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 07:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monsanto's Law[edit]

Monsanto's Law (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)

Procedural nomination. PROD removed without reason. Doesn't look to be much coverage. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as PRODer. I went through the sources, and there's only tangential mention as a WP:NEOLOGISM. The main one was internal company-speak within the company about mirroring Moore's Law that hasn't got significant coverage, especially since that was back in 1997. The other part of the mishmash was from this source about a nickname for a Mexican law that doesn't appear to have any standing over time. It's basically been a string of words a rare source uses rather than a concrete topic, so I don't see any use for a redirect anywhere either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As above, WP:NEOLOGISM article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent sources for of any of the several uses of the term used in the article.Dialectric (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Bakazaka (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete delete it already. Calm Omaha (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of the subject entirely lacking notability outside one single primary source, the corporation's 1997 annual report, which is not available online any more. (We learn of its content through secondary sources.) If the neologism had caught on, it'd have been acceptable. But it hasn't so it's not. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Armageddon (Swedish band). Hut 8.5 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Concepcion[edit]

Joey Concepcion (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:N and GNG. Member of a band that is barely notable itself. 'blabbermouth.net' sources mention his name but don't discuss him in any detail. Other source is a metal wiki. Should be redirected to band's page. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect I completely agree. The page should either be redirected back to the band or be deleted as notability is lacking. Handoto (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand, there are loads of sources and references. They explain in detail. Please do not delete page. I can help put more and better sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shredderx777 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are from a single website, and there is only one thing actually referenced thus far. Maybe moving this to a draft space would be reasonable but only if there is a chance of notability here. Handoto (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my best to improve the references, theres plenty more still out there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shredderx777 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Armageddon (Swedish band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Antony_Hämäläinen this member of Armageddon has a page and there are even less references, I don't understand. Theres alot of content and references on Joey Concepcion. Please keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shredderx777 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that "Other similar stuff exists in Wikipedia!" is not acceptable. In any case, that article too should be audited. -The Gnome (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a single reliable source mentioned. Shredderx777, you should take a look at WP:GNG, WP:BAND and WP:RS. Other wikis aren't reliable sources, blogsites aren't reliable sources, interviews of a subject can't be used to bolster that subject's notability. Any actual press sources giving this fellow the "significant coverage" the GNG requires? I don't see any. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Armageddon (Swedish band). Should any decent coverage emerge I would suggest adding to the band article until there's enough sourceable contant to justify a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Armageddon (Swedish band), not independently notable. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at all these valid sources listed

[1]

[2]

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

^[5]

^[6]

http://xsrock.com/sanctuary-add-second-guitarist-joey-concepcion-line-us-tour-iced-earth/

many many references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shredderx777 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck 2nd !vote by same editor. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all not reliable sources or not independent of the subject. --Michig (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you clicked on them and read them? Yes they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shredderx777 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About those sources, Shredderx777: This is by a heavy metal encyclopaedia edited by fans; this is a presentation of the guitarist as a music teacher in a music-teaching website (and we won't even search for hype); this is just the Jackson Guitars official website presenting yet another musician who uses their products; this one is a fan's blog and you know how Wikipedia feels about blogs; maybe this one, a Blabbermouth.net article, could pass as a reliable source, yet the text's more about the Sanctuary band than about the guitarist. So, we only have this interview to a hard rock site. Your enthusiasm for the subject is noted and honestly saluted but the sources fall very far below the threshold I'm afraid. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Shredderx777, your second "keep" vote above should be struck, you are only allowed to vote once. Bravewords and Lady Obscure are blogs, so they are not reliable. Nor is Metal Archives, because it is user-generated content. Conception works for Rock House, and publicises Jackson Guitars, so those sources are not independent. Richard3120 (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN. If there's any material to be salvaged, Merge it into the band article and place a Redirect on this one. There seems to be some problem with the notion of independent notability in this discussion. Let's just hope WP:TOOSOON, then. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Armageddon (Swedish band), where his limited notability seems to be.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Peacock language in bio reeks of self-promotion. References are just clutter from unreliable sources, as pointed out above. Blabbermouth.net in particular pops up in a lot of Afd nominations, as they are usually just press releases or self-submitted news. Redirect would be fine I suppose. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after reading the first sentence in the bio, and looking at the sources. Fails WP:GNG Not voting for redirect because I'm not sure Armageddon (Swedish band) is notable either. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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 07:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy network service[edit]

Philanthropy network service (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)

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Absolutely no reliable sources. An exact-phrase search result reveals that the title of this article is also the name of a failed Indiegogo campaign from 3 years ago, which is about the same time this article was created. This strongly suggests WP:SPIP. Newslinger (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this haphazardly thrown together, entirely unsourced, personal essay. Maybe keep a copy of this to show to inclusionists. -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDICT — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 24 July 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 07:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaceplanet[edit]

Palaceplanet (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 references. Not independently notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Absolutely no reliable sources. Article appears to be original research. I don't think a merge into The Palace (computer program) would be appropriate, since there are no reliable sources asserting that this fansite is the most notable one. Newslinger (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Subject lacks evidence of notability and this is amplified by the total lack of sourcing. -The Gnome (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sisters of Mercy. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anaconda (The Sisters of Mercy song)[edit]

Anaconda (The Sisters of Mercy 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)

Fails NSong - UK Indie chart is not considered significant chart. No discussion in reliable sources as far as I can see, so fails GNG as well. Propose a redirect to band or to discography. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Sisters of Mercy - does not really require a stand-alone article. Vorbee (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep UK Indie Chart was more significant in the 1980s than now. "The single reached No. 3 on the UK Indie Chart and was named Single of the Week by several UK music magazines" 12:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Merge with Sisters of Mercy: As may be, but if the UK Indie Chart isn't explicitly part of WP:NMUSIC, this isn't the place to advocate that it should be. That being said, happily, my library has that book, and the author doesn't actually cite which "UK music magazines" claim to have made it "Single of the Week," which for a single that never hit the upper reaches of the main UK music charts I really want to see more proof to back up that claim. In any event, I can't find the track on the 1983 UK Indie Chart, although that might be a fault of the website. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In ictu oculi, NukeThePukes – for information, in 1983 the indie chart was not published by Gallup, who were responsible for compiling the official singles chart at the time, but by their competitors MRIB. Hence this chart position will never appear on the OCC's website unless they gain the right to licence the indie charts between 1980 and 1985, when Gallup did take over the indie chart's compilation. Given how popular the Sisters of Mercy were with the music mags and indie kids in the early 80s, I think it is very likely that this record WAS made Single of the Week in various magazines... but I'd need a week or two to go to the British Library and check out the back issues of NME and Melody Maker to find out (the issues of Sounds and Record Mirror are missing between 1980 and 1984, unfortunately). Richard3120 (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: As may be, but we can't keep an article (or indeed include information in one) based on speculation. The answer to that we don't know for a fact whether or not the subject was covered in notable magazines is not that we keep the article anyway; it's that we don't. Nha Trang ^Allons! 13:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that in a week or so I might be able to confirm or deny whether the article was made SOTW, so it wouldn't be speculation any more. Richard3120 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the artist or album. Fails notability guidelines. STATic message me! 00:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to a better place since subject plainly fails WP:NSONG. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sisters of Mercy. I ran a proquest news archive search on anaconda + "sisters of mercy". It brought up a mention of this song in the context of the gtoup, like this form the Village Voice in 1906: "Last time I saw Sisters of Mercy was nearly 15 years ago... March 6 at Webster Hall was unbelievably awful, a sort of "name that tune" beneath heavy distortion and smoke machines ("Holy shit! Did they just play 'Anaconda'?"),..." , a couple of false lededs, and what seems to be a n echo of a press release in a Mexican newspaper. Nothing to support a stand alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 24 July 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 07:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moofaces[edit]

