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. No reasons posited as to why those sources aren't enough. (non-admin closure) J947 ^(c), at 01:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Davidson (song)[edit]

Pete Davidson (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)

Album track fails WP:NSONGS Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
• Delete - the article has no importance. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 09:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Satisfies WP:SONGS, why would anyone think that it doesn't? "Songs...are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources"- See the Elle article, others. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: here are some more sources for the song: 123456. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – given the sources brought up by Aoba47, seems like this would pass WP:NSONG. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 January 2019 (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 Sweetener. (non-admin closure) J947 ^(c), at 01:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better Off (Ariana Grande song)[edit]

Better Off (Ariana Grande 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)

Album track fails WP:NSONGS Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no importance. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 09:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sweetener. Even though the song charted, it does not appear to have received enough independent coverage from third-party, reliable sources outside of album reviews. It is still a viable search term though so I think a redirect would be better than an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sweetener - Nothing of substance here. The song did chart but it should only be split into a separate article from the album if someone will work on it and add information that can't be found elsewhere.--NØ 12:13, 1 January 2019 (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) 23:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Meyer[edit]

Missy Meyer (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:NAUTHOR. Cannot find any reliable source that establishes notability for subject. Rogermx (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Delete – I'm not finding any sources on this person using Google News. None of her works seem to have been subject to coverage by reliable sources. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no references in the article itself and I am unable to locate any in my personal BEFORE. Author does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR and certainly not the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:AUTHOR. Mu searches are finding nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2019 (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) 23:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Dunbar[edit]

Forrest Dunbar (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)

There are several reasons in favor of this article's deletion...

1. There are almost zero sources beyond WP:ROUTINE/WP:MILL coverage for candidacies. Other than this one from a satire site, my (thorough) google search, filtering out candidacy-related articles, turned up with just about nothing.
2. Usually, members of city assemblies are not considered notable. There may be exceptions when it is a global city (which Anchorage is NOT). Debates like this can be found here, in which a failed U.S. Senate candidate in Nebraska was not deemed notable though she served on the Lincoln city council. All of the people in Category:Anchorage Assembly members have other notable characteristics about them, including being members of the Alaska Legislature, serving as Anchorage Mayor, or being famous authors. Dunbar does not.
3. Even if all of the candidacy articles are counted, there is still not enough sources sufficient for WP:GNG as none are from national publications.

In light of these points, please consider voting DELETE on this article. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable enough to meet GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete defeated candidates for congress are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anchorage is not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors just because of that role itself — while a person who happens to have been an Anchorage city councillor can still be notable for other reasons besides that, such as going on to serve in the state house or Congress, being a city councillor in Anchorage is not an article-clinching notability claim in its own right. Being an unsuccessful candidate in a congressional election, however, is not a claim that automatically makes a city councillor special either, and the referencing here isn't even close to enough to make him more notable than most other city councillors or most other unsuccessful congressional candidates. To be fair, I'll note that this was originally created as a redirect to the congressional election, and then got converted to a standalone article by a different user after the fact — so no prejudice against the recreation of a redirect after deletion if desired, but there's no need to retain the edit history here and a redirect from an unsuccessful candidate to their election is not actually mandatory in all cases. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete largely for the reason enunciated by Bearcat. City councilors don't have inherent notability and defeated congressional candidates don't either. In the absence of WP:NPOL notability, subject would need to meet the GNG. However, their only coverage is in relation to their offices (sought or held). Chetsford (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say that given how little coverage there is, regardless of whether or not it is WP:MILL or WP:ROUTINE coverage on the candidacy, that Dunbar would not pass GNG. There are only 3 reliable sources, all of which are local and arguably just passing mentions. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Regarding point number 1 in the nomination above: he did, however, get a fair bit of coverage in a Politico article a year ago: politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/12/how-to-turn-red-state-blue-purple-alaska-politics-2018-216304 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleit Ḵaa (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, points 1 and 3 above. Dleit Ḵaa (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough I did not find that article, however that is one reliable publication (that is also more than just a passing mention) outside of his candidacy. Usually I'd consider three to be sustainable for GNG. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Candidate did not win , fails GNG Alex-h (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2019 (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) 23:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

88 modern constellations in different languages[edit]

88 modern constellations in different languages (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)

Absolutely no encyclopaedic content; it is like an extreme form of WP:NOT#DICT. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages as an example, and WP:FORRED Kevin McE (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails content guidelines per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Delete I agree with Kevin McE. Noahhoward (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of name translations. Ajf773 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 15:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT - agree with all above. ComplexRational (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP:FORRED is a red herring because this is a list article, not a redirect. It should be noted that the articles Names of European cities in different languages, Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Names of African cities in different languages underwent DRV and were restored, and then two of them were AfD'd and deleted again, and then one of them was restored again. So there's no clear precedent there regarding how to treat "list of things in different languages" articles. An article like this might fall under the broader scope of Category:Lists of exonyms, which seems pretty encyclopedic to me (though astronomical objects in this context are probably more niche than things like cities in this context). The more relevant policy here is WP:LISTN. Ahiijny (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with WP:NOTDICT - Alex-h (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2019 (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 10:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanja Budde[edit]

Vanja Budde (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)

Article appears to be an attempted promotion for a fairly minor TV journalist. Previous editors have called for more sources, but there really aren't any that I can find beyond social media pages and quick listings in industry directories. She does not meet the notability standard for journalists and the article might also be an attempted personal resume. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - This AfD is displaying as "2nd nomination" but the first was actually by me moments before, and I messed up the procedure. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability, I'm considering starting a discussion on WP:NBIO to more clearly clarify that reporters' own reporting does not contribute to notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Staniforth[edit]

Oswald 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)

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.

This subject is perhaps more notable than some of the others but there still isn't much to go on. UninvitedCompany 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 14 AfDs in one day by one nom is too much! They may be individual AfDs, but they are still bulk in number, far too many to do proper assessment of, especially when it's not clear that the Nom has done WP:BEFORE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Three books of which I suspect none of us will hear of is not enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is not whether any of us will hear about the books, but whether enough people have already read and reviewed or cited the books - that's what we need evidence for. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As noted above, notable author, and the large amount of afds seems suspect.. 2602:306:CF9B:2700:FDB7:2843:D5FA:3F34 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added a few more Citations that show noteworthiness.StaniforthHistorian (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there seems sufficient coverage of the books (particularly for the beginning of the 20th century) to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sustained and sufficient coverage/notability of his works shows that this is a keep. JC7V (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep probably. What I have been able to find about this person includes a couple of reviews of The Saint of the Eucharist, in a source which is included in the article (The Irish Monthly, 1908, Volume 36, Page 586) - it's not possible to see any of it in the Google Books view of the actual book, but the search result shows the beginning of a review ("It is based on all the newest materials and the older lives, and Father Oswald Staniforth, O.S.F.C., has very properly not translated but adapted the excellent biography written in French by Father Porrentruy, the Definitor-General of the ...."). Another review that comes up on a Google search is in the The Downside Review, Volumes 27-28, 1970 [1] - none of the review is visible in the snippet, but there's part of a review of another book visible above it). That book is still in nearly 50 libraries over 110 years after its publication, according to Worldcat. I have found two newspaper reports [2], [3] of the lecture series he gave in Oxford in 1928 (the lectures were also published, and I have added that title to the article; if the article is kept, I can add the reports as references). Another source already in the article, The Official Catholic Directory for the Year of Our Lord 1905, does confirm that he was at St Anthony's Mission in Mendocino (I have replaced the url in the citation with one which shows his name). I've also found a newspaper report that he was elected president of the Esperantists' League of English Catholics in 1926 [4]. I have also found a source for his ordination in 1889 (The Tablet, Volume 74) [5], and another source already in the article, The Catholic Encyclopedia and Its Makers, clearly has an entry about him, but all that the Google Books snippet shows of it is his name, so I will take it on trust that the article is an accurate representation of it. I think that all that shows that there is enough coverage of him to show notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2019 (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 10:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Televised sex line[edit]

Televised sex line (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 a good case of WP:TNT. Chock full of original research, promo and directory material. Would take a significant rewrite and would likely be a few sentence stub but as it's currently incoherent and a honeypot for spam, this seems to be the best option. As a side note, all the results I've seen in my WP:BEFORE are pretty much just mirrors. Praxidicae (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like an essay fueled by original research and primary sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. The text simply has no place in Wikipedia. No encyclopaedic purpose whatsoever. Nothing remotely notable about the subject. The whole thing's reeking of personal work. Show mercy and deliver it from its woes. -The Gnome (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Jawitz[edit]

Dan Jawitz (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:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 01:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is too promotional in tone and style, and the sourcing is poor.TH1980 (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as he won an Emmy Award for A Lion's Trail. JC7V (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi JC7V7DC5768 do you happen to know what type of Emmy Award it was?

