a good faith concern that "GoRuck Challenge" may not be the appropriate title. Other events include GoRuck Selection and GoRuck Light. Both events have also been covered by reliable sources. GoRuck bags have also been covered in reliable sources. Whether to rename the article should be discussed in a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion.

  Here are my responses to HighKing's responses about my sources:

  Responses

  The wired article is a review of the GR1 - a backpack produced by the company. The reference ends with a big blue "BUY NOW" button and a notice that states "When you buy something using the retail links in our product reviews, we earn a small affiliate commission". It also has very little to say about the company itself. Fail. – I provided this source because it covers the brand in an unflattering light. https://www.wired.com/2015/11/affiliate-link-policy/ says: FROM TIME TO time we will post links to buy products from Amazon.com or other online retailers. If you choose to click, the URL will contain a small code that identifies links from our website, and that signals the retailer to send our company a small percentage of the money you spend. This does not mean we are indebted to Amazon or any other retailer, nor does it lead us to favor some products or companies over others. Our affiliate program functions completely independently of our editorial and newsgathering process. Reporters and editors are not encouraged to cover products because they are available on Amazon or anywhere else, and do not benefit from doing so. This establishes that the Wired article is independent of GoRuck. The review of the bag has negative material. It says: If this bag cost $150, I would recommend it wholeheartedly, but at almost $300, and with features like (mostly cosmetic) MOLLE webbing loading it down, it's little difficult to stomach. If you are a badass, or aspiring badass who has scratch to spare, the GR1 is definitely a pack to consider. That said, commuters who have no qualms about carrying a wimpier, lighter, cheaper pack will be better served by another option. The book reference says absolutely nothing about the company. Zero, nada, zilch. Fail. – this source covers the GoRuck Challenge, which is part of the GoRuck brand. The Atlanta Magazine reference says SFA about the company itself. Fail. – this article provides one sentence of coverage about the company: GORUCK began as a backpack manufacturer in 2008 but didn’t make many sales, so founder and former Green Beret Jason McCarthy diversified, creating the challenges as a way to employ veterans and acquaint civilians with military-style training while tapping into the public’s growing desire for the next big, punishing, dirty challenge. The rest of the article is about the GoRuck Challenge. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs reference is a blog. Fail. – VAntage is the official blog of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and is written by a Veterans Affairs staff member. The staff biography says, "Timothy Lawson has been a member of VA’s Digital Media Engagement team since April 2016 and is the host of VA’s official podcast, Borne the Battle." I consider an article written by a staff member for the "Official Blog of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs" to be a reliable source. This Atlanta Magazine reference (written by the same author as the previous one) describes her experience participating in a GoRuck challenge and (once again) says zero about the actual company. Nothing. Fail. – this article provides one sentence of coverage about the company: GORUCK began as a backpack manufacturer in 2008 and expanded into endurance events as a way to employ veterans and acquaint civilians with military-style training while capitalizing on the public’s increasing interest in body-punishing challenges like Spartan Race and Tough Mudder. The rest of the article is about the GoRuck Challenge. This Washington Post reference describes participants' experiences (including the author's) in a Goruck challenge. Once again, nothing about the company. Fail. – this article is about the GoRuck Challenge. This next Washington Post reference is the same - absolutely nothing about the company. Fail. – this article discusses a GoRuck class hosted or sponsored by the company, "Goruck BootCamp". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrJmWxFyNcM The next reference] is a video of participants in a GoRuck challenge. Self published source. Fail. – this YouTube video was published by the Chicago Tribune and filmed by Tribune staff member Michael Tercha. That the Chicago Tribune decided to cover the GoRuck Challenge helps to establish notability. The only affiliation the participants in the challenge have with the company is that they are customers. I do not consider the company's customers to have a "vested interest" in the company. This Mercury News reference says nothing about the company. Fail. – this article is about the GoRuck Challenge. This Baltimore Sun reference says nothing about the company and also relies on information provided by company officers (which Cunard conveniently leaves out of his selective quoting). Fail. – this article is about the GoRuck Challenge. I quote the content I consider to make the company notable, so I usually do not include quotes from company employees. This book is self-published. Cunard also conveniently leaves out all the quotations from the founder which follows the selective quotes he provides. Fail. – this was not self-published. It was published by John Wiley & Sons. I did not leave out "all the quotations from the founder". Here is what I quoted above: GORUCK is a lifestyle brand that makes a variety of rucksacks and other equipment. The company also hosts the GORUCK Challenge, which it markets as 10 to 13 hours of "good living." In reality it is a grueling half-day of physical punishment that will test you to your limits. If you imagine boot camp crammed into half of a day, you have an idea of what it might be liked. Of the challenge, Jason McCarthy, founder and chief executive officer of GORUCK, says, "The biggest challenge to overcome is your own mind. Yes, there are physical challenges, but the hardest ones are all in your head." The third paragraph contains the quote from the founder.