Moofaces (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 references. No suggestion of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, initially i thought this may have been a site with pictures of cute moo moos but its not so it a delete from me as doesn't meet WP:GNG, no useable references found, indeed clicking on the article website shows that it is up for sale. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Yes, "inspirational and entertaining" WP:PROMO. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 23 July 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 07:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Anderson (businessman)[edit]

Bruce Anderson (businessman) (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)

Prod removed so bringing it here. Non notable CEO of non notable company Vanium Education Services. Fails WP:GNG sources are routine listings, Linked in and press releases. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A CV supported by routine announcements and the subject's LinkedIn. No evidence of attained notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable businessman. Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nomination did not mention that he is also former CEO of Gaba Corporation, a notable company. But I see the other articles on CEOs of this company have been deleted. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:GNG. Creator seems enthusiastically dedicated to articles about company and CEO. Creativity is its own reward. Or so I hear. -The Gnome (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ontology. Proposed additions to the Ontology article about Post-ontology can be discussed on the Ontology talk page (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-ontology[edit]

Post-ontology (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 term post-ontology is little-used (as far as I can see from searches on Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and JSTOR), and has not received the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article are little-cited on Google Scholar, and they do not appear to be otherwise influential. Although not part of the rationale for deletion (the rationale is lack of notability), I can't help but note that the jargon used in the article (including in the first sentence, "Post-ontology is a term for theories that transgress classical ontological philosophy") gives the article a hoax-like tone akin to the Sokal hoax article, "Transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity". Biogeographist (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG, better attempted as an addition to Ontology. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ontology, given the lack of Sig Cov - indeed, the only clear mention (all the others were confusing, somewhat contradictory and otherwise unhelpful) actually noted that since the term Ontology still wasn't fully agreed, the use of post-ontology was impossible to fully clarify. The phrase does exist, but it doesn't seem to have standardised (even into differing factions), making it useless for an encyclopedic article. And Nom is right about confusing - Jarzombek's quote is a particular winner for willfully confusing text, what my Ontology professor referred to as "disciplinic twaddle". Nosebagbear (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As nominator, I would not oppose a redirect. The word post-ontology is out there in the wild, but as noted above the coverage is not significant enough and coherent enough at this point for an article. Biogeographist (talk) 22:02, 22 July 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 07:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jass Manak[edit]

Jass Manak (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:NSINGER. Google News gives no substantial coverage. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Mentions are pretty strong in the RS. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see anything other than a few mentions in less than reliable sources and some basic coverage in the Times of India. Certainly insufficient to support an article on a living person. He is known for a single song which briefly trended on Youtube but did not chart. Does not meet the notability requirements. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I just looked over the sources myself, and they're casual mentions of the subject. (The song gets more, and that's still not enough for an article.) "Trending on YouTube" meets no notability criteria I know of, nor of any song: if it didn't make the national charts, its ephemeral YouTube performance doesn't elevate it, and besides which, YouTube scarcely provides information upon which to write a BLP. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 23 July 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) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loren_Cordain[edit]

Loren_Cordain (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)

Does not meet notability guidelines WP:NPROF or WP:GNG for academics. Reads like a self-promotion page and there are no good reputable sources about this individual. Lesslikely (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a Delete. Lesslikely (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Speedy Keep - With over 6,000 citations, just on the first page, of Google Scholar, with over 10 additional pages following, concerning his books as shown here [3] Believe he more than meets Professor. Or a better question is what are your standards? ShoesssS ^Talk 19:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoessss, please unbold the word "strong" as the only word that is meant to be bolded is either delete or keep. Please see WP:GD. Furthermore, I would argue that while you are correct in that the individual does have several cited papers, which does meet the notability guidelines for academic (this makes my previous claim incorrect), there are little to no existing non-academic, reputable third-party sources that discuss this individual. Should every individual that has a high citation impact be eligible for a Wikipedia page? I do not believe so. I am a scientist, and I do not believe that the principal investigator for my lab should have a Wikipedia page for her work. While the Wikipedia guidelines serve as useful guidelines, I do not believe this individual should have a Wikipedia page just because he has several cited publications. If every single highly-cited individual deserved a Wikipedia page, then Wikipedia would simply serve as another ResearchGate for highly-cited researchers. That's not what Wikipedia is for. It is not a hub just for highly-cited academics. What differentiates a well-known academic both in academia and in the media like John Ioannidis and Steven Goodman from individuals such as Loren Cordain? The former two have been in reputable third-party sources and they have substantially changed the field of science. Again, I do not think this individual should have a Wikipedia page. Lesslikely (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Lesslikely. Sorry to say, I will not “Unbold Strong”. In fact, I changed my opinion to “Speedy Keep”based in the guildlines found in Academics with particular attention to Subheading 3 (VII). ShoesssS ^Talk 21:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shoessss, please provide a valid reason for a WP:SK because as far as I know, it does not meet the criteria for eliciting a speedy keep. Please elaborate which of the six reasons support a speedy keep. Thank you. Lesslikely (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per item #3 of the guidelines in Speedy Keep and your own words above; “…Furthermore, I would argue that while you are correct in that the individual does have several cited papers, which does meet the notability guidelines for academic (this makes my previous claim incorrect)” makes for my argument for a Speedy Keep. Hope this explains my rational. Regards. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I believe that criteria doesn't fulfull the use of a speedykeep because I have read the article in question, as it's less than a few a paragraphs and I do not believe it is "erroneous" because the guidelines serve as guidelines rather than rules. Please see these relevant statements on the WP:ACADEMIC. "An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient." "Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule". Lesslikely (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry, but you forgot to finish the policy statement where it states; “…However, once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.” The citations provided in Google Scholar, as provided above, shows that;”… the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.” ShoesssS ^Talk 22:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lesslikely, WP:GTD does not forbid the bolding of "Strong" in "Strong Keep." All the guideline states, in passing, is that the editor's recommendations are to be bolded. The rest seems up to us. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't say I know too much about evolution, however, I'm looking at some other pages by academics like Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist) (to compare), and there's substantial contributions to the academic literature (which Cordain has done), but Miller also has several reputable journalistic sources citing him like ABC News and the Atlantic. I agree with Shoessss that LessLikely here is incorrect about not meeting the notability guidelines and should elaborate on what his/her standards are, but Lesslikely also does make a point about every notable academic individual having a biography on wikipedia. I'm a bit iffy on this, but I'm leaning towards a delete as there aren't non-neutral sources discussing this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scilover1 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep because of an invalid deletion rationale (it is so far from being true that it is difficult to believe the nominator actually did any searching for sources). Easily passes WP:PROF for highly cited publications, WP:AUTHOR for well-known books, and WP:GNG for heavy mainstream media coverage of his efforts to promote the paleo diet. In fact, the difficulty with finding sources is not that there is too little but that there is too much, making it difficult to find the ones that are sufficiently reliable and cover Cordain himself in non-trivial detail. But they are definitely out there: see [4] [5] [6] [7]. One doesn't have to believe in the validity of the paleo diet to recognize that one of its main proponents is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He publishes in the highly pop field of human nutrition. Has 20 papers with over 100 GS cites, Enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk).
• Keep on account of subject passing WP:ACADEMIC. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 23 July 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 07:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lost It to Trying[edit]