Scope creep Hi, a documentary that Dan Jawitz produced, A Lion's Trail won an Emmy at the 2006 News & Documentary Emmy Awards for "Most Outstanding Cultural and Artistic Achievement". JC7V (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve I agree that the article is too promotional in some ways (what relevance did he have, as publicist, to a film being nominated for an award?) But it also leaves out work he has done, including producing films such as Glimpse [6] and One Last Look [7], [8]; directing the Zimbabwe International Film Festival in 1999 [9], and he seems to be described as an "eminent film professional", and certainly as the "stalwart distributor-producer" when he participated in a panel discussion of film finance and distribution in South Africa, 'Big dollars, bad DVDs: finance & distribution' [10]. The sourcing could also be better - one of the "sources" for the Emmy is a "What I'm watching" article by Dan Jawitz! (Could this be better? [11] ) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable individual. See sources above. Auto5656 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as he won 27th ANNUAL NEWS & DOCUMENTARY EMMY AWARDS .SalmanZ (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG, as there is no in-depth, independent coverage. UninvitedCompany 20:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fails[edit]

Chris Fails (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 and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hollywood Park TX (pop. 3K) is not nearly large enough to guarantee its mayors instant notability per WP:NPOL #2 — he could still clear the bar if he could be really well-sourced as markedly more notable than most other smalltown mayors, but he's not automatically entitled to have an article just because he exists. Unsuccessfully challenging an incumbent congresscritter in a party primary is also not grounds for an article, either — a person has to win the general election, and thereby actually become an actual congressperson, to collect notability from the congressional election process. And the referencing here consists entirely of primary sources and routine coverage of the primary process, with no coverage being shown to demonstrate any potential notability as a mayor — which means there's no basis to claim that he passes WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would argue that it was not routine. In the United States it is traditional for the party to support the incumbent. The news was not routine as it was highly unusual. I believe this covers it. I will however work on finding better sources. It's my first article so please bare with my neophyteness. WP:NPOL #2 --Johnston49er (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it not routine for the sitting Governor to endorse an opponent in a primary, none of the sources I have seen make the subject more notable than most (candidates or small town mayors). There could be a case to be made that the election race is notable, as Johnston49er alludes to. --Enos733 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I also want to add that the argument Bearcat seems to be making is WP:DIDNOTWIN and WP:UNRS, both arguments that should be avoided --Johnston49er (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading both DIDNOTWIN and UNRS if you think I'm violating them. DIDNOTWIN does not mean that every candidate in a party primary is entitled to have a Wikipedia article regardless of whether they won or not — a person who didn't win election to an NPOL-passing office may already have prior notability for other reasons besides the candidacy (i.e. we aren't deleting Hillary Clinton just because she lost the presidential election in 2016, because she was already notable for other reasons anyway), but preexisting notability for other reasons has to be shown, and is not automatically extended to every non-winning candidate for every office just because of the candidacy itself. And UNRS does not preclude evaluating sources for their reliability or lack thereof — in fact, it requires it, because what UNRS actually says is that primary sources aren't assistive of notability and do not support a valid keep argument. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage is routine coverage for a candidate for political office. Running for state rep does not make one notable, ever. So there is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Texas has 181 legislative elections per cycle, meaning between primaries and general elections there are over 400 candidates for Texas legsilature, the vast majority of them have nowhere near 18 news articles about them, especially written in major publications like the Chronicle and the Tribune. Furthermore, almost no Texas State Representatives outside of major leadership has 18 articles written about them or their work. Not only is Fails more notable than most small town Mayors, he's far more notable than even most members of the Texas House of Representatives, all of whom have Wikipedia pages Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Kepp The San Antonio Business Journal, which covers a metro area of 2.4 million people, named Fails one of their "2014 People on the Move." I would argue that if he's notable enough to be recognized by the San Antonio Business Journal, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkmcshane (talk • contribs) 00:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Edit to comment above -- The San Antonio Business Journal, which covers a metro area of 2.4 million people, named Fails one of their "2014 People on the Move." I would he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, for the record, you're not allowed to vote more than once in an AFD discussion. You're welcome to comment as many times as you wish, but you may not preface any followup comments with a bolded restatement of the vote you've already given. Secondly, making a local listicle in the local media does not automatically make a person nationally notable. And thirdly, you most likely have a conflict of interest here, because apart from your own autobiography about your work as a political strategist (which you weren't allowed to create for yourself in the first place, by the way), this is the first article you've ever even touched on Wikipedia about a person who isn't already named in your autobiography as one of your paying clients. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other Mayors of Hollywood Park have Wiki articles, people with far less press coverage than Fails, such as Bala Srinivas, how has 2 mentions in major media. It would be very abritary to delete Fails who has 18 articles about him. As previously mentioned, Fails has more press about him than Texas State Representatives, all of whom have Wikipedia Articles. Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nothing stops anybody from creating any article about anything they want to at any time — but we can only delete it if and when the responsible editors see it. So no, the fact that Bala Srinivas has an article does not mean this has to be kept — it means the other article has to be deleted. So congratulations on the backfire — the act of bringing his article up got it placed on track for deletion too. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Chris Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, with only routine coverage in secondary sources and insufficiently high office to merit a presumption of notability. Additionally, note that other editors have repeatedly asked about the apparent COI issue, with no response. Bakazaka (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka can you clarify what apparent COI issue you are referring to? I reread this entire page and checked the talk page and no COI issue has ever been raised. --Johnston49er (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the unanswered questions asked at User talk:Rkmcshane about edits on political figures. Bakazaka (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the first person to bring this up. Right now. Johnston49er (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read it and weep gentlemen. https://ibb.co/ncjpxts https://ibb.co/sbm9Hjp https://ibb.co/bmS7T5t --Johnston49er (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every mayor of every place on the planet can always show a couple of articles in their own local media. The key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not just to show a handful of pieces of local media coverage in his own town's local media — because, again, no mayor on the planet ever couldn't show that. It's to show media coverage that marks him out as special, such as nationalizing into The New York Times. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^Not sure I'd phrase it that way, but this guy is literally on the front cover of a local magazine, was written up in the local business journal, has been written about in dozens of articles, including Texas' top media outlets, and is an elected official. I think it's clear he is certainly notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. 2001:579:9091:7400:9DB:9C36:DA3D:9164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the front cover of a local magazine is not an instant pass to free notability for a smalltown mayor, being written up in the local business journal is not an instant pass to free notability for a smalltown mayor, being a smalltown mayor is not an instant pass to free notability in and of itself, and the article still isn't showing any evidence of media coverage expanding beyond the purely local type that any mayor of anywhere could simply and routinely be expected to receive. The key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not "local media coverage exists", because every mayor who has ever served as mayor in any place that has mayors can always show some of that — the key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is that the coverage demonstrates him as having a strong claim to being more notable than most other smalltown mayors, but that's not being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is rediculous, not only has he recieved more press coverage than almost any member of the Texas House of Representatives -- all of whom have Wikipedia articles, not only has he been on the front cover of a magazine, unlike most even Texas State Senators, all of whom have Wikipedia articles, he has been covered by the Austin American Statesman, Longview Journal, Dallas Morning News, all hundreds of miles away from his city of Hollywood park. Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, being on the front cover of a magazine is not an instant notability freebie that makes him more notable than people who were covered in a publication without being on its front cover — the notability test for magazine content lies in the substance of what gets said in the article, not in whether the subject was placed on the cover or not. And at any rate, it's a local interest magazine in his own local media market, not a nationally distributed magazine on the order of Time or Newsweek or The Atlantic, so the existence of that magazine cover is not an instant notability freebie that would exempt him from actually having to have a strong notability claim just because you uploaded a photo of the magazine cover. Secondly, if he's been covered in all of those newspapers, then why aren't any of those articles actually being used as sources? As it stands, I can't evaluate whether or not you actually understand the distinction between "substantively covered" and "glancingly namechecked" — a distinction people who are determined to get themselves or their friends into Wikipedia for publicity purposes regularly cheat on — because no sourcing to the Austin American Statesman, the Longview Journal or the Dallas Morning News is actually present in the article at all. And thirdly, no, the amount of media coverage shown here is not wildly outdoing what state legislators typically get. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, we agree that him just being a mayor of a smalltown isn't notable. What makes him notable is the serious primary challenge he levied against the sitting State Rep tha received widespread support which we have demonstrated in spades. --Johnston49er (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mounting an unsuccessful primary challenge, "serious" or not, is not a notability criterion — the notability test for politicians is holding an NPOL-passing office, not running for one and losing. There are a few rare exceptions where a person who wasn't already notable prior to the candidacy can become notable on campaign coverage alone, but that's deliberately set as a very high bar — the benchmark a candidate would have to hit to be deemed notable just for being a candidate is Christine O'Donnell, who set off such an international media firestorm — I'm Canadian and she got covered here — that her article is actually at least twice as long as, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, our article about the actual senator she lost to. It's not a bar that every candidate for political office clears just because some media coverage of the primary campaign exists — some media coverage of all primary campaigns always exists. It's a bar that requires the media coverage to explode into the likes of CNN and the BBC, not just to media outlets in Texas which would simply be expected to always cover all Texas primaries. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin The WP:BLUDGEON approach here by editors with highly-focused editing histories and unanswered COI questions suggests that we have entered WP:COITALK territory. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - concur with the nominator's rationale -- Whpq (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NPOL is clear that significant, in-depth, independent coverage is required if a political figure is to be considered notable. Moving for a delete, as the sources cited by the article do not indicate this; many reference Fails, but only in passing, and existence does not merit inclusion on an encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't pass WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2019 (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. RebeccaGreen saves the day again. Consensus is since very clear. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacque Batt[edit]