  Cunard (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are three more sources from Men's Journal and Thrillist about the GoRuck brand: one is a review of a GoRuck backpack and two discuss GoRuck Nasty:
  1. Easter, Michael (2013-09-20). "The Straightforward Obstacle Race". Men's Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.

     The article notes, "The Goruck Nasty Opens a New Window. , which will be held in McGaheysville, Virginia, on September 21, promises gimmick-free physical competition. The course includes cargo nets, wood beams and a variety of obstacles that the military uses during basic and not-at-all basic training – some 20 hazards all together."

  2. Doucette, Kitt (2013-05-31). "The Military-Grade Backpack". Men's Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.

     The article notes, "The thing we like best about the GORUCK GR1 is how easy it is to keep your stuff organized in it. With multiple internal mesh pockets, a laptop (or hydration system) pouch in the padded back panel, and an open-flat design, it’s easy to locate and access whatever you’re looking for. Unlike other backpacks we’ve used, where all the contents inevitably end up in shambles at the bottom, everything inside the GR1 stays in its place. Fully loaded with clothes, a pair of shoes, and laptop, the 26-liter pack weighs about 35 pounds, but thanks to wide-padded shoulder straps and a snug, ergonomic fit, it’s far less taxing than any other backpack we’ve lugged."

  3. Schmid, Leo (2013-05-29). "A weekend of camping, $1 beers, and... Green Berets obstacle courses?!". Thrillist. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.

     The article notes, "Finally taking the "extreme" obstacle course trend to the next level, GORUCK NASTY's a weekend-long festival at Massenutten Resort, VA loaded with camping, tailgating, "crushing $1 beers", and a 6+ mile, 20+ obstacle course modeled by Green Berets after the exact one they had to pass."

  If this article were to be moved to GoRuck Challenge, how would GoRuck Nasty and GoRuck GR1 be covered? GoRuck Nasty and GoRuck GR1 would be either mentioned in passing or not mentioned at all in a GoRuck Challenge article but could be covered more fully in a GoRuck article. It makes sense to keep the article at GoRuck so that it can discuss all of the company's events and products. Otherwise, covering this content will require separate articles for each product and event. I would prefer a single article for now until there is enough material to create spinoff articles.

  Cunard (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here are three sources that provide significant coverage of the company:
  1. The Time magazine article discussed above.
  2. HighKing's examination of the sources I provided did not include a The Washington Post article I had linked that provides significant coverage of the company:

     Shapiro, T. Rees (2013-08-22). "'Don't quit': Why a Post writer signed up for 12 hours of hell. Twice". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-01-04. Retrieved 2018-12-17.

     The article notes:

     The GoRuck Challenge gives civilians a dose of Special Forces training. A former Army Special Forces soldier, Jason McCarthy, 34, founded GoRuck and modeled the challenge on the rigorous training he endured to earn the coveted Green Beret.

     ...

     He started the event in 2010, when he was still in graduate school at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. Since then, GoRuck has led more than 750 challenges across the country. More events are planned for Paris, Tokyo and Sydney. In four years it has gone from a company that took in slightly more than $50,000 in annual revenue to one that expects to bring in $12 million this year.

