< 13 November	15 November >

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} 00:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altium Designer[edit]

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

The contents of the article is a catalog listing for the product. It'ssourcd primarily to their press releases. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ISBN-13: 9781599428697 ... p122 ... paper "Design and Implementation of an Elevator Controller using Embedded Tool Altium Designer" looks significant ... possible also P260 in the same book. Bit rushed to look into this fully currently. This doesn't address other article issues though ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Running through various hits books, papers, blogs this appears to be a heavyweight albeit possibly expensive tool and used in universities etc. Articles exist for its rivals ... e.g. EAGLE (program). The problem appears to be with the content and presentation, and possibly neutrality, so ultimately fixable. I've attempted to re-write one section which may help slightly; but I feel it needs a criticisms / reception section; history more targeted at the product not the company and terms explained more fully and in context. I've already spent time I haven't got on this so may not be able to improve it further.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can tell it has more than sufficient WP:NEXIST to support GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second the opinion that WP:NEXIST applies, and sufficient number of independent secondary sources are referenced to establish WP:N. Checked the product mind share on Electronics Engineering Stack Exchange by comparing tag counts, and it came up first with EAGLE (program) being close second, so while not directly reference-able, this confirms CNG in my view. I'll try again to find some reliable references for expanding the criticism section to present a more balanced impression, but finding reputable sources (read: not forum rants) for negative opinions is not easy. Pointers to specific clauses where the neutrality is disputed would also be helpful (the article talk page might be a better place for this). Geometryofshadows (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GrassBase[edit]

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

Notability PoliceSheep99 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion The article may be a stub, but the database is the major taxonomic database for grasses, one of the most economically important groups of plants, for amenity, fodder, human food, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article says, this is "one of the two largest databases of plants in the world". We also have over a thousand other articles linking to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy Mabbett and Peter coxhead: notability and number of articles linking to it. Pagliaccious (talk) 14:19, 15 November 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kelley[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable autobiography that has lasted 12 years. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no reliable, independent sources, so this fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. In addition, this BLP is completely unsourced; I've tried to remove some of the more controversial statements, but the only way to really get them all out would be to blank the article. Even if this were notable, I would still suggest blowing it all up and starting over. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Almost feels like a class directory listing. SportingFlyer talk 10:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Only two people have stated a definitive view since TheDomain's clearup, and one of those was a sock. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Simes[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced. The only footnotes present here at all are one film's directory entries on IMDb and Box Office Mojo, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources for a filmmaker -- there's no evidence of notability-building media coverage about him being shown at all, and even on a Google News search all I can find is a couple of pieces in his own hometown newspaper. This is also a direct conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds directly to a name present in the article as one of the subject's business partners. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people get to write about themselves or their colleagues advertorially -- it is an encyclopedia, where inclusion depends on receiving reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for me this is a keep based on the number of award wins his films have had. Unless there is proof this is made up, I don't think this warrants anything more than an improvement notice such as "more references needed for verification."FelixFLB (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only extends "notable because awards" to a filmmaker if those awards are on the level of the Oscars, the Emmys, the Canadian Screen Awards or the BAFTAs, and does not extend an automatic freebie to every filmmaker on the basis of just any award that happens to exist at all — the ability of a film award to confer encyclopedic notability on its winners depends entirely on the extent to which reliable source media outlets do or don't cover the granting of that award as news. Awards like the Oscars, the Emmys, the Canadian Screen Awards or the BAFTAs make their winners notable, because those awards get media coverage — but awards like the Christian Worldview Film Festival, the Lifefest Film Festival or the Churches Making Movies Film Festival don't make their winners notable, because those awards don't get media coverage. It's the depth of media coverage that the awards do or don't receive that tells us whether any given award clinches notability for its winners or not, and not just "any award that exists at all is an automatic CREATIVE pass". Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FILMMAKER. the number of awards is not a mesure of popularity especially as all the wins come from paid-for festivals such as Global Independent Film Awards that I have just nominated for deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI gave it a clean up. Added a few sources, but it still sounds like it was written by someone close to the subject. It had "!" and sentances that didn't sound like a wikipedia article at all. I cleaned up the intro but I wasn't able to find where all this information came from. Just to update, I have added some new sources. Maybe just needs a big clean up! --TheDomain (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources aren't really making much of a case for notability under WP:GNG. The Hollywood Reporter is much more about an actress who was in the film than it is about the film's director, and even then it exists more because that actress was already semi-notable for other reasons before making the film than it does because of the film per se; LifeSiteNews and CBN aren't really reliable sources at all; Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo verify that the film exists, but aren't notability-supporting sources in and of themselves; and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix is the local hometown coverage I already addressed in my original nomination statement. The only thing here that really starts to count for anything at all is the Fresno Bee citation, but it doesn't count for much as it's barely more than a blurb in length and not substantively about Tom Simes apart from reverifying the existence of his film. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the festivals do not seem to hold of any signficance. User:vanmodhe (talk) 15:1, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: User blocked for sockpuppetry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The analysis of TheDomain's addition of sources is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, subject fails WP:FILMMAKER. The references provide notability for some of the films he worked on, but not him. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Ifnord (talk) 05:07, 22 November 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. If anyone wants a copy to work from to merge (very selectively) back into Souliotes, let me know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 18th – early 19th century sources on Souli and Souliotes[edit]