Jacque Batt (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 is not inherited. Very little coverage of this former Idaho first lady. Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article leaves out many details of her life - strange, as the creator has been active on Wikipedia for 5 years. No, notability is not inherited, but was she notable herself? I don't find much coverage in Newspapers.com, but I do wonder if there was coverage in women's magazines, etc. The coverage I have found is mostly in Idaho papers. It includes: a 2 page spread from 1965 about the 99's, a women pilots association, with 3 photos of Jacque Batt and about a paragraph of text about her; she was president of the Canyon County Republican Women's Club in 1971; their silver wedding anniversary in 1973 (marriage date and place, children, etc); she was president of the Idaho Legisladies (wives of legislators) in 1977; when her husband became governor in 1995 and they moved to Boise, their home didn't have a washing machine or dryer, so she did the washing at a coin-op laundry (this was in a 2008 article, and I wonder how the writer knew that - he was contrasting that with the governor of the time's spending in a time of recession); in 1998, "she had worked as a volunteer calling mothers to remind them about their children's immunizations"; her recipes were published in an Idaho paper and in a Michigan paper in 1998; one article from 2013 says that 12 years previously (so in 2001), she helped the next Idaho first lady Patricia Kempthorne found the Pink Tea, an event to raise awareness about breast cancer and the importance of early detection. However, there is a document online from Boise Soroptimists which says "In 1998, Boise Soroptimists participated in Idaho’s First Pink Tea to support breast cancer research and received a letter from the First Lady of Idaho, Jacque Batt." - and there's a scan of the letter, definitely dated 1998, which indicates that it was Batt who founded it, not Kempthorne. She may have "generally stayed in the background of her husband's administration", as a 1999 article said, but the newspaper coverage that exists suggests to me that there was more coverage of her as a first lady, eg in women's magazines, on TV or radio, of her work for immunization, breast cancer research, her recipes, and how she did her housework. In Australia we have one digitised national women's magazine, but I don't know if any have been digitised in the US - does anyone know? RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, @RebeccaGreen:. I added the information about the Ninety-Nines and helping to found the Pink Tea, using those sources. I was not able to find the information you mentioned about the Idaho Legisladies or immunizations. Perhaps you have different search results since you are in a different county? Not sure. But thank you for the information! --Kbabej (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject held an official office, that being official First Lady of Idaho. She also was active in founding a charity along with Patricia Kempthorne that served women who could not afford mammograms, and held positions in the Ninety-Nines, a piloting organization. --Kbabej (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NEXIST, probably. As I noted above, the wording of some of the coverage that does exist suggests to me that there was more, in sources that are not available online. (I have added the other sources I found through Newspapers.com.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RebeccaGreen's arguments, although the article needs some editing to read less like a memorial. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:22, 4 January 2019 (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 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Snyder[edit]

Steven Snyder (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)

Another of several biographies submitted by a new editor. The subject does not appear notable, and the references lack independence. Fails WP:GNG. UninvitedCompany 23:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "several biographies submitted by a new editor". The article was created in 2008. Not sure by what standard 10 years old is considered new. --2R0T2E3 (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I support the deletion on grounds of notability (WP:GNG). I agree with the comment by 2R0T2E3 - the nominator's comment about the creator doesn't seem to hold water. Regardless, there is no good reason for this article to stick around. A really paranoid android (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:32, 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 passes WP:NBOOK. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tiger's Prey[edit]

The Tiger's Prey (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)

Unnotable. A web search shows little other than bookstore listings. –eggofreason^talk 19:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Flanagan, Margaret (2017-09-01). "The Tiger's Prey". Booklist. 114 (1). ISSN 0006-7385.

     The review notes:

     The Tiger's Prey.

     By Wilbur Smith and Tom Harper.

     Oct. 2017. 432p. Morrow, $28.99 (9780062276506).

     Smith (War Cry, 2016), with coauthor Harper (Zodiak Station, 2015), continues to log the seafaring exploits of the indefatigable Tom Courtney as well as those of the next generation of Courtney swashbucklers. Lives and destinies collide in the late eighteenth century as Tom, Francis, and Christopher Courtney set sail for exotic ports located in places that range from the tip of Africa to the rugged coast of the Indian subcontinent. Seeking enlightenment, independence, and revenge, each attempts to conquer his own inner demons as long-buried family secrets and scandals are revealed. In typical Courtney-series style, fashion, romance, action, and adventure await all three as they carve out their own distinct niches on the entangled Courtney family tree. Longtime fans won't be disappointed as another chapter in this cross-continental, multigenerational saga is chronicled.

  2. Samul, Ron (2017-10-01). "The Tiger's Prey". Library Journal. 142 (16). ISSN 0363-0277.

     The review notes:

     Smith, Wilbur & Tom Harper. The Tiger's Prey. Morrow. (Courtney, Bk. 16). Oct. 2017. 432p. ISBN 9780062276506. $28.99; ebk. ISBN 9780062276568.

     Smith's long-running "Courtney" series continues with Tom Courtney, the son of famed Sir Hal Courtney and hero of Monsoon and Blue Horizon, setting off on another swashbuckling historical adventure that moves from the shores of 18th-century India to Africa. When Tom loses an elegant family heirloom, known as the Neptune sword, he battles through fort sieges, pirate attacks, and even fighting his own family to regain the possession of this treasure. While Tom heads the story, other series cast members play significant roles in the twisted and sometimes dark plot, reminding us that a family legacy doesn't run in a straight line but twists from one place to another. VERDICT This harrowing and exciting epic tale of revenge, betrayal, and hope will thrill Smith's many fans and adventure fiction readers.

  3. "The Tiger's Prey". Kirkus Reviews. 2017-08-15. ISSN 1948-7428. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.

     The review notes:

     Skimming the surface rather than probing its depth, the story is all sails, swordplay, and sinister betrayal. Descriptions are spare yet proficient: ashore it's mostly monsoon, beastly heat, or cutthroat sultans atop war elephants while aboard ship, sailor-speak livens up the thoroughly cinematic battle scenes. There’s some PG-rated sex, while the fight scenes include multiple dismemberments and a cringe-inspiring method of execution that will become the stuff of nightmares.

  4. Doran, Christopher M. (2017-10-16). "The Tiger's Prey: A Novel of Adventure". New York Journal of Books. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.

     The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#New York Journal of Books is that New York Journal of Books is reliable.

     The review notes:

     The Tiger’s Prey furthers the tradition of taut adventure novels set against an exotic, constantly changing locale.

     ...

     He cleverly intertwines the decisions, triumphs, failures, and tragedies of earlier generations into the stories of the current progeny. In this the 16th book of the Courtney series, the reader follows Tom Courtney, one of four sons of master mariner Hal Courtney. Filled with nonstop action, heroism, love, betrayal, jealousy, imprisonment, and a smattering of sex and pregnancy, the book continues to follow the style that Smith has made so popular.

     ...

     The Tiger’s Prey begins aboard an overburdened merchant ship beset by pirates along a trading route in the Indian Ocean. By chance and from another vessel, Tom and his crew see the tragedy about to take place and seek to intervene. After a tense struggle and eventual victory, Courtney earns the loyalty of the ship’s captain, which is subsequently essential when Tom himself is then threatened with death and overwhelming destruction.