Lost It to Trying (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)

Does not meet WP:NSONG. PROD was declined. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NSONG. Only sources are a youtube video... and genius lyrics. The fact that genius lyrics was quoted to support a contention about the topic of the song makes me cringe. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Actually, Pitchfork gave this song "Best New Music" in their review. Vogue interviewed a band member about the song, but an interview wouldn't be considered an independent source. With only these two sources, the song doesn't meet WP:NSONG. Newslinger (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination for subject failing WP:NSONG. -The Gnome (talk) 11:14, 23 July 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 07:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resa (newspaper)[edit]

Resa (newspaper) (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)

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

Non-notable newspaper. Just created this year. One source, which is merely a promotional piece from a Sri Lankan site. Enigma^msg 21:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There might be some useful Sinhala-language references at this search (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence this meets the GNG. If the article creator couldn't find adequate Sinhalese sources for the subject, and no one's managed in the two and a half weeks this has been at AfD, then it's plain that no article on the subject can be sustained. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SMART criteria. Sandstein 07:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CLEAR goal criteria[edit]

CLEAR goal criteria (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 neologism pushed by various marketing consultants on their blogs and consultancy websites. A Google search revealed no promising hits, but due to the ambiguous term it is extremely difficult to search for it. Both given sources fail WP:RS. GermanJoe (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

(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)

• Keep. Try the above alt. searches that combine CLEAR and PURE with the older SMART criteria. If we just look at Google Books hits there are more than ennough to satisfy GNG.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} Google Scholar is giving as well.^[9][10][11] That last paper by Day and Tosey is cited by 47. Both PURE and CLEAR date back to at least 1996, so NOTNEO does not apply either. Courtesy ping GermanJoe. Sam Sailor 07:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC) --Amended below. Sam Sailor 21:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : I'm not impressed by the above list. For example, this cited source is from the Goal Setting for Success book that only mentions the subject once, and disparagingly too. Or take this book where the subject is mentioned only twice, per its index. The rest seem typical jargon-infested manuals that coach consultants. These are the sources that shall keep this SPAish-created text up? -The Gnome (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (1) - first of all many thanks @Sam Sailor: for the additional hits. Still lots of false positives, but your search parameters are vastly better nonetheless. However, I have checked the listed links, and almost all of them provide only passing mentions or quotes of Whitmore's publication about CLEAR as an additional set of goals, but do not elaborate on the concept in significant detail. Such numerous mentions are a good argument against WP:NOTNEO, agreed. But without in-depth analysis of the term and its underlying concept these sources still fail to establish notability for a stand-alone article. The term exists and is used by some authors, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). For the sake of efficiency, I won't add a similar comment at the parallel Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PURE goal criteria just yet, but will wait until the discussion here is over. GermanJoe (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (2) - would it be appropriate to simply merge/redirect a brief mention of this term into SMART criteria? All three terms seem very closely connected, both in research and usage as your list of sources clearly indicates. The articles already cross-link each other with significant overlap. Just a random suggestion, but maybe that would be a viable solution to preserve the information without the need for perfect "notability". GermanJoe (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (cross-posted to WP:Articles for deletion/PURE goal criteria): If this article is kept, it may be appropriate to create a navigation template for articles on goal-criteria mnemonics analogous to Template:Medical mnemonics. See also: List of medical mnemonics. How many of these goal-criteria mnemonics are there? I wonder if Yaris678, who is the top editor of SMART criteria, would care to opine on this deletion discussion? Biogeographist (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this corporate-training neologism that has evidently failed to catch on widely. The sources quoted at length above do nothing to change the lack of verifiable evidence of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect both this article and the article on PURE goal criteria (see WP:Articles for deletion/PURE goal criteria) into a new section of Goal setting titled, e.g., "Criteria" or SMART criteria § Additional criteria. As The Gnome noted above, the available sources are not good enough to support separate articles about these goal-criteria mnemonics. Furthermore, treating all goal-criteria mnemonics in one section of Goal setting will allow for more WP:NPOV treatment of goal criteria. Biogeographist (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the suggested redirect target to SMART criteria § Additional criteria per Yaris678's suggestion. Biogeographist (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect both this article and the article on PURE goal criteria into a new section of SMART criteria. I would be OK with Biogeographist's suggestion. However, the content of the PURE and CLEAR articles is more of a similar style to the SMART article. That article already has a section on "additional criteria"; I would add a section called something like "alternative criteria". Yaris678 (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A merge into the related SMART criteria sounds like a fine idea for preserving the material. Sam Sailor 21:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SMART criteria. Sandstein 07:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PURE goal criteria[edit]