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

This article is a POV fork of Souliotes. It is a mere collection of 18th and 19th century travelers' accounts on the tribe of Souliotes. Almost all of the said sources are totally unreliable due to not having any academic value. After a discussion on the talk page of the Souliotes article, the community consensus was to not use 18th and 19th century sources that are not supported by modern scholarship. After that, the author created this article in a gross breach of WP:Consensus. This article, as it stands now, counters with WP:POV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:Cherrypicking and WP:AGE MATTERS. It even does not give context to its own content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Arrangement of rules like WP:POV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:Cherrypicking and WP:AGE MATTERS are irrelevant here. The entries of a list are not "sources", but a series of items that are or were notable for some reason. In this case, everyone of the entries is notable for 2 reasons: (a) it refers to a subject (Souliotes) which is notable, and (b) every entry is a notable source about Souliotes, either because it is accepted as credibe or because is dismissed as non credible. For example, a search with "Perraivos + Souliotes" in books.google gives about 1.000 hits, many of them contemporary academic works.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's 590[1]]. But anyhow, this doesn't prove much. We already have the page Souliotes. What you're claiming is notable is the crap people said specifically in the 19th century about them. The notability of specifically that, separating it apart from what actual modern scholarship says is... very hard to justify, and you haven't done one iota of justification for your page created to circumvent a consensus.--Calthinus (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ktrimi991. In addition to the pretty severe issues already listed, there is also a question of notability. Does anyone except for a few Greek nationalists actually care what people who nowadays would be considered quite ignorant wrote about a mostly irrelevant and remote tribe over a century ago? No. --Calthinus (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above users confuse the lists with the articles. A list of books is a list, and doesn't mean that the entries of the list are scientifically reliable or anything. There are plenty of book lists in WP, and none includes only "reliable" entries. See e.g. Bibliography of King Arthur. I don't understand the rationale of the latter post. If Souliotes are notable and have article, so are the books about them. Or, if there are lots of books about them, they are notable. Finally, if someone browses the history and the talk page talk page of the article Souliotes (5 archived volumes) he will understand it's not about a "mostly irrelevant and remote tribe".--Skylax30 (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is a wp:fork that @Skylax30 created after attempting multiple times to place large amounts of wp:or by using much wp:primary [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], into the Souliotes article. As the editor was reverted multiple times by other editors with explanations given in their edit summaries [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] (including an admin [29]) and talkpage threads about the article [30], [31], [32], the result was the creation of this wp:fork/wp:stub article on July 25th [33].Resnjari (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Cinadon36 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note. May I remind everybody the rule that in discussion like this, not "votes" but arguments count. Therefore, repeating the same and the same, or just posting "delete" (like former Tzeronymo did) is pointless. Initially i insisted adding these sources in the article Souliotes because I thought that that is the proper place. If they cannot be in an article, does not mean that they cannot be in a list just because some understand it as a "fork".--Skylax30 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, spicy, but he actually cited policy....--Calthinus (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you want the deletion purely on policy concerns?--Skylax30 (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite clear on what grounds editors have outlined their reasons for deletion. And @Skylax please sign off on your comments, otherwise the discussion can become difficult to follow without knowing which comment belongs to a editor.Resnjari (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry. I am just reminding to some of us that this is not a gallop but a dialogue on arguments and rules.