  5. "The Tiger's Prey: Review". The Free Press Journal. 2017-11-05. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.

     The review notes:

     All in all, The Tiger’s Prey is a fast-paced read that pays homage to its literary legacy. It’s an amalgamation of strong characters with their head on their shoulders and their eyes on the prize. So much so that you step into their shoes and yearn for their victory. They inspire a sense of loyalty and bravado that make legends. Which is why, they fit so perfectly in a Wilbur Smith novel.

  6. "Micro review: 'The Tiger's Prey' is a riveting tale across continents". The Times of India. 2018-03-19. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.

     The review notes:

     The Tiger's Prey by Wilbur Smith is another bestseller from the Courtney series. Set in the 1700s, this adventurous tale takes us to Africa and India as the Courtney family battles with the English East India Company. Chronologically, this book would fall between Smith's Monsoon and Blue Horizon.

     ...

     With an intricate plot, well-written action scenes you can picture vividly, and romance, this book is a good read for any adventure enthusiast. Both old fans and those unfamiliar with Smith's work will enjoy the riveting tale across the continents.

  7. Sutton, David Lloyd. "The Tiger's Prey: A Novel of Adventure". Manhattan Book Review. City Book Review. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.

     The review notes:

     Starting with a stern chase of a merchantman captained by a grimly determined Englishman, rescued (of course) by a Courtenay, we are led, willy-nilly, through the loss of fortunes, the sundering of families, and captivities both degrading and expanding.

     There are faint echoes of Star Wars and of other, more recent plottings. None are diminishing of this rousing tale.

  8. Angeli, Regina M. (2017-11-14). "The Tiger's Prey". Iron Mountain Daily News. Ogden Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.

     The review notes:

     Set in the early eighteenth century, “The Tiger’s Prey” continues the saga of Tom Courtney and his extended family as they set sail and battle pirates, princes, and each other, in this tale of high seas adventure, family conflicts and romance.

     For a riveting nautical yarn, readers may want to check out Wilbur Smith’s Courtney clan.

  9. Lewis, Stephen (2017-10-21). "Tiger's Prey: York author Tom Harper on co-authoring a bestselling blockbuster with Wilbur Smith". The Press. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.

     The article notes:

     He was offered the chance of collaborating with Smith (who is now in his mid eighties) on writing The Tiger's Prey, a planned sequel to Monsoon.

     He debated with himself for a while - he'd never before considered co-writing a novel, and wondered how he would find it. But it was too good a chance to miss. "I just thought working with someone like Wilbur from a writing point of view was going to be fascinating."

     ...

     He met Smith twice, initially to thrash out a storyline. He was amazed at the complexity of it, and the sheer number of characters. It was interesting, also, in that the book was intended to ill in the gaps between two earlier novels. So they had to take the characters that had survived the events of Monsoon, and, over the course of more than 400 pages, bring them to the point at which Blue Horizon began.

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

  Cunard (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:

  A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  The substantial reviews in Booklist, City Book Review, The Free Press Journal, Iron Mountain Daily News (published by Ogden Newspapers), Kirkus Reviews, Library Journal, New York Journal of Books, The Press, and The Times of India, clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.

  Cunard (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:BOOKCRIT point #1 per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as multiple independent reviews, i would like to thank Cunard for their comprehensive listing above, showing that this is a slam dunk and can be closed early if an admin so inclines. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your kind words, Coolabahapple (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• no probs:)) (just got back home from work, little shifts mmmmmmmm:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2019 (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 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Time to Live and a Time to Love[edit]

A Time to Live and a Time to Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · A Time to Live and a Time to Love Stats)

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

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

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

• A non-notable Soviet film.--RTY9099 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be a highly regarded Estonian film, would have had a cinematic release. --Michig (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is this written in the article?--RTY9099 (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:NFILM. I really thought I could find some good sources to rescue this one, it gets a ton of hits on Google when searching the Estonian name but there's just a few pages of listings on various Estonian film database sites and then the hits appear unrelated. Please ping me if someone is more successful. Ifnord (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The film was released by Tallinnfilm, which is Estonia's major film company, directed by a prominent Estonian director (Veljo Käsper), penned in part by prominent Estonian writer Enn Vetemaa, with music composed by Jaan Rääts, and starred prominent Estonian actors Ita Ever, Heino Mandri, Aarne Üksküla, and Mati Klooren. According to Eesti filmi andmebaas, it won several awards: Film Festival of Baltic States and Byelorussia: Best Art Director, Imbi Lind (1977), International Festival of Red Cross and Health Films: Best Actor, Heino Mandri (Varna, Bulgaria, 1977), and a 1977 Latvian Theatre Association Award for Successful Debut to actress Aīda Aara. I have yet to verify any of this, however. Obviously, the article needs better references and sourcing and is no more than a stub. I think smaller countries are often held to a more stringent standard on English Wiki when articles are created, particularly with older media, which is unfortunate. But, I do see the argument in this case, as little is written about the film and it has such a small digital presence. On a personal note (obviously, not sourceable), I have seen the film broadcast on ETV2. Also, the image on the article's page is wrong. That is a book by Russian author Valentin Rasputin and has no connection to the film or article (other than a similar title) and should be removed in either case. Cheers! ExRat (talk) 20:37, 31 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 10:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Committee on Scouting[edit]

Friends Committee on Scouting (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 claim of notability Rathfelder (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent article Religious emblems programs--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary duplication of content that already exists in list form in related articles (e.g. Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America), Religious emblems programs (Girl Scouts of the USA)). Multiple redirect targets, so redirect would not work, and there's nothing additional here to merge, really. Bakazaka (talk) 02:43, 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 keep. Despite the fact some Keep arguments were rather weak (the early ones), there still seems to be a clear consensus that Darya passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG despite two relists. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darya Poverennova[edit]

Darya Poverennova (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)

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

• A non-notable Russian actress. No significant roles.--RTY9099 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google News results suggest sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She's been in twelve films and comes from a famous theatrical family. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unconvincingly.--RTY9099 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Her family's notability doesn't make her notable, WP:NOTINHERITED. Ifnord (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Alot of notability found with just a simple Google search. Have added some sources. --TheDomain (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions There is a Theatre section, which simply states an affiliation. Does anyone have access to any sources about her stage appearances? The only reference in this section that I can open is more about her love life than her work. Re the Filmography - it is very hard to tell, just from this table, whether the TV series are notable or not, and whether she had significant roles in them or not. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be notable given accomplishments listed in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Russian-language Wikipedia article is convincing that she passes WP:NACTOR/WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per sources at her Russian Wikipedia article, Meets NACTOR as well as GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:41, 2 January 2019 (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 10:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Rebar[edit]

Edward Rebar (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 sources I can find that mention this person are press releases. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ACADEMIC#C1. His work has generated numerous citations per a Google Scholar search. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've haven't looked enough to cast my own comprehensive !vote, but aren't most of these cases where the subject was buried within the long list of coauthors? This wouldn't seem to satisfy C1. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citation in the article suggest he was the lead. It states that "over the last 20 years he has led the development of the Company's zinc finger protein platform." Thsmi002 (talk) 21:44, 21 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 Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. In the articles listed in both Google Scholar and Nature, he is, in fact, one of many authors, never the lead. However, he has biographical information (more than in the article) on OMICS International, a database of over 700 peer reviewed, open access articles. Also, The Scientist, a peer reviewed life sciences magazines mentions an article Rebar wrote for Nature Medicine, where he is listed as lead author. He is also quoted twice in the article [12]. I think his article should be linked to the article on Zinc Fingers and, if it exists, Sangamo Therapeutics.