PURE goal criteria (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 neologism pushed by various marketing consultants on their blogs and consultancy websites. A Google search revealed no promising hits, but due to the ambiguous term it is extremely difficult to search for it. The given source fails WP:RS. GermanJoe (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per WP:NEO, there are a couple of in-field references (how-to articles, rather than more academic or suitable industry sources), it hasn't made it (as far as i can tell) to mainstream news, books or journals. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A changed !vote via Sam's sources. I did amend my search terms with some extra stuff but clearly adding SMART was the key bit. I would strongly suggest the following of his sources (^[1]). None of the others give it both clearly (apologies) and in detail, mainly due to lack of access, rather than me feeling they don't have it. That said just with what can be accessed gives a fairly clear impression so I'm happy for it to be a keep. If I'm feeling more energetic today I'll try to add some of these to the article, if no-one beats me to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I realise I'm somewhat pinging around here, which no doubt is not conducive to the discussion, so apologies. That said, I think the merge as suggested by talk is probably the best solution. I'm not sure whether enough content exists to warrant an extension to the article's name, but that can be decided externally to the AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

(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)

• Keep. Try the above alt. searches that combine CLEAR and PURE with the older SMART criteria. If we just look at Google Books hits there are more than ennough to satisfy GNG.^{[2][3][1][4][5][6][7][8]} Google Scholar is giving as well.^[9][10][11] That last paper by Day and Tosey is cited by 47. Both PURE and CLEAR date back to at least 1996, so NOTNEO does not apply either. Courtesy ping GermanJoe and Nosebagbear. Sam Sailor 07:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC) --Amended below. Sam Sailor 21:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (1) - I have checked the listed links, and almost all of them provide only passing mentions or quotes of Whitmore's publication about PURE as an additional set of goals, but do not elaborate on the concept in significant detail. Such numerous mentions are a good argument against WP:NOTNEO, agreed. But without in-depth analysis of the term and its underlying concept these sources still fail to establish notability for a stand-alone article. The term exists and is used by some authors, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (2) - would it be appropriate to simply merge/redirect a brief mention of this term into SMART criteria? All three terms seem very closely connected, both in research and usage as your list of sources clearly indicates. The articles already cross-link each other with significant overlap. Just a random suggestion, but maybe that would be a viable solution to preserve the information without the need for perfect "notability". GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (cross-posted to WP:Articles for deletion/CLEAR goal criteria): If this article is kept, it may be appropriate to create a navigation template for articles on goal-criteria mnemonics analogous to Template:Medical mnemonics. See also: List of medical mnemonics. How many of these goal-criteria mnemonics are there? I wonder if Yaris678, who is the top editor of SMART criteria, would care to opine on this deletion discussion? Biogeographist (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this text about a non-notable training-mnemonic of a neologism. I'll not express any value opinions on the merits of such angles in coaching because the subjects' merits are irrelevant to AfDs. If wider notability were there, one could make a case for this kamikaze account-created text to be kept.

On Sam Sailor's sources, aka Is Anybody Clicking:

1. The Seven Steps of Effective Coaching: passing mentions of one mnemonic among mnemonics
2. Leading From the Inside Out: one or two passing mentions.
3. Core Curriculum for Occupational and Environmental Health Nursing has no online text to check out
4. The index of Comprehensive Library shows only two mentions. Evidently, it's all about something else.
5. The German-language version of the training manual, which, perversely, keeps the English acronym and its English words for its German users. Not too serious as a source, I'd say.
6. Two and a Half Minutes has one single mention of the mnemonic, bundled with a bunch of others.
7. Or take Coaching and Mentoring for Business  : "To identify a goal in a coaching or mentoring context, there are a number of alternatives to SMART", our manual says and goes "e.g. PURE, OPUS, EXACT."

This is all very lame. At best, and with generosity, one could suggest a Merge of whatever can be salvaged into "John Whitmore (racing driver)". And since one could so do I. -The Gnome (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: Are you proposing to delete or to merge and redirect? Biogeographist (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject entirely lacks independent notability, despite the noble effort (and extensive citations) to support it. It should/could be Deleted, per policy. But if a Merge to the article about those mnemonics' main parent is preferred by the AfD participants, as an alternative, I would not object, as it happens. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect both this article and the article on CLEAR goal criteria (see WP:Articles for deletion/CLEAR goal criteria) into a new section of Goal setting titled, e.g., "Criteria" or SMART criteria § Additional criteria. As The Gnome noted above, the available sources are not good enough to support separate articles about these goal-criteria mnemonics. Furthermore, treating all goal-criteria mnemonics in one section of Goal setting will allow for more WP:NPOV treatment of goal criteria. Biogeographist (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the suggested redirect target to SMART criteria § Additional criteria per Yaris678's suggestion. Biogeographist (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A merge into the related SMART criteria sounds like a fine idea for preserving the material. Sam Sailor 21:44, 23 July 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 07:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Kitson[edit]

Zara Kitson (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)

Clear lack of notability, failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. The subject in question has not won a single election.

Furthermore, as noted by other editors in the first nomination, much of the article's text reads like a CV or political endorsement for the politician. The subject of the article has not received significant coverage that would warrant an individual article. RaviC (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of notability as an individual and politician. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article has only just completed a prolonged period of discussion- it was nominated for deletion and resulted in a no-consensus outcome. The first nomination ran from for more that three weeks: from 31 May until it was closed on 24 June as no-consensus. At that point RaviC added the "advert" improvement template to the article. RaviC did not edit any content within the article, but within a couple of hours had opened a deletion review. Another editor promptly went through the article and made a wide range of changes, that they described as: "removed the promotional wording, added more citations and information, fixed the lede to more accurately describe her notability as written in the body of the article. Made it clear that she's lost all the elections she's run for, because it sort of sounded like she'd won some of them based on the previous wording." The deletion review attracted several responses. On 2 July the no-consensus outcome was endorsed and the deletion review closed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was also discussion about whether the article should be renominated, due to a poor original nomination and some IP canvassing. SportingFlyer talk 08:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This biography has been rewritten since the previous discussion. Kitson was a prominent activist during the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 and has also been prominent campaigning on LGBT issues. She has stood for various elections and been unsuccessful in these but her notability is as an activist, rather than a politician, for example Telegraph article, YWCA feature. In 2015 she ran for the female co-convener position in the Green party (against the incumbent Maggie Chapman), this was a significant challenge- the type of contest not seen before in this party. There is coverage of these various activities in articles across several newspapers and the article on Kitson is well-referenced. These reliable sources are independent of Kitson and of the Greens. She is therefore notable when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Available references and results fail to establish any notability. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She's not an elected politician so fails WP:NPOL but can still have an article if she passes WP:GNG. As I noted in the previous AfD, the article has a lot of sources which mention her, but there's only one source that's directly about her: [8] Everything else is trivial coverage of a leadership challenge for a minor political party. SportingFlyer talk 08:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep passes WP:BASIC. Passage of WP:GNG is somewhat tenuous but there is sufficient coverage to err on the side of keeping the article.--TM 17:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and appears to be non-notable politician. My Lord (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per above listed reasons. Also, being an LGBT advocate does not help make one more notable. Handoto (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails NPOLITICIAN. The way we measure being "prominent" in Scottish independence or LGBT politics is if a subject gets significant coverage in reliable sources due to her activities in the same. If there isn't any, then she just isn't that prominent. (And that being said, opening a new AfD is an appropriate reaction to a no-consensus close.) Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNot notable (enough). The article has been here 3 years and still virtually nothing worth mentioning has emerged Lyndaship (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pretty clear failure of the Unelected Politician high bar. Whether we should be blocking politicians like we do is debatable, but consensus to date is clear. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete political activist and unelected candidate, fails POLITICIAN fails WP:SIGCOV.