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules. WP allows for lists, including Bibliography lists. There is already a big Category on bibliographies, including Bibliographies by subject. --Skylax30 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But @Skylax your editing on the article was not to expand the further reading section (you made absolutely no attempt to expand it and to see how that would have went) but to add content to the body that was wp:primary. Its why for me this article is a wp:fork.Resnjari (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ι don't understand. If you propose that this list can be in the article, yes it can. You may add it there, as well. But if you don't want there "primary", this doesn't mean that they should vanish from the whole wikiproject.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok i'll explain. You added content to the article using many of these sources. Those additions were reverted for being wp:primary etc and as it went into wp:or. You never suggested anything for an addition to the Further Reading section (which has existed for some time now). Then after all those events of this and that you then created this article and added to these sources your interpretation of them of what they contain, so i.e it becomes a wp:fork of you trying to get the information into the article through another away. Adding some of these sources to the Further Reading section would just be the source itself without additional explanations as you have done here with some of them like about Yochalas (why does a reader need to know he can speak Arvanitika? Article is about Souliotes, not him. Otherwise every academic's multilingual skills in relation to Souliotes need to be cited. Another one. Why do we have to know about Hobhouse and his travels. Alongside the ref all one needs is pp ... on Souli and pp... Souliotes. The reader can then chase it up themselves. Also having a separate list does not work as not much has been written on the Souliotes. I am familiar with the sources and scholarship and what you have included in your list is more or less whats out there with another 2-3 travellers. Something like the subject on King Arthur has a corpus of litreture produced back centuries and still going on into the modern era, hence a separate article. With this topic the case does not stack up.Resnjari (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Suliotes article already mentions most of the sources in this list and/or their authors, citing later secondary sources which we do consider to be reliable, so this article seems rather superfluous. But that does not make the listed sources worthless - they are, in fact, precisely the works that originally brought the Suliotes to the attention of the rest of Europe and thus first established their notability, even if we now generally prefer to rely on secondary sources that have compared and evaluated these primary sources from a more critical distance rather than trying to interpret them directly. PWilkinson (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PWilkinson, i agree, its just that the editor who created this article never bothered to add these to the Further Reading section of the Souliotes article. Not once. The creation of this article was done when a whole host of edits based on these sources which are wp:primary were unsuccessful in the body of the main article (see my comments above). This list of primary sources can be added without all the extra side interpretations, otherwise its wp:or of wp:primary through a different route. The case in this instance for a stand alone article does not suffice. My suggestion would be a copy and past via merge of most of the list into the Further Reading section and then a deletion of this article as its a wp:fork. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm thinking of value to a reader. While Wikipedia does have lists, some of dubious value, I don't ever see someone typing this in as a search term. Any valid references here should be in the Souliotes article as such. That's where potential readers will expect to find it. Ifnord (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with an opportunity to Merge any salvageable content back into Souliotes in a way that agrees with the consensus there. Brad v 16:00, 22 November 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 21:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References to The Cure in One Tree Hill[edit]