• Delete I thought more about this last night and realized he really doesn't have enough mention in secondary sources to keep the article (and one source I quoted isn't reliable, as mentioned below). Aurornisxui (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, OMICS online is the epitome of predatory publishing, so anything from them should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Aurornisxui (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are not required to meet WP:ACADEMIC.Thsmi002 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. UninvitedCompany 21:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ACADEMIC is a separate from WP:GNG. From the sheer number of citations of publications he is associated with, I believe he meets ACADEMIC#1.Thsmi002 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Four of his publications have over 1000 citations each. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the best cited papers he's rarely the corresponding author. For the others he seems to be acting in his capacity as chief technology officer for Sangamo Therapeutics. It's an unusual situation, companies don't tend to publish many papers in the first place but I've never seen one where the head of R&D appeared to be putting his name on everything going out.--Project Osprey (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2019 (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 Red Dead Redemption 2. Sandstein 10:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Morgan (character)[edit]

Arthur Morgan (character) (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 character is not independently notable from Red Dead Redemption 2. Video game characters usually require some real world association (such as Pikachu, or Sonic), however this character only appears in one game series, so is not any more notable than any other character. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Red Dead Redemption 2 and merge relevant details, like the development information. JOEBRO64 19:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Easily identifiable as WP:GAMECRUFT and in-universe-only topic. Lordtobi (✉) 20:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect), not a notable character, no independent, stand-alone notability (WP:INHERIT). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability not inherited from his parent game. Lacks sufficient coverage of the character itself to support independent notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Red Dead Redemption 2 and merge any relevant details that don't already exist there. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Red Dead Redemption 2. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Red Dead Redemption 2. Notability is tied to Roger Clark and Red Dead Redemption 2. wumbolo ^^^ 16:24, 1 January 2019 (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 10:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (disambiguation)[edit]

Santorum (disambiguation) (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)

At the end of the day, there are only two notable topics that can reasonably be called "Santorum" alone: the politician and the neologism. Santorum Amendment is a WP:PTM, though I'll leave it for now so we can discuss the page is. Looking at previous deletion discussions, it seems like this WP:TWODABS page only exists to avoid the unseemly and WP:BLP-questionable move of hatnoting to Campaign for the neologism "santorum" from Rick Santorum. Fine. The former is linked to in the body of the latter, and always will be as long as it's an article. This Potemkin disambiguation page does a disservice to readers by suggesting more than two topics called "Santorum". BDD (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TWODABS applies here. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: there's only one Santorum, and it's Rick. There's no need for a hatnote: links are in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, the arguments in the previous AfD, and the fact that the Santorum Amendment (also known as the "Santorum language") is in fact a WP:PTM. The latter was not sufficiently examined in the last discussion, and even some keep !voters agreed that it is a partial match. We're left with just the politician and the neologism redirecting to the campaign. This scenario has been well discussed now in all three AfD debates, and should be a good enough consensus to delete the disambiguation page completely. wumbolo ^^^ 10:52, 2 January 2019 (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. Fenix down (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Greenwood[edit]

Mason Greenwood (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)

Article was PRODded with the rationale "This subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. He has never played in a competitive match for a fully professional club or for a senior national team.". PROD was removed by an IP without any attempt at an explanation. The PROD rationale remains valid. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The delition PROD was removed for a valid reason, and the explanation can be found on the entries talk page. The player meets GNG as he is being widely reported in the press to be one of the best players of his age in the world, and to be making his professional debut in a matter of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.169.154 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Draft Not far off from GNG in my opinion, but currently fails WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. If someone is famous for being a footballer but hasn't actually ever played a professional game, there needs to be some exceptional reason why they should have an article (e.g. Sonny Pike); this isn't the case here. Number 57 22:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I posted the original PROD on this article, and my reasoning has not changed. – PeeJay 18:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:54, 2 January 2019 (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. Fenix down (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Western F.C. (Thailand)[edit]

Western F.C. (Thailand) (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 claim or evidence of notability, nor of meeting the standards of WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Western F.C. (Thailand) has appeared in Dailynews newspapers Media of Thailand. It is national public news. Amateur teams of Amateur league, which there is team history, have team wiki articles. Amateur teams of Amateur league don't team history in public news. they haven't wiki articles. You may not all teams in Amateur league haven't any articles Aquaelfin (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The may become notable when Somjets Kesarat actually plays for them rather than just signing. Until then, they're a non-notable amateur team in a regional league. Cabayi (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:55, 2 January 2019 (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 17:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Box Killer[edit]

Compass Box Killer (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)

insufficient evidence for notability.Film reviews in Indian news sources are unreliable for the purposes of notability DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (Note this is not an argument that the article should be kept) DGG, perhaps you meant book reviews, instead of film reviews, since this is a book not a film. Also, why are Indian news sources unreliable for the purposes of notability? Point 1 of wp:NBOOK specifically includes reviews in its list of published works that support notability, so your objection must be to the fact that the reviews are in Indian news sources; but where else would such reviews appear? What makes Indian sources inherently less reliable than sources from other countries? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This should be covered by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raakshas: India's No 1 Serial Killer, which was a bundled nomination, and should be a candidate for G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my error---I know that film reviews in Indian sources are unreliable; I however have less knowledge wheather or not their of book reviewing is true third party independent.

but for books published in the US, which I do know about, the question about whether a book review shows notability is usually whether it is actually independent, and whether it is substantial. For example reviews that are just mentions in a list of new book with a sentence about each are not substantial, just as similar sources would not be in any other field. Reviews arranging by the publishers PR dept are not independent. There's often a good deal of dispute in individual cases whether a particular book review qualifies or not. One of the factors that I would consider showing a failure of independence is any book review that seems to be by a paid editor,. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - G5. All edits since aren't substantial, consisting of only gnoming edits. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:46, 2 January 2019 (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. Clear consensus that subject passes WP:ARTIST. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Staniforth Hext[edit]

Charles Staniforth Hext (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. The article appears fail WP:GNG by a wide margin. UninvitedCompany 21:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Multiple sources:

• https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1487168?c=people
• http://www.artnet.com/artists/charles-staniforth-captain-hext/
• http://staniforthfamily.com/CharlesStaniforthHext.html
• https://www.joseflebovicgallery.com/pages/books/CL181-38/after-charles-staniforth-hext-british/military-barracks-sydney-cricket-match/?soldItem=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaniforthHistorian (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article also does not contain all the information that would help establish the subject's notability. In this case, his lithographs are held in the National Gallery of Australia [13], the National Library of Australia [14] and the National Museum of Australia [15], so he meets WP:ARTIST #4 "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." There is also a biography of him, Charles Staniforth Hext. Soldier and artist, by George Deas Brown, 1981. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he is notable, but to be clear the items mentioned above are all lithograhphs created by lithographer C Hutchins, of the original drawings by Hext.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:ARTIST, works held in several notable museums/galleries, listed above by RebeccaGreen (thanks:)), there are also some lithographs by Charles Hutchins based on Hext's drawings in the Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts - listed here, (Hutchins also produced a lithograph, based on another Hext drawing, of a cricket match at military barracks, sydney, apparently the first depiction of a cricket match in australia, print held in the Dixson collection of the State Library of NSW, thats pretty significant:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Art works held by major institutions. Subject of 3rd party publication/s. Alll easy to find. Seems insufficient BEFORE. Aoziwe (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep widely mentioned in sources, although not in much depth. His drawings are not included in any collection as far as I can see: what is included are lithographs of his sketches, created any another artist, and books that include his drawings. However, his work has been accorded importance through reproduction and multiple mentions. This is enough for GNG given the era.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough info to pass WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs development, and it should be kept as he is notable per WP:ARTIST. I added a new section for Collections, three listings + citations that User:RebeccaGreen found and listed above. There are other citations to add, mentioned by editors above, that could be added to the article. Netherzone (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2019 (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 17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Ritchie[edit]

Josh Ritchie (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 noteworthy AIowA (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Delete. On the one hand, per WP:BASIC, I can see a good keeping argument that this guy has been the subject of sustained coverage in what might be called reliable sources. On the other this is purely for celebrity gossip, and notability =/= fame. FOARP (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AIowA, it is important to notify the creator, and your deletion reason is vague. He meets WP:BASIC - he may not have media coverage for highbrow activities, but there is sufficient media coverage. He has been an integral part of two television series; if it was one, he would merit a redirect under WP:BLP1E, but this is a WP:BLP2E situation, i.e. there is no reason for deletion, as he has been in multiple notable shows, meeting WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films...television shows. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject meets WP:GNG at the very least. There are multiple, good references which focus on the subject. As Boleyn points out, the subject may only be notable for base reasons but notability guidelines such as WP:ENT do not require projects to be works of art. Ifnord (talk) 00:49, 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. Sandstein 17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cashman[edit]

Kevin Cashman (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)

One of several biographies on marginally notable individuals, all submitted by the same new editor. No real claim of notability. Fails WP:GNG, sources are not independent, generally interviews; nor are they high quality. UninvitedCompany 23:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please re-state your nomination reasons; a simple click on history shows that these articles were started in 2008, 2013 and 2015 and are not from a new editor. A basic understanding of an article's history is required to nominate articles for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that page creator made 8 edits between 2012 and 2015, creating 3 pages, then disappeared.[16]. presumably a paid PROMO editor. the other 2 articles are also at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an overly promotional article. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, while this is clearly a Linkedin article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PROMO for a headhunter / career coach / Forbes blogger who may have had professional accomplishment but who fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2019 (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 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeful: The Real Show Choirs of America[edit]

Gleeful: The Real Show Choirs of America (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 documentary. Most sources found in a before search are only passing mentions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as has some reliable sources coverage such as a Guardian piece already in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I recommend the closing admin to read what the votes are saying (including the nominator which counts) instead of closing this as no consensus. Apart from that Guardian coverage there is not much here. Weak keeping the article based on 1 good reference is not a valid thing in my opinion, because it is still a WP:GNG failure which needs multiple secondary reliable sources covering it in detail. I do not see that here. In my search just like the nom I only found this https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-previews/gleeful-real-show-choirs-america-226743 which is not even covering the thing in detail. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. V. Savitri Gunatilleke[edit]

C. V. Savitri Gunatilleke (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)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG, and they simply don't meet any of the requirements of WP:NSCHOLAR. The article claims they are a fellow of NAS, but this search did not turn up that fact. I tried several variants of spelling, but the google scholar search clearly has this spelling. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - wouldn't her election as Honorary Fellow of the top scholarly association in her field satisfy C#3 of WP:PROF?