at the very least it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 22 July 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Research and Promotion of Farmers[edit]

Center for Research and Promotion of Farmers (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)

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Probably notable. A search for references under the Spanish name or acronym should help. See Find sources, above. The Spanish Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the group, but some references show up: [9] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, also under the Spanish name there is not much about this organisation. The Banner talk 21:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an English-language book [10] listed among the references published in The Netherlands. As well, I added some Spanish-language references. I think that notability is firmly established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I know nothing of it but it looks notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY as the spanish references added enable a pass of WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to America's Next Top Model (cycle 15). (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Petrack[edit]

Esther Petrack (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 person. There is a lack of significant coverage on the subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The previous AfD for the article's first incarnation concluded with a redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 15 on 31 October 2010. The article's first incarnation was created by Zipadeedooda91. The second, current incarnation of the article was also created by Zipadeedooda91 on 5 June 2011. The deletion review archive shows no discussion on whether to reopen the article between those two dates. MB190417 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two other persons which have their own page from America's Next Top Model, Cycle 15. The outcome of this AfD could be used to consider whether these two other articles should also be considered for deletion or redirected. Jane Randall (3rd place) was nominated for deletion last month; that AfD was closed without consensus. Ann Ward (1st place) has never been nominated for deletion, though the bulk of the article discusses her participation in the cycle (it might fail WP:BLP1E), so there may be reason to argue that the article should be redirected as per the previous AfD, possibly alongside this one and that of Jane Randall. Of course, every article should be judged on its individual merits. But there is scope for redirecting all three of the articles, not that I am necessarily recommending that course of action. MB190417 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. The previous AfD was closed in this way (I know, I closed it), and the existing article is exactly the same as that one, apart from the last paragraph which offers no additional notability. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as WP:BLP1E at present, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian constitutional referendum, 2018[edit]

Macedonian constitutional referendum, 2018 (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)

Created WP:TOOSOON as referendum has still not formally been called. Prod removed with a WP:CRYSTAL violating argument that "This referendum will happen as it needs happen". Happy to have the article restored if/when the vote is formally agreed. Number 57 16:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete: Yeah, that was a bad rationale to remove a prod; I'm never going to stop shaking my head at the people who think that they get gold stars on their foreheads for "scooping" Wikipedia on a new article. Obvious violations of CRYSTAL and TOO SOON are obvious. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete: WP:CRYSTAL "almost certain to take place" - this referendum will take place. There several references that support this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6:11B3:454:44B:32D9:7F23:975 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete: This issue separated Macedonia from Europe and prevented it being an oridinary european state. It needs a referendum. There will be a referendum. All but one party supports it. Media reports are available. Government announced the referendum, parliament voted for the referendum twice. Only SEC/DIK fails to do what it is supposed to do currently. It is a matter of weeks only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.97.60 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this appears to be WP:TOOSOON, some of the information from this article could be used to expand appropriate sections of Macedonia naming dispute with a breakout article occurring when the referendum actually happens. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete: There is no reason for that. Jingiby (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete: I would be inclined not to delete it because a tentative date for it has been announced, and there is great deal of discussion around it. Dapiks (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Maybe change the title to Proposed Macedonian constitutional referendum, 2018 as even if it does not happen the fact that a referendum was planned is notable Lyndaship (talk) 15:06, 20 July 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 07:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hill Newman[edit]

Andrew Hill Newman (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, minor roles actor fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lots of roles, but nothing that would meet WP:NACTOR; lots of producer credits, but nothing that would meet WP:FILMMAKER; no significant reliable source coverage to show he meets WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a bunch of small roles do not notability make. Wikipedia is not IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 22 July 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 07:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faceball[edit]

Faceball (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 has not been established after nine years of the Notability template being on the page. CPColin (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Total Google News references found here, [11]. Need more be said. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the article itself has sources. What Google News chooses to reference isn't a notability criteria. Hobit (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NFT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Setting aside the absurdity of the subject, the subject of this article did not receive significant coverage from the news sources cited in the article. Newslinger (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources seem fine. Could you explain your issue with the sources? Hobit (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed 3 references that pointed to dead links. The remaining 5 have issues:
      1. KPIX-TV (CBS): Not significant coverage. Linked video is no longer available.
      2. Metro: Not a reliable source, since Metro is a tabloid published by Daily Mail and General Trust.
      3. Valleywag: Not significant coverage.
      4. Wired: OK.
      5. Daily Mail: Not a reliable source. Not independent, since a third of the article is a quote from the game's inventor.

Additionally, this fad fails WP:EVENT since it had no lasting effects, was limited in geographical scope, and didn't receive continued coverage. Newslinger (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go one at a time.

• That a link is dead is no reason to remove the reference nor to discount it from WP:N. See WP:DEADLINK. Secondly, it's not an event, it's a game. Third, the coverage you sited 1/3 of the way around the earth (California to England), not sure how GEOSCOPE plays a role. Fourth, Daily Mail and related things were counted as reliable sources at that time and AFAICT are considered reliable unless the claims are extraordinary ([12]). So yes, we have a ton of sources. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the dead links because there are three more citations for the same sentence that aren't dead. Regarding the dead links:

• Faceball: This is the game's website, which is now defunct. Not reliable or independent.
• Yodel Andectodal: According to TechCrunch, this was Yahoo's corporate blog. Note that Yahoo was the parent company of Flickr, which is where this game originated. Not reliable or independent.
• CBS Sports: The citation says that this was from Clay Travis's defunct "ClayNation" sports column, and the "face-ball" in the article's title is hyphenated, which adds doubt to whether this source was even about the same topic. The Wayback Machine has no archive of this source, and I'm unable to find this source published online elsewhere. Also, a sports column is a questionable source.