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

Mostly trivia that could easily (but unnecessarily) be covered in the main article. There's been no independent coverage of OTH's use of the Cure in any manner which would warrant it's own article. It's like writing an entire article based on the number of times Tony DiNozzo references James Bond in NCIS. Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not the proper use of the encyclopedia; certainly interesting, but incredibly finite detail for a teen drama series. Nate • (chatter) 19:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable subject, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Sources are currently all primary to episode script, simple track listings, or other Wikipedia articles. A mention in The Cure's article could be done. Don't think a mention in One Tree Hill article is even warranted. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yo dawg, I heard you like fancruft, so we wrote some fancruft about fancruft. Reyk _YO! 15:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only is it fancruft, it's also original research _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International AIDS Society. Sandstein 21:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XXII International AIDS Conference, 2018[edit]

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

Individual conferences of this sort are not notable: a much better choice is an article about the series DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:DGG I agree and support your nomination on the basis of WP:GNG. I also assert this is likely in violation regarding WP:NOTPROMOTION. LikeMeercats (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Doc James: Please may you weigh in. When I created this article I followed the example of editors who had already created separate articles for this conference dating back to 1987. Could this, tagging for deletion, be an indicator of systematic bias, since the disease disproportionately affects low-income countries? An individual season of Game of Thrones (season 1) has its own article. Not only that, each individual episode of a season has its own page: like Winter Is Coming. Ear-phone (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge here than International AIDS Society? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the above comment really detracts from the matter at hand here. In no way is this discussion about politics or against low-income people. We should strive to be civil and objective - not on a mission. The comparison to Game of Thrones is a major false equivalency. LikeMeercats (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to International AIDS Society - I've added in some additional content on its 2018 note of the conference. The article includes a decent section on the conferences. This specific article doesn't appear to satisfy notability and certainly isn't a justified contentfork, though an article on the series of conferences would be, and would be a reasonable CONTENTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status Query - While I think, strictly speaking, this was purely a split between 2 deletes and a redirect it seemed worthwhile to go through what the "!votes" currently are. Obviously Ear-Phone was for, despite the "comment" beginning, but as a Sock his !vote shouldn't be counted. @Doc James: noted that a merge would be in order, but I suspect he may have been either busy or somewhat reticent to be dragged in because there isn't a formal justification. I think merge was the best one at the time, but post edit a redirect seems best - please let me know if you think a more extensive merge is still preferable. It would also be great if the deletes, @DGG and LikeMeercats: could say if they feel there is a specific reason not to redirect so we can also discuss that. Cheers :) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Nosebagbear: Firstly, I have removed the sock comments to clear the things up here. Technically, this article can be *both* deleted and redirected. But I guess that is what another week will be used for, to clarify what type of removing the article we want. Pure redirect? Pure delete? Delete and redirect? Merge? Also LikeMeercats techinically does not count for a delete !vote (yet) because of pure commenting (although the context is pretty clear). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: - I assume you mean "does not count for a *merge* !vote" Nosebagbear (talk)

@Nosebagbear: - I agree and support your nomination does not sound like merge here, that is what Doc James did. Per wiki guidelines discussions and nomination brought here are for deletion (what consensus delivers is other thing). So yeah, seems like a Delete-Merge-Redirect trio situation here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: - as far as I can tell that statement is by LikeMeercats, Doc James wrote "Maybe merge here than International AIDS Society?" directly below (in the new, altered version). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: - Checking it, Doc was actually pinged by the now blocked sock to tell his opinion to which he replied as merge per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XXII_International_AIDS_Conference,_2018&oldid=868831763 but is not seen as that because someone added tags in meanwhile separating comments, will restore that comment just as a notice and clarity Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a redirect to the society as DocJames suggested is a good first step; there is nothing here that needs merging. (for the other conferences, we need to check if there's anything worth merging, but if not they should just be redirected also.It might as a later step be possible to split into an article on the conference series. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zofeen Ebrahim[edit]

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

Journalists are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they either pass WP:JOURNALIST or basic GNG. This promotional BLP fails at both end.. This BLP cites sources which are work written by the subject herself. None of the award is major or notable - at least by WP standards. Saqib (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The subject is a well-known writer, you can't deny the fact that she got much coverage and there are tons of WP articles available under the same criteria. You said that "...cites sources which are work written by the subject herself" which is also not true. As for as concerned about awards which may not notable elsewhere but they are notable in Pakistan and that's why these awards got coverage in main newspapers of Pakistan. Arslanali (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Arslanali (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

I don't agree that the subject is a well known writer and I don't buy your argument that she has received coverage in RS. And as I said awards are not notable. --Saqib (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against an early renomination as there has been no meaningful discussion. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental hip hop[edit]