Comment - I don't think so. That's not a notable organization.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable org - it's the top scholarly society in her field. Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. But that's neither here no there, what I should have said, is that in terms of the 3rd criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR, this does not appear to meet that notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I found this Google Scholar profile which indicates an H-index of 35, but I don't know how well it is curated (husband also publishes) or how the order of authors comes into play. She won UNESCO's Sultan Qaboos Prize for Environmental Preservation with members of her department rather than individually, and I am not sure how notable that is. Here her colleague says she was a member of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka; their website is down right now (I also searched the US NAS site and there are no foreign associates in Sri Lanka under any name). I notice that the ATCB does not even have a WP entry, and I wonder if that is because it's not a notable organization. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that she and her husband both seem to publish together does complicate things like her h-index, but the fact that the ATBC picked her as their Honorary Fellow is noteworthy. As for the society itself - speaking as someone with a PhD in tropical ecology, it's clear to me that it is the premier professional society for tropical ecology. That's a difficult thing to document because people don't write a whole lot about professional societies, but see this, for example, where they are described as the world’s largest organization devoted to the study and conservation of tropical systems. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of people have frequent co-authors. Why is it a complication that she's married to hers? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ten publications with over 100 citations each (on Google Scholar, searching for author:CVS-Gunatilleke) is enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC #2 and #3, with the Honorary Fellow award from the ATBC and as a member of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka (the external link to the American NAS is clearly wrong). She appears to meet #1 as well. She only needs to meet one of these criteria to be notable according to WP:NACADEMIC, and she meets 2 or 3. I don't know why she was nominated for AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:PROF as argued in the !votes above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a solid keep based on her contributions to the field and reception of her work and research. Passes by way of WP:NACADEMIC #2, WP:NACADEMIC #3. WP:PROF#C1. May be worth investigating variations of her name. Netherzone (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Staniforth (gentleman)[edit]

John Staniforth (gentleman) (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.

I have speedied several of the articles. This is one of the better ones, by comparison, and I feel obligated to list it separately, for due consideration, since there were objections to dealing with these articles on a wholesale basis. You decide. UninvitedCompany 21:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man was definitely significant during the English Civil War, noted in various sources.StaniforthHistorian (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any particularly "significant" role in the English Civil War, and he doesn't inherit any notability from his association with the Earl of Arundel. The speculations about what he may have done or whom he may have married underline the lack of good sourcing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From the sources available, it doesn't seem that he would meet notability guidelines. Being an agent of an earl is not inherently notable - if histories wrote about his work in that role, that might be different. Similarly with the protection from the Earl of Newcastle. I don't find it relevant that there is no clear sourcing about his marriage - that is normal for that period, except for royalty and nobility, and in no way reflects on his notability or lack of it. What does matter is that we don't seem to know anything more than that he was an agent, and he received protection. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11. Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Ses[edit]

Murat Ses (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)

Unsourced biography that appears (by the username) to be at least in part autobiographical (including adding the trademark information...). Not seeing enough to satisfy WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 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. Sandstein 16:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max O. Stephenson Jr.[edit]

Max O. Stephenson Jr. (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 real claim of notability Rathfelder (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article lacks any sources other than the staff bio from his employer. There is no clear indication in the biography in what way he would pass any of the six notability prongs for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria (or WP:AUTHOR, or anything else). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2019 (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. Per WP:TNT (banned user, copyvios). No prejudice against recreation if adequately referenced (and, obviously, without copyvios this time). Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-conservatism[edit]