I cited WP:EVENT because this was a fad (classified under "viral phenomena"). None of the sources describe the game being played outside of Yahoo offices. I stand by my delete vote. Newslinger (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wired and Daily Mail both have articles solely on the topic (yes, DM from 2007 was a reliable source). That, plus other sources in the article meet WP:N. It's silly, but it documents a real thing that had real coverage in real sources. Hobit (talk) 11:07, 18 July 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 07:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Striker (activist)[edit]

Eric Striker (activist) (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 a lot of references provided in the article but none of them are *about* Eric Striker, they just quote something he wrote on Daily Stormer. The closest thing to anything in detail is the Guardian article. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss him significantly, having searched Google for "eric striker" "alt-right". ... discospinster _talk 15:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable activist, one of the unfortunately many alt-righties popping out of the woodwork these days. Lack of significant reliable source coverage to establish notability under WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable secondary sources with any depth of coverage whatsoever. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Just one example of problems, the SPLC is a fundraising racket that seeks to inflate both the threat and extent of hate groups to get more money into its coffers. If a primary source for anything is that racket, trust it is not really notable at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YUVA (Youth United in Voluntary Action)[edit]

YUVA (Youth United in Voluntary Action) (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:NCORP and GNG. Has non-notable awards, and no demonstration of coverage by reliable secondary sources Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 14:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. Thank you for your feedback. The organisation has won notable awards. The African Leadership Awards alone are recognised and celebrated across over 60 countries in the African and Middle Eastern regions. The sources I have used are independent of the organisation and I have made an effort to use several different ones since a single one is not enough. While the organisation has not been featured in Western media, the sources used are reputable ones that are recognised in Africa. YethuIsMyName —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above user is the page's creator. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. "Youth United in Voluntary Action" returns no Google News results and only 302 Google results. None of the references cite reliable sources, and Africa Leadership Awards wouldn't be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Newslinger (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been edited and improved. Additional information has been sourced from reputable sources according to WP:SOURCE. These are Mauritian weekly print newspapers. Awards section has been removed from the article.YethuIsMyName (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Issues resolved - do not delete. New reputable sources (according to WP:SOURCE) have been added from two different national newspapers. Inclusion in Google News thus unnecessary - especially as a small African country with more traditional media than online media. Remove from Articles for Deletion (AfD). Khumo Sebambo (User talk:Khumo Sebambo) Khumo Sebambo (talk · contribs) is a sock of YethuIsMyName (talk · contribs) --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable enough in Mauritius. This is more of a promotion article. Kingroyos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Article based on a factual, unbiased information. On what grounds do you say it is not notable in Mauritius?YethuIsMyName (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  User had already commented once above. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please discuss in subthreads rather than making new headings. Headings should follow AfD procedure and indicate a desire to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, etc which you have already done. This isn't a page to discuss how the article has been improved, use the talk page for that (which apparently has never been used!). Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Khumo Sebambo is a sock of article creator YethuIsMyName, sock permabanned and article creator banned for one week. Worth noting that article creator was only thing resembling a keep vote. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems like a worthy organization, but I'm just not finding enough sources to meet WP:NORG. There's a few directory listings (ex: https://www.f6s.com/yuvamauritius) but nothing else I can see. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 24 July 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. With due respect to John Lambert's oppose which seems to be based on certain inferences somewhat at odds with our verifiability policy, the consensus here seems to be tending towards keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 15:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Harwood[edit]

Brown Harwood (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 relies on only one source which is a blog. See WP:BLOGS  Eric Cable  !  Talk  14:39, 16 July 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 July 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I did it right. Eric Cable  !  Talk  17:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the "blog" in question cites numerous reliable sources. The subject, who served as vice-president (imperial klazik) of the national Ku Klux Klan in the mid-1920s, is mentioned in numerous secondary sources as well. See [13] and [14] for two examples.

Then the article should reference the original sources, not the blog, correct? If the article is properly cited I would support non-deletion. Eric Cable  !  Talk  17:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The site uses photos of newspaper articles. Per WP:OSO, "There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online. If offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, are used to reference an article, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy." So unless you have "definitive proof or knowledge that these sources are really fictitious", the article should be kept.--TM 13:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, some of the books Harwood appears in include The Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest, The Ku Klux Klan in the City, 1915-1930, The Ku Klux Klan in Western Pennsylvania, 1921–1928, Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan, whether these contribute to notability or are deemed mentions/snips, i will leave to other editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible keep -- KKK is (or was) an obnoxious organisation, but potentially its leaders may have been notable as its organisers. I do not know enough to judge which side of notability this individual falls. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm tempted to say the VP (Imperial Klazik) of the national Klan, as well as being the prior Grand Dragon in Texas - in the 1920s Klan (when this was a major organization) - passes WP:SOLDIER(2) - however a simple BEFORE shows this individual passes GNG with quite a few books covering him. The cited blog also seems to be citing RSes itself.Icewhiz (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is built on verrifiability, and the sourcing here does not pass GNG. Appearing in contemporary newspapers is not how we show someone from 100 years ago was notable. What needs to be shown is secondary sourcing, and 100 year old news papers do not cut it. What needs to be shown is reliable sources since that have discussed this person and put them as a significant figure in historical context. Short of that, which we are here, a blog does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that newspapers are not "how we show someone was notable"? That newspapers are not secondary? That using sources from a century ago "do not cut it" in terms of adequate sourcing? These may be your personal opinions, but they're not grounded in WP:RS. The guidelines are clear.--TM 21:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - century old newspaper accounts would probably be considered PRIMARY. However, this individual does have secondary non-newspaper coverage - as evident in a google books search.Icewhiz (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trof[edit]

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

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

Delete No indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Way Too Soon…As stated in the article; “…As of March 2018, the app was still in the prototype stage”. Sorry to say, any APP is not going to gain encyclopedic Notability in 4 months.ShoesssS ^Talk 14:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. MB190417 (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ditto.Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of unattended passenger laws in the United States[edit]

List of unattended passenger laws in the United States (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)

A list that serves no informational, encyclopaedic purpose whatsoever. Randomly tweaking the numbers around does not affect the value of imparted information, which remains steady at the zero level. Nothing there that could meet WP:PURPLIST. Just another bit of text deposited in Wikipedia. The Gnome (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this article is headed by a tag saying that it may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Vorbee (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Probably we have a main article somewhere that could technically receive this. But really it makes more sense to give ranges of ages than details of each and every state. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taxwatch[edit]