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

Misleading article almost completely devoid of sources. The primary basis for the article is an AllMusic entry describing a different subgenre. (AfD opened by request on behalf of 64.26.97.61) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this needs better sources but the genre exists and should be kept on here. Simply a stub. User:Josephhunz (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User blocked as a sock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Bartmanski[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass via GNG or PROF. Subject has no notable academic position (named chair or anything like that) and their claim to fame is co-authorship of a book--a book that garnered some reviews, sure, but that's it: it does not mean notability for the author. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some citations, but not nothing spectacular ([34]). A single co-authored book is also not a pass for notability, it can hardly be called influential yet (~50 cites). Notability for authors and academics requires 'wide citations' and IMHO those beings from works that are cited at least in triple digits. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Piotrus, thank you. Let me add that publishing an academic book in the first place is, as you know, no mean feat--but (and I'm not saying this to you, because you know, but to other readers) we establish notability based on the impact a book has had. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and let me add that the General Notability Guideline says that any topic is presumed notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Philafrenzy (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Philafrenzy, but given the recent article improvement that means the book, not one of its authors. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you believe the book to be notable under GNG? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering the same thing, Drmies. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If, for the sake of argument, we agree the book is notable, the article could be converted to a book article now. But what happens when the next one comes out in months? It also will probably qualify for an article as a book (I will write it when the reviews are in). We would then have two articles about books but none about the authors. Isn't that a bit odd and a poorer reader experience than a biography that includes all of an author's works and puts them in context? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. We don't convert an article on a non-notable co-author into an article on a book. If you feel the book reaches WP:NBOOK, then create an article on the book, focusing on its content and reviews and cited only to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Do not use the book article as an excuse to promote one of the co-authors. Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Promote"? What makes you think I am promoting anything? I am asking which is the better reader experience? Separate articles about books or a biography of the author that discusses all their books? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia inclusion is established by our specific notability guidelines, not by someone's idea of "reader experience". Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that to suggest that reader experience isn't addressed through our notability guideline WP:PAGEDECIDE? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deletion debate about this specific person, not a debate about an existing content fork. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: That's not how it works. We don't convert an article on a non-notable co-author into an article on a book. Why not? Theoretically, would that not be one possible application of WP:PAGEDECIDE? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a deletion debate about this specific person, not a debate about an existing content fork. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are prioritising Wikipedia process over reader experience. No reader is going to understand why we would have a reasonably long article about a book but not feel its author qualified for an article. Books don't write themselves. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, that is nonsense. Most book articles on Wikipedia do not have articles on the author. The exception is when the author meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia inclusion is established by our specific notability guidelines, not by someone's idiosyncratic idea of "reader experience". Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They should have articles on the authors and there is nothing idiosyncratic about it. Books do not spontaneously create themselves, they are the result of the author's experience and views. This prioritising of process over reader experience is precisely what causes decisions here that people in the real world find impossible to understand. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am astonished that you understand so little of Wikipedia's notability requirements and why they exist, and its inclusion criteria and why they exist. Check out What Wikipedia Is Not. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my original vote. The recent expansion involves citing from book reviews. I think that yes, the book is notable (several academic reviews are sufficient). But notability is not inherited. The book is notable because it gets independent, in-depth reviews. The author is not notable yet, because nobody has written about him, and his citations are not sufficient to make him 'influential' in the field. Once has has ~2 more books, preferably solo-authored, I'd say he is notable (plus, at that points, at least one of his works will have citations in triple digits...). PS. To the closing admin: if this is deleted before the book article is created, please soft-delete it by redirecting to a stub on the book, which can be created by copy-pasting the relevant section from the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the scholarly impact is relatively normal, no significantly influential idea or theory, no post as named chair or journal editor, no significant award, does not seem to be a widely-cited expert in the media, etc, so does not pass WP:PROF. Note also that higher number of citations is in work with multiple authors (which is not uncommon, but also weighs against individual impact). Perfectly adequate academic, maybe a more influential career ahead, but not notable enough for Wikipedia now. Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded since nomination and although he doesn't pass PROF yet, he does pass the GNG as having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This is evidenced by the reviews of his work which address it directly and in detail and are reliable secondary sources such as Times Higher Education, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, iaspm@journal, Information Communication & Society, Qualitative Sociology, Contemporary Sociology, and Russian Sociological Review. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article subject easily passes the GNG because of the multiple indepth reviews in reliable secondary sources. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of one book, which was co-authored. Please find me in-depth discussion of the subject of the article. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Whispyhistory: Exactly. The subject (person) is not subject to any in-depth or even passing treatment anywhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Piotrus:. I do not understand strong reasons to exclude him and will leave to more experienced editors. His previous work on post-communist nostalgia has received significant coverage from independent sources relevant to that subject [35][36] and he is referred by his name. He has a number publications [37]. He was awarded the Junior Theorist Prize of the International Sociological Association and the University of Yale’s Sussman Prize for best dissertation in 2012[38]. An alternative suggestion is to merge the information into an article on the Vinyl book, omitting his other contributions. I hope that helps. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whispyhistory, I wish I had as glowing a resume as this subject, but the fact remains that he does not yet pass. An article of his was cited in an edited collection--that's great, and I will call that significant discussion of that one article, but a few of mine are too and that's not enough to make me notable. (As a side note, and I say this to Philafrenzy as well, that is the kind of citation that makes mention of an article worthwhile in an encyclopedic article; it allows one to say something like "Bartmanski has published on post-communist streetscapes in former Eastern Europe".) As for the awards, they need to be really notable before they count (certainly toward PROF), and departmental awards aren't considered notable. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Drmies. (I think I also won some award during my graduate student time, and I hardly think it contributes much to my notability). ISA's award is a bigger deal, but it's not a major award (I've been to ISA's conferences before, but never heard of this award). It's one of dozens if not more awards ISA gives each year, and it's an award by one of their chapters (of which it has few dozens). If each chapter gives 1-2 awards, well... plus this award has no coverage outside of ISA and occasional press-release by the recipient's university. It's nice, but does not establish notability. My rule of thumb test for which award would do it is simple - does it have a Wikipedia article (that's referenced enough to prove the award is notable)? List of sociology awards is a good start, through it's not comprehensive. But Junior Theorist Prize of the International Sociological Association RC16 section is not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass either GNG or PROF. The book he co-authored with Ian Woodward might merit its own Wikipedia article, but this person does not meet Wikipedia notability thresholds as an article subject himself, as there is no in-depth significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (BTW, the book he co-authored with Ian Woodward seems to be virtually the only context in which he is mentioned anywhere.) Softlavender (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus: the bulk of the prose is about the book, so, if that was notable, a redirect per WP:ATD would be in order. Unfortunately, it isn't currently independently notable, and so there is no ATD. ——SerialNumber54129 12:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (move page, switch redirects) to Vinyl: The Analogue Record in the Digital Age. The book is notable, the article is mostly about the book, and it would take little effort to re-word the article accordingly, as information about the author is pertinent to the understanding of the topic (i.e. the book). I think a redirect should be left behind, as currently this book is what the author is known for, and should contain verifiable information about the author(s). The article could be further improved by adding some biographical information about Ian Woodward, but I suppose such discussions regarding further article improvement are beyond the scope of this AfD. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the suggestion just above. The book passes WP:NBOOK, and the biographical material on the co-author can be made secondary (it's not like there's a whole lot of it, anyway). XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has clearly distinguished themselves academically, and the inclusion of the book is set in context of their budding and curious academic career. We lose more by spinning the book out of context into a separate article, at present we have both his career and the book presented in an engaging format as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far the consensus seems to be split on Delete and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As a matter of principle and pragmatic fact I worship at the very feet of Drmies but I disagree here. The guy's book is reviewed in significant independent sources and thus does he meet WP:AUTHOR and so we want to keep this one. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's certainly the right spirit, and in about thirty minutes this cake is coming out of the oven and I'll cut you a slice. But I disagree: AUTHOR does not have that, and "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" is just way too much honor for one co-edited book. So, thirty minutes, and tell me if you want coffee or tea. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that the book is not significant is not backed up by the facts. It is not co-edited, it is co-authored. If it wasn't significant it wouldn't be notable and there is broad agreement here that it is notable because of the many detailed reviews it has received in reliable sources. The author thus satisfies WP:AUTHOR as being someone who "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" that has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The decision to cover the book within the author's biography is further supported by WP:PAGEDECIDE which states that there are "times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context". Philafrenzy (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, your rather loose reading of all these blue links, which you are able to strew around like so much candy, makes just about every single tenured academic in the world notable for a standalone article. All you need is a book and a review or two (one? three? does it matter?). Since usually a book is required for tenure, at least in the humanities, and since the review machinery is well-organized, now basically anything goes. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the first to mention either of those policies, see above. There is nothing "loose" about it nor are they "candies". We have a policy with specific criteria that he clearly meets. The policy's wider application is of no concern here. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, IP, you really need to actually read WP:AUTHOR. As you mentioned, the co-authored book is reviewed in significant independent sources, so the co-authored book seems to probably meet WP:NBOOK, but the co-author does not at all meet either WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or WP:NPROF. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Listen, Softlavender, just cause we disagree on what some policy means doesn't mean I ought to reread it. In fact probably you ought to reread it, but you don't see me suggesting that. Be nice. Sheesh. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the subject does not meet GNG or PROF. The book may be notable enough for an article on its own, but that notability does not automatically pass on to the author. Brad v 16:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to vinyl revival. While I respect the argument that 1) Drmies is always right and 2) When Drmies is wrong, see 1), there do seem to be sufficient sources on him being a talking head or a sounding board to the importance of vinyl records in the 2010s, such as this, this, this and this. Of course, since I have been a vinyl collector for about 30+ years, and you just cannot do The Yes Album justice on a CD, I might have an insy winsy bit of a conflict of interest.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-enough sourced to indicate that this is an academic with ideas that have broken through. bd2412 T 01:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mobispine[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP. Sending to AfD as article has previously been de-PRODed. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding source check for post-2011 company name. AllyD (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: The 2006 Prod and deletion were well-founded: the version then and subsequently lacked the WP:RS sources needed to demonstrate notability, whether