Anarcho-conservatism (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 topic seems to fail the WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article which discuss the topic seem to be blogs or self-published sources. The LewRockwell source does not use the term "anarcho-conservatism", rather the title is "Conservative anarchists" discussing not a school of thought but the role of "traditionalist" values within historical anarchists and existing anarchist schools of thought. UrbanDictionary is not reliable for notability. LibertarianUniverse describes itself as a blog. The Burkean describes itself as a blog. The rest of the citations are for quotes or taken from Christian anarchism to discuss that school of thought rather than this one. Most of the article focuses on distinguishing the subject from other articles we have on related topics like various religious anarchisms or libertarian conservatism. The bulk of the cited sources seem to treat the topic in this way as well. I've done some google searches and haven't been able to find sources that treat this as a topic in its own right either. As a result of this lack, the article seems to rely on a great deal of original research to synthesize a coherent ideology separate from the topics we already have articles on. Once the WP:QUOTEFARM is removed, there's nothing much here that satisfies WP:V and there don't seem to be sources to satisfy WP:GNG so I believe it should be deleted. (AFD requested by 69.204.38.35 (talk · contribs), submitted at their request. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While WP:GHITS is a poor argument - in this case we have only 68 true hits and most (if not all) of them are not RSes - and one would expect much more for an established political school as thought (and even for a borderline notable WP:NEO). I question whether this is distinct from Libertarian conservatism and Anarcho-capitalism - and I'm not even sure we've passed WP:V for "Anarcho-conservatism" being a "thing" (the sources mentioning the term are various blogs - all the rest of the article is various quotes that do not mention the term). Might be some salvageable content for a merge to one of the former, but a redirect should not be created.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE per WP:NOTESSAY. The term itself meets the eye as an oxymoron, the essence of conservatism being that the preservation of government that exists is presumed to be a good due to the horrors of anarchy. Stringing together a series of inapt quotes does not help. Sayyid Qutb for example, wanted to impose a single law on the whole world : "To establish God's rule means that His laws be enforced and that the final decision in all affairs be according to these laws." Overall, the article is so bizarre that the more closely I read, the more I suspect it of being a WP:HOAX, or perhaps someone attempting to prove a WP:POINT that I cannot make out. But it does not really matter why it was created, only that so little sourcing exists for "Anarcho-conservatism," except on websites like libertarianuniverse.com.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ATD. The blogs cited in the article are published by people notable enough to have their own WP page: Lew Rockwell, Stephan Kinsella, etc. Describing a publication as a blog doesn't mean anything. Paul Krugman has a blog on the New York Times; is it not sufficiently notable for WP? 'Conservative anarchist' and 'anarcho-conservative' are synonymous, as indicated on the article's text, much the same way anarcho-communism is synonymous with communist anarchism. The distinction of anarcho-conservatism to libertarian conservatism is clear in the text, and is symmetrical to the distinction of anarcho-communism to libertarian socialism. The distinction to anarcho-capitalism is also clear in the text. Whether the term is an oxymoron or not is irrelevant; social anarchists also find anarcho-capitalism to be an oxymoron. Contrary to what E.M.Gregory is doing, WP articles are not there to prove a WP:POINT. The article doesn't say Sayyid Qutb was an anarcho-conservative, but simply that his quote therein reproduced is. The same applies to the other quotes listed under "Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors". Finally, yes, the article is heavy on quotes at the moment; of course, it's a new article. Once body text is added in between, and even in substitution to some of the quotes, it won't look so skinny and bony. If you see other problems with the article, please feel free to WP:FIXIT. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• notifying User:Legacypac who approved this new article for inclusion, and User: Diannaa who explained the rules governing creating text to fill this page by cutting and pasting large blocks of text from existing pages to new User:WisdomTooth3, of the existence of this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely keep. If you have not studied Economics, well, then, of course you may have never heard of anarcho-conservatism. So you may, as the OP, posit: «The topic seems to fail the WP:GNG», and of course be utterly, completely wrong!. But if you know your Misesian Economics (and you should!), then you immediately know where to look for this stuff. So I've just added a bunch of citations, including from World Policy Journal, from the Mises Institute, from The Burkean, and from the book The Political Animal: Biology, Ethics and Politics.^[1] The latter makes explicit that anarcho-conservative thought ranges from Edmund Burke to Agrarianism. People, if this does not meet WP:GNG, I don't know what does. Don't delete a political-economic school of thought just because you don't know about it. Now as to the huge farm quote, hey, I don't it think most of it should be there, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Deal with it some other way. XavierItzm (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires more than trivial mentions of the term, and from multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) I'm sitting with The Political Animal in front of me and it mentions the phrase "anarcho-conservatism" twice in the whole book, with little elaboration. The first mention proposes the term as a neologism and you quote the other mention. It's disingenuous to infer that this book discusses the concept "in depth". We've established that the other sources are either unreliable, affiliated, or not in depth. As a proponent of "Misesian economics", which isn't the best bias to bring to a related AfD discussion, you'd be better off building a section on that concept in von Mises's article and adding any related elaboration there summary style. If and when "anarcho-conservatism" becomes an independently notable concept, the sourcing will be bountiful enough to warrant a content split. czar 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I approved the page because it is a notable topic. We pages on cartoon characters and soccor players with only a statsa page to support them. Why are we trying to delete a good economics topic. Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has enough good citations. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Delete - This appears to be not a Wikipedia article but a collection of quotes on what the author of the article finds to be a common subject. The term "anarcho-conservatism" doesn't even appear in any of the quotes in the massive second section. Instead, it seems to be tying together various intersections of conservatism and anarchism, including with some concepts we already cover. Looking at some of the sources a bit more closely, several of them look like they're coining a version of "anarcho-conservatism" when they use it (such and such "might best be called.."). That's the case with a lot of these fun prefix-isms in academic literature (I've combined a few myself, which makes for a snappy conference slide). Ultimately, we can't have an article comprised entirely of quotes, so there's not much to retain here. Not opposed to Draftifying if people are really confident about being able to dig up in-depth coverage of a singular subject, written in their own words. I'm a little skeptical, though. A Google Scholar search for "anarcho-conservatism" returns precisely three hits, one of which is "speedydeletion.wikia.com". A regular google search isn't much better. Willing to be convinced otherwise by citations to scholarly sources which deal with this as a defined subject. I would expect any article on a notable -ism to have some literature reviews published somewhere that may help. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WisdomTooth3 and XavierItzm; several books and other sources with reputable authors discussing anarcho-conservatism/conservative anarchism...and then clean up the excessive quotes. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: It does not matter if there are 100 fringe sources ("well sourced"?) can someone address concerns of WP:SYNTHESIS? I agree we have silly articles on otherwise non-notable subjects, and recently I learned there is a push to make Wikipedia a dictionary, but inclusion of other stuff is not really supposed to be a valid argument. Jacques Ellul is reportedly a self-professed Christian Anarchist, but Edmund Burke is listed as a statesman, political theorist, and philosopher. In Religious thought of Edmund Burke it states "He sharply criticized deism and atheism, and emphasized Christianity as a vehicle of social progress.". Unless I missed it, how does his "thoughts" on religion (and apparently non-religion) extend to Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors? The lead does state "Anarcho-conservatives advocate the abolition of the state and the wholesale replacement of state law by moral laws". Assumptions seems to be so vague when anyone that support traditional family structures (second paragraph of the lead) is considered "conservative anarchists", and apparently anyone with religious beliefs. What are we really doing here? Are we starting (or continuing) a new wave Wikipedia psychological view? This link, an apparent self-outing reference (entry in Wikipedia: "which yours truly started") mentions Anarcho-Conservative as does Emre Baysoy but what we have here appears to be a mixture of content and references to cover the term that is original research at its best. Why not tie then all together. The lead states: "Anarcho-conservatism has become closely associated with libertarian conservatism and anarcho-capitalism", so it appears that any conservative thoughts, actions, or beliefs would be considered "anarcho". Again, in the lead, there are statements: "much like all right-libertarian orientations", "Like all libertarians", "Like all anarchists". How is this not original research? There is no way to logically or with sources defend these statements. Unless someone can address the above concerns this seems to be a conglomerate of junk appearing as an article and a reason why editors should not use "seems sourced" without investigating. Otr500 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: WP:SOFIXIT

That sentence in the lead is not mine, and it seems poorly phrased to me. In any case, anarcho-conservatism is as closely related to libertarian conservatism and anarcho-capitalism as anarcho-communism is to libertarian socialism and individualist anarchism. The disposition of these orientations is identically symmetrical in the political plane. That you may say is original research, but drawing differences and similarities between related political orientations in the text isn't; they are just restatement of what is already affirmed elsewhere on WP. Overall what I do see in those wanting to burn this page is an aversion to this particular political orientation (which I don't share, btw) mixed with obsessive deletionism. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sofixit should be considered a desperate term to try to throw the monkey off someones back and not one for a deletion discussion. Telling me to fix it, along with other editors concerns over the long list of quotes you have inserted, looking a lot like Reformist Left, would mean I would start deleting a multitude of those quotes, a great portion of the article, and leaving a stub without all the synthesis and biased POV spins. Your editorial spinning is somewhat like trying to paint someone that disagrees with you as a deletionist. I have created at least 79 articles. None of my !votes at AFD are just tossed in. I spend the time to look for sources, comment while I am looking around ---and doing a multitude of other things that include AFC and new page patrol. IF I !vote delete on an article it is NOT because I am inherently a deletionist but that I feel there are grounds that an article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Since you "opened the can of worms", how far would you be willing to allow me to "chop-out-the-crap"? The list of Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors should be completely removed. As with the other article I see you created (with a laundry list of quotes) you are just throwing crap in a pot and steering (not a misspelling but a bias twist for POV) it up. I comment anyone contributing to Wikipedia. I also would like you to consider constructive criticism, from not just me but some that have !voted "keep", and your admission that the article is "heavy on quotes, to remove those that make this junk. Contrary to some that state AFD is not cleanup, that ends up an oxymoron every time an article is deleted by consensus as not acceptable (deletion can be cleanup), it can NEVER HURT to gain improvements on an article, that is a reason we have WP:HEY. The idea of "keeping trash" in hopes that it may someday be improved is comical.

Please note: I have not given a !vote. user:Legacypac moved the article but added Comment: The long quotes are tripping the copyright filter. Does this topic already exist under another name?, (I am looking at this also) and the creating editor has more than doubled those (like 2 1/4 times increase) in the last few days. IF it is not your intention to create a POV spin then why not "sofixit" yourself. Anyway, if editors don't chop it down first, it will very likely revisit AFD, possibly along with "Reformist Left", especially if notions of being a hoax are not addressed. A term can be notable and not deserving an article on Wikipedia. Notability and not using fringe theories are important even on "Philosophical movements" and "Political philosophy", I agree the WP:sourcing is sketchy (Urban Dictionary!) but I am still looking. Otr500 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500:

1. WP:FRINGE does not apply. Please (re)read the policy:
   To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. (emphasis mine)
   1. This article is not about a "mainstream idea". In fact, you said that yourself. Therefore, WP:FRINGE does not apply to it.
   2. Yes, anarcho-conservatism is fringe — globally! — but not locally in, say, Amish and Haredi communities.
2. Your charge that I'm "spinning/steering a POV" favourably to both anarcho-conservatism and the Reformist Left makes absolutely no sense to anyone who's familiarised oneself with these ideologies.
3. how far would you be willing to allow me to "chop-out-the-crap"
   "Allow"? I don't have any authority to "allow" or "disalow" you from doing anything. You need only justify whatever you do on WP to the WP community.
4. Yes, I did say the article is currently heavy on quotes, and that body text should be added in substitution to some of them. I'm just better at 'quote mining' than at synthesising them. If that's your forte, please, go ahead and WP:FIXIT.

WisdomTooth3 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Burke… He most certainly was not an anarcho-conservative. He was a liberal conservative, as that article clearly states.

1. There aren't any quotes from Burke in the Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors section (or anywhere else in the article, for that matter).
2. The section's title is Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors, not Quotes from notable anarcho-conservative authors.