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

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

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : There's more information out there about the main investor than the organization itself. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article supported by start-up publicity for a recently-created organisation. I don't see that coverage as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG; at best the topic is WP:TOOSOON until the organisation shows accomplishments. AllyD (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pantera Capital[edit]

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

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

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability (most are based on company announcements). Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Another blockchain corporation start kit at work. Well, WP:SORRY BUT NO CIGAR. -The Gnome (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yep, gimme some plug any day. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Gnome. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:46, 21 July 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) Lourdes 12:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four (banking)[edit]

Big Four (banking) (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)

Seems to be mostly a UK-bank specific term that the original author has tried to extend to every single country. Most of the countries on this list don't have a "big four" or the term is not used there. I don't see the scope of this article. Mostly duplicating List of largest banks, proposing some merge into there. – Craig Davison (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List of largest banks isn't by country; Big Four (banking) is but covers multiple countries. Some of these should be described as "Big Four" but others not. Big Five (banks) exists and is specific to Canada (although some in the Big Four list are lists of five), and the UK term and possibly others could similarly be split from the list. This could be a list limited to uses of "Big Four", a list of the largest banks by country, or be split so we have both of these. Peter James (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but trim to Australia, China, South Africa and the UK. The term seems to be the applied to them. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, and the nominator deserves a fish slap who has not stated why article should be deleted, also WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, this is a basic term in australia in a similar way that every ozzie knows that "granny smith" is referring to an apple, and not someone's nanna, even gnews search knows this ie. entering "big four banks australia" brings back many, many hits. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Coolabahapple. The article may need to be trimmed to only include documented usage of the term, but deletion is not the right tool here. MarginalCost (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Welfare Foundation[edit]

Fatma Welfare Foundation (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:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Absolutely no reliable sources found. Article was created by a single-purpose account which strongly suggests WP:SPIP. Newslinger (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It has to have sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deltek[edit]

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

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

Promotional-tone article with at least one COI and several SPAs contributing and pretty much nothing except non-exceptional business activities. Article has been PROD-deleted once before. The only claim of notability I see is "In March, 2004, Deltek introduced the first comprehensive software management tool to help government contractors better compete, win and retain government contracts.[1]" but ref is 404 and Wayback doesn't seem to have a copy (throws xml errors). DMacks (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Commercial blurb, fails WP:NCORP. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete too much original research. Brian Everlasting (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article is also mostly just a list of non-notable business accomplishments, and uses very few reliable sources. Also written in a promotional tone. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Tillerh11 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NCorp and GNG. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky 11's[edit]

Lucky 11's (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)

Product fails WP:GNG. No reviews on metacritic, or on custom google search. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources, in contrast to its sister game Photo Hunt. Newslinger (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to OpenGL#Associated libraries. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 12:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenGL User Interface Library[edit]

OpenGL User Interface Library (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)

Completing on behalf of an IP. Their rationale is “not notable and has no references.” Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep References available on Google Scholar. ISBN-13: 978-0387689920 also references. I've added some to article. As given IP does not seem to have notified contributors likely inadequate WP:BEFORE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to OpenGL. The GS citations are not remotely enough for notability. All they show is that WP:EXIST. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect to OpenGL. Still not enough reliable sources to be notable. Snowycats (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into OpenGL#Associated libraries. Not notable enough on its own, but it's a perfect match as a subsection here. Newslinger (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not perfect as the result may have undue weight compared to the other libraries in the section which have their own article, which either result in undue weight in an already longish target article which has its own issues which are possibly more important.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to OpenGL#Associated libraries. That's true. Newslinger (talk) 05:09, 19 July 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) Lourdes 12:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media independence[edit]

Media independence (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)

Very comprehensive article, however largely a reproduction of the UNESCO report found here, page 102 onwards. Very much written essay style, with large sections of text copied right out of the article. While the license seems compatible, neutrality or independence may be questioned as largely aligned to the one base source. The topic is also already covered in Freedom of the press and other journalism/media related articles. No doubt an important topic, however this does have POVFORK elements and the UNESCO report should be referenced in existing articles where appropriate to allow a more comprehensive overview. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. The creator of the article, Sarah GM, appears to have made it their purpose in Wikipedia to upload long texts copied from published articles and papers written by other people and create articles out of them: Human rights and encryption; Online youth radicalization; Online hate speech; Multi-stakeholder governance; and so on and so forth.