     ...

     Last month, he opened the first GoRuck retail location in Florida, and he hopes to open one in the District in the next year. He plans to expand GoRuck gear with a new line of outerwear, including jackets and pants.

     For now, GoRuck remains a small business, with 38 full-time employees. McCarthy takes pride in hiring combat veterans who have struggled to find employment.

  3. Doucette, Kitt (2013-07-12). "Building a Tougher Bag". Men's Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-12-25. Retrieved 2018-12-25.

     The article notes:

     McCarthy, 34, entered business school in 2009 with plans to start a security-consulting firm that would offer instruction in packing a “go bag” – a pack full of supplies that could carry people through any emergency. But he quickly realized most bags on the civilian market weren’t tough enough. So he started designing his own. [quote from McCarthy]

     McCarthy spent two years developing the bags that make up most of GoRuck’s product line Opens a New Window. (four styles, starting at $195). Early on, he battle-tested his prototypes, literally – sending them to Green Beret buddies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then he grew concerned about sending unproven gear to men in danger, so he established another proving ground: the GoRuck Challenge Opens a New Window. . In these team-oriented endurance runs, which are led by combat veterans and incorporate Special Forces training, participants carry a GoRuck sack loaded with rocks or bricks.

     The results: super-rugged bags (all handmade in the U.S.) with a minimalist look and maximized features. Every GoRuck sack is made from weatherproof Cordura (a tear-resistant nylon) and loaded with military-inspired extras like silent zipper pulls and cross-stitched stress points that can withstand 400-plus pounds of pressure. Slim enough to squeeze through small doorways in Afghanistan, the packs open to a surprising amount of surface area – when they’re unfolded like an Army medic’s trauma pack, everything inside is quickly accessible. [quote from McCarthy]

     This article provides significant background about the company's foundation, its history, its product line Opens a New Window, and GoRuck Challenge.
  Some of these articles contain quotes from people affiliated with the company. I agree with Legacypac (talk · contribs)'s sentiment expressed above, "of course, any reference can be dismissed as not independent because the person talked to a representative of the subject or participated in an activity (ie did some research)". There is enough independent research and analysis to establish notability for the GoRuck brand.

  Cunard (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Hi Cunard, I appreciate you have reduced your listing of sources to the suggestion of three. Thank you.

  • First off, we've already discussed the Time Magazine article and I'd like to point out that there is no evidence that this is an actual GoRuck event. The article states it is an endurance event *sponsored* by GoRuck. I've also pointed out that the information provided within the article on the number of events, revenues, etc, can only have been provided by the company itself and is therefore not a result of "independent research/analysis etc". This source fails WP:ORGIND.
  • The Washington Post reference relies extensively on quotations/interview with Stokes (a GoRuck employee and instructor), McCarthy (the founder) and Webb (a participant that has taken part in 29 challenges). The journalist is also a participant in this particular "GoRuck Challenge" (his second). I honestly don't see anything in this article (that is a result of independent analysis/opinon/etc) that can be used to support anything in this article (other than, perhaps, the GoRuck challenges are tough?). All of the GoRuck facts, stats, data, etc, comes from the company or from company-related sources and even the selected quotes you've extracted are clearly from company or company-related sources. This article fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This Mens Journal reference isn't working for me just now. From the selection you've extracted, it appears to discuss the topic of GoRuck bags. You say that the article provides "significant background about the company's foundation, its history, its product line.." but it appears to me to be the same background provided to all other journalists for their articles. I don't see any "significant" background that hasn't appeared in other articles (and been provided by the company).