WisdomTooth3 (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No redirect. There are many links but none of them discuss the neologism "anarcho-conservatism" beyond a passing mention. We are an encyclopedia of concepts covered amply in secondary sources, not a catalog of phrases mentioned incidentally across the Internet. It's possible to hold anarchist and conservative views simultaneously, the same way that it's possible to hold anarchist and any other view simultaneously, but we don't dedicate articles to that intersection unless it is also subject to significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The article author's claim that "anarcho-conservatism" is distinct from Libertarian conservatism is backed in the article by... Urban Dictionary? Not only are user-generated resources not reliable sources, but I see no reason why any definition of "anarcho-conservatism" wouldn't be covered as related within Libertarian conservatism, despite that article's own sourcing issues. However, I wouldn't even redirect the term as I'm not seeing the sourcing that even discusses "anarcho-conservatism" as a discrete concept.

What's left if we remove the blatantly unreliable blogs and affiliated/primary source quote original research (as we're looking for secondary source analysis of the concept, not evidence that conservative thinkers had anti-state thought)? The Burkean blog's article (unreliable, btw) is titled "ANARCHO-CONSERVATISM – IS THAT EVEN A THING?" His short answer is "no", it's a term used by some bloggers without significant coverage. He concludes, "What’s more, anarcho-conservatism is little more than a subgroup of anarcho-capitalism, a model which defines all human interactions in terms of free market agreements." The rest of our article is refbombed to give the appearance that this neologism has greater currency than it does. If these thinkers have thought important thoughts at the intersection of anarchism and conservatism, cite the secondary sources (that discuss their importance) within existing sections, not the primary sources itself, as to make the claim that these thinkers form a corpus of "anarcho-conservative" thought (with no analysis to back that up) is textbook original research.

Atop that, this quote farm is a stark copyright violation that should never have passed AfC on formatting alone. Wikipedia works to minimize non-free content, and to copy non-PD texts at length in lieu of paraphrase is to violate that principle. I find the other "keep" arguments above to be lacking basis in policy.

czar 18:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: We are an encyclopedia of concepts covered amply in secondary sources … we don't dedicate articles to that intersection unless it is also subject to significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources.
The secondary sources are there. For instance:^[1][2][3][4]

WisdomTooth3 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is "more than a trivial mention", per the general notability guideline. Books contain many neologisms—the burden of proof is on you as the article creator to show that the concept itself is the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The giveaway, in this case, is overloading the article with primary sources to give the appearance that the neologism has more currency than it does. The phrase "Tory anarchism" at least has some currency, but it should be covered in an existing article as there isn't enough sourcing to establish its difference or independence from other forms of conservatism. czar 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per user:czar, E.M.Gregory, and my comments above because there is a clear lack of notability. Synthesis can be found in the Biblical references (1 Samuel 8 ---REALLY!!) that have nothing to do with the subject and the above mentioned refbombing, like (Chabad.org) "Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over..." and the several links to Tolstoy, is proof this is a travesty. Arguments that performing a search equates to WP:GHITS, in looking to find notability, is pure BS. Just a Google count has been found to be misleading but anyone on Wikipedia that runs across a subject wanting more information will perform a search. Concerning that: Perform a Goggle book search (20 a page x 3 pages) to see a lack of notability. Otr500 (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: The reference to Samuel is copied over directly from the Christian anarchism article (as noted in the talk page). Yes, "really". I fail to see the problem with that. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Note, I'm the technical starter of this AFD, but that was only to help another editor set up the AFD; it was not my !vote.) Looking at the references that earlier posters are claiming make this absolutely essential, I don't find anything of the depth called for. I find stuff like this - a one-sentence mention that is given a full sentence here, and which is linked to an article that mentions the term not at all. (Even if that were not the case, this article would be in need of a serious dose of WP:TNT, as it is almost entirely built from WP:OR claims that these quotes have something to do with the subject.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article probably needs some work, but I believe the subject does pass WP:GNG and is worth retaining. Skirts89 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:RUBBISH -- WisdomTooth3 and XavierItzm have demonstrated that this article is a notable topic that meets WP:GNG. The fact that the article right now is of poor quality is not a valid argument for deleting it. The article can and should be improved to make it more encyclopedic and on-target. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I hope that the closer takes the time to interrogate which "meets WP:GNG" comments are backed in policy and which are arguments to avoid. Also note that the article is a giant copyright violation. The overwhelming majority of text is copied straight from books, rather than paraphrased, and it continues to expand despite warnings above. czar 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright violations and excessive quotations should be removed, but that is irrelevant to the topic's notability. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:

1. "A giant copyright violation" it is not. The quotes in the article are brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks (WP:NFCCP).
2. The article is only looking heavy on quotes because it is light of body. It needs more content, not less.
3. As 1990'sguy noted, these considerations are irrelevant to the article's notability.

— WisdomTooth3 (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but attribution doesn't stop extensive quoting from being a copyright violation. Take your pick: Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Respecting_copyright. And the article's state does affect whether the whole thing will be thrown out. The above, drive-by "meets WP:GNG" comments do not address any of the issues raised with the contents of those sources. I'm not going to repeat myself but I will remind the closer of their obligation to properly weight policy-backed rationale. czar 06:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Ok,I'll pick the first one you cited:

Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use in the United States. ...

• The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work. ...
• The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject; irrelevant quotations should be removed.
• All quotations must be attributed to their source. (WP:COPYQUOTE)

While there are many quotes in the article, none of them is longer than a few sentences, they are all properly attributed to their source and in no way represent a substantial portion thereof. If you feel some of them can be trimmed, or would like to make the article less quote heavy by contributing with body text, please go ahead and WP:FIXIT. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried being reasonable. I'll let someone else explain. czar 07:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check[17] sorry but I'm off to bed but

That looks bad. Doug Weller talk 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's tool is for checking whether content has been copied over, Doug Weller. Of course it has! They are quotes! But they do not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, are attributed to their source, and are specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks. That's what WP:COPYQUOTE and WP:NFCCP require. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the first one on Earwig was far too long to comply with policy. I thought it was but didn't want to act until I'd checked, which I now have. I've removed the example so it now complies. It certainly wasn't brief. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or maybe redirect in the unlikely event that a suitable target can be identified but definitely no merge).
  At a first glance I thought the article was an elaborate joke. Now I am genuinely unsure. (Well, I'm unsure whether it is a joke. I'm still very sure that it is elaborate.) I'm fairly convinced that no such distinct/coherent ideology exists under this name or, alternatively, that it is currently in the process of being created under our very noses and is, at least for now, not notable. If the name does refer to anything both coherent and notable then surely we already have an article for this under its more common name? (If so, a redirect might be appropriate.)
  The term has been punted a few times, and it turns up occasionally in reliable sources, but the meaning is not very clear or consistent. In some cases it seems the term is used by Socialists as a term of abuse for liberals and insufficiently statist anarcho-socialists. In other cases it seems it is used sarcastically by conservatives to mock those of their number who flirt with anarcho-capitalism. In a few cases it seems somewhat more in line with that chosen by this article but the choice to go down this route seems pretty arbitrary. What I don't see is anybody identifying their own ideology under this name and forming a movement around it. The sources are thin anyway. (Literally only 2 hits and two citations in Google Scholar! Two in Google News. Zero in Google Newspapers. Google Books is the best one. 135 hits would be more than sufficient if they were almost all talking about the same thing but they are not.) So if the sources are thin, where did this article spring from? What I see here is a whole mountain of Original Research. Even the purported "flag" seems to be the work, and probably the personal invention, of the author. There is no evidence that it exists in the wider world. The large quotations (some of which may or may not be copyright violations) speak of an attempt to cobble together an ideology on the spot. This is where it becomes outright comical. Various things that various people have written are co-opted as "Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors". Many of those people lived prior to modern political terminology. Were we to reach into their afterlives and torment them by making them read this article, far from recognising their own political philosophy, most of them would have not the first idea what it was talking about or why their name was being associated with it. So what we have here is, at the very best, an essay and at worst somebody's personal collection of inspiring quotations with a misleading title pinned to the top. The article seeks to cobble together a load of unrelated sources and the result is, as we say in the UK, cobblers. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal:

• What I don't see is anybody identifying their own ideology under this name and forming a movement around it.
  Would Orwell be notable enough for you?

  The idea of a tory anarchist was first coined by Orwell to describe both Jonathan Swift and himself^[1]

• Even the purported "flag" seems to be the work, and probably the personal invention, of the author.
  Not sure what led you to think that, but it isn't. I simply googled it and reproduced it.
• Many of those people lived prior to modern political terminology.
  That's irrelevant; the article doesn't claim those authors quoted were anarcho-conservatives, but that the quotes themselves are. So it's not a matter of self-identification. And even if it were, John Locke and Adam Smith never self-identified as classical liberals and no one with secondary education would question that they were for this reason alone.

~ WisdomTooth3 (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]