In their own words, editor Sarah GM is a "young graduate in Political science, International relations from Sorbonne." But this is not how Wikipedia works at all. Wikipedia is not a depository of scientific papers. -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article is of a notable subject (currently has 41 references) that is a distinct subject from Freedom of the press. The fact that it has been written for another purpose before does not make it unsuitable for Wikipedia, it is the same as a single Wikipedian writing an expansive article on their own. There may be issues with tone, but this is a reason to improve the article, not delete it, I've added a tag at the top of the page to encourage people to do this. It would be very helpful if there was more guidance on how to write in Wikipedia's tone. John Cummings (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best sourced texts are academic papers, practically by definition. The contested article is made up of text lifted up wholesale from a specific paper. This practice has been openly declared by the article's creator, and can be found in perhaps half a dozen other articles so far, created by the same user. No matter how "well written" or "well sourced" the academic paper is, Wikipedia is not a depository of scientific papers. The Wikipedia article on "media independence," if it should exist at all, remains to be written. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs amending as per MoS, but other than that it's good, notable, well referenced content and belongs here. The editor's qualifications aren't relevant so why bring them up? Battleofalma (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has questioned the qualification of the author - this is primarily about the closeness of the author to the topic, which in this case probably includes the vested interests of John Cummings as UNESCO Wikipedian in residence. Allow me to reiterate the main concern: the article in question is essentially a reproduction of a UNESCO report - it follows its thinking, its structure, uses the same headlines and terminology and goes as far as including entire passages or slightly rephrased passages. The addition of sources give it an appearance of being broadly covered, however, they are largely the same sources included in the very same report. If this was the work of a WP editor in the absence of the UNESCO report, this would probably fall into the category of WP:OR or publication of original essay work. Wikipedia is not the place for editors to reproduce entire works published elsewhere, especially if originated by other governments, supranational organisations, NGOs, consultants or other interest groups. This undermines Wikipedia's reputation as unbiased source of information. Yes, the topic per se is of interest and - personally - I'd like to see an article on this. However as this article is far too closely aligned to one previously published work, I believe this is a case of WP:TNT._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: If that theory was true, our coverage of US military history would have to be deleted wholesale (see the category documenting that group of content). We evaluate each article on its coverage of the topic, not by the style or source of that information. Complex concepts like media independence are probably best compiled by experts, and its is our job to incrementally improve that to better meet the expectations of the Wikimedia community. Sadads (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: This appears somewhat self-contradictory. On the one hand you admit that the subject is complex (I agree!) and best compiled by experts, then again you state that it should be *evaluated* by the community. Clearly, this community consists of volunteers who, most likely, are not experts. How can a mere mortal ever evaluate the work of so-called experts? This is a dangerous precedent. On the one hand, COI editing is disallowed, but then we are supposed to regurgitate something published by organisations with their own agendas under the veil of "being experts". Why then don't we just hand over the articles for companies, products or artists to their marketing or PR teams? Surely they are the experts? I don't quite see the community of volunteers as the mop-up team for all this closely related original thought editing. Clearly, UNESCO (or the UN in general) is not free of inherent, systemic political bias. Whatever is published is a consensus of power structures within. Taking something systemically biased as a starting point to reach neutrality IMO will never work. Btw, I don't disagree with your point about military history articles, although I know you don't mean it. Military history tends to be written by the winners and government sources should be used with extreme caution. I'd rather not have an article than have one that is a copy/paste job from a govt. website under public license, hoping that 10 years from now someone will notice inherent errors._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads:@Jake Brockman: I think the qualifications of the editor were clearly brought up erroneously as some sort of criticism. This article has 41 citations from reliable sources. The subject is notable, and covered by a wide-range of organisations and isn't just a niche UNESCO idea, the COI is something to manage but it's being managed actively by the WiR, it needs some amendments as per MoS but other than that there's no reason for deletion. Battleofalma (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear Keep We include work from the US Government and not reliable sources in the public Domain (such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica). I don't see how this is any different, and the content is probably more reliable from the UN, than from other sources. Rewriting, cleaning up, and incrementally removing content, is much better than WP:TNT. Sadads (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We include work from everywhere, including from the US government, as long as the "everywhere" are reliable sources per Wikipedia. Incidentally, we do not use "not reliable sources" - at least we do not condone their use, which means that if we find out a source is unreliable it is discarded.

But we include such work as a source, though. We do not use the text as an article. What the creator of this article seems to be doing is essentially uploading papers (written by others) onto Wikipedia, paraphrased of course, and creating new articles. The practice is explicitly forbidden: Wikipedia is not a depository of scientific papers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: That is actually a false set of assumptions and statements: see the category documenting that group of content using US Gov text in the article and the category for articles that use EB 1911 text. Other language Wikipedias do the same thing regularly as well. We can use source material that is appropriately and compatibly licensed, as long as they are attributed correctly, and the text is converted into Encyclopedically appropriate writing. This has been a practice since I started contributing in the community in 2005-8, and with rise of Open Access content, could be a powerful way for us to cover topics that are hard for volunteers to synthesize. That doesn't mean that the article should "stay as it is now", rather that the source text offers a foundation for us to expand, refine and better meet our audience. Sadads (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made no assumptions and I fully stand by my statements. The two Categories to which Sadads linked actually support my position and run contra to what Sadads claims.

In the first one, "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government", we find articles that reference various texts published and made available by the US gov't. At random, we pick a sub-category, "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges", where articles such as for example "Rosemary Barkett" cite that directory. Nothing illegitimate or even controversial about that! In the other category, "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica", we find exactly the same thing: For example, the article "John Abernethy (surgeon)" cites the Britannica. Again nothing untoward.

All the articles in these two categories (there many other such categories) are fully legitimate, and about subjects of independent notability. What we're dealing with in this AfD, though, is wholesale transformation of scientific papers into articles. And this is not the same thing at all. We can use 1911 Britannica and US gov't texts in the public domain as sources, yes, but if we start uploading verbatim texts from these sources and make them out as articles we're violating policy. Wikipedia is not a depository of scientific papers. -The Gnome (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These publications are not scientific papers, UNESCO publications almost exclusively secondary or tertiary sources. John Cummings (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true (though I am not sure and "almost" does restrict the statement), however no matter how this AfD ends, I feel this may warrant a broader discussion with the community. The main issue I see is how far WP:OR and WP:NPOV actually go: is something that was published as original research by an organisation/individual/government and reproduced on Wikipedia very closely to the original publication still OR (effectively OR by proxy) and if so, how does this close relationship to a previously published piece fare with independence or neutrality. If such a discussion has been had, maybe someone could post this, I did not find anything._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome, John Cummings, Sadads, Battleofalma, and Sarah GM: this has now been posted on the OR noticeboard at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Reproductions of studies or other such publications _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The term "media independence" is well-established, with over 5,000 exact-phrase results from Google Scholar. The article is well-sourced with inline citations from reliable sources. The license of the source material (CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO) makes it eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. While the tone of the article needs adjustment, and there may be conflict of interest or neutrality concerns, neither of these issues would justify the deletion of the article, since the concept of "media independence" is notable and verifiable, and there are no licensing issues with the text. Newslinger (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite. The term is fairly well known and notable enough to have its own article. However, it is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and Wikipedia still is an encyclopedia, not a collection of papers and essays. WP:OR issues need to be fixed, but that would be better than deleting an article on a topic that is definitely notable enough to have one. Tillerh11 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mystery Case Files. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 13:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Case Files: Ravenhearst Unlocked[edit]

Mystery Case Files: Ravenhearst Unlocked (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)

See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Case Files: Key to Ravenhearst. Casual game does not pass WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources, aside from one review from Gamezebo. Newslinger (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Mystery Case Files, per SMcCandlish. Newslinger (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The series appears to be notable but the individual games really are not, with maybe two possible exceptions. Almost all of these pages on the 13 or so games consist of lots and lots of moment-by-moment excessive gameplay detail, sometimes an WP:INDISCRIMINATE character list, a few reviews mentioned, and usually only one or two non-review sources at most, and usually also some empty sections (I commented one out in the nominated article). I think these could all be compressed into the Mystery Case Files article, then we'd have something that could be polished into a GA. As stand-alone pages, these serve no purpose. It's like writing individual articles about each song on the average marginally notable rock album, which a detailed verse-by-verse description of what happens in the song and who all the characters in it are even if only mentioned in one line.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 06:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is not a crime-related article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Mystery Case Files, per SMcCandlish.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G12 -- copyright violation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senthil Ganesh[edit]

Senthil Ganesh (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)

He has just emerged from a popular television channel and would pass notability if he receives the opportunity to be a playback singer in the films. Abishe (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:16, 16 July 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.