  Let us also deal with your comment that articles that have quotations from a representative should not be dismissed. You and LegacyPac are misrepresenting what has been previous said but to be clear, sources that "rely extensively" on quotations/interviews fail ORGIND because "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject"(my emphasis). The references above do not, for me, fail this requirement. ORGIND goes on to say that "If source's independence is of any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability" (where "source's independence" is both independence of the author and independence of the content). The references above fail these simply tests. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Time magazine article says, "... do just that in an endurance event sponsored by GoRuck, a nine-year-old U.S. company that sells both rucksacks and the chance to do hundreds of push-ups and haul tree trunks while carrying 20-30 pounds on your back under the direction of current, and former, special ops officers". https://www.facebook.com/events/1621660354737289 says the event is "Hosted by GORUCK". https://www.facebook.com/GORUCK/ has a blue badge that says "Facebook confirmed this is an authentic Page for this public figure, media company or brand". It is clear from both the Time article and the Facebook page that GoRuck arranged this event. The article contains independent analysis of the company such as comparing it to other companies: "Just like CrossFit and obstacle race brands like Tough Mudder and Spartan Race, GoRuck is cashing in on the demand for extreme exercise."

    Written by a journalist who participated in the event, The Washington Post article provides the author's analysis and perspective on the company and its events. The author calls GoRuck's "newest event, the Nasty, its biggest gamble". Longer quote:

    But what’s next for those who have finished a Tough Mudder, or two, with ease? For some weekend athletes, the mud-run bubble has burst, and they are seeking new outlets, such as GoRuck, to slake their thirst for adrenaline. Which makes GoRuck’s newest event, the Nasty, its biggest gamble. On Sept. 21, the company will host an expected 3,600 participants at the Massanutten ski resort outside Harrisonburg, Va., for its first foray into obstacle racing. The Nasty will be patterned on “Nasty Nick,” an Army Special Forces obstacle course at Camp Mackall, N.C., that all candidates must complete to don the Green Beret.

    Here is another quote from the author about how he thinks GoRuck helps "narrow the divide" between civilians like him and "elite troops" who undergo a "brutal regimen":

    As I sat in my high school classrooms in 2003, teenagers just a little older than I was rode Humvees through the desert to unseat a dictator. Although the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have defined my generation, many of us have felt removed from the wars that followed. For thousands like me, GoRuck has helped narrow the divide. If only for a few hours — and far from an actual battlefield — the challenge offers a glimpse of the brutal regimen the elite troops must endure. For most participants, the day-long event is enough to satisfy the curiosity.

    Regarding the Men's Journal article, none of the other sources discuss the "Opens a New Window" GoRuck product line. None of the other sources say the bags were sent to be "battle-tested" by Green Beret friends of McCarthy's in Afghanistan and Iraq. The article provides the author's analysis of GoRug's bags ("The results: super-rugged bags (all handmade in the U.S.) with a minimalist look and maximized features".)

    There is plenty of independent opinion and analysis about the GoRuck brand in the sources.

    Cunard (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Cunard. Can I ask that you look at this another way for a second. I'm sure everyone agrees that the company exists. For the purposes of notability, we want to find at least two articles that provide significant in-depth information on the company. We want to exclude, as much as possible, promotional material and marketing materials or material that was provided by the company, etc. I'm trying to extract from those three references any material that is

  1) About the company

  2) significant

  3) in-depth

  4) a result of original and independent opinion, analysis, etc

  5) substantial.

  Even looking at your own analysis of the references above, they simply do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Time magazine says the event was sponsored by GoRuck - the Facebook page is a PRIMARY source and as such is not regarded as a reliable source. The information about the company was most likely provided by the company and there is no original and independent opinon/analysis/etc on the company itself (the topic of this article). The only original material concerns the author's opinion on participating in the event.

  The WaPo article is pretty much the same. It does not provide any original analysis/opinion/etc on the company - the only information on the company has been provided by the company founder and this is clear from the article. Like the TIME magazine article, the only original material concerns the author's opinion on their own participation.

  The Men's Journal article discusses a product. It provides no original analysis/opinion/etc on the company.

  This isn't a case of saying that the product is notable and the event is notable and this other different event is notable and therefore the company is notable. That is not how we determine notability for companies/organizations. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:42, 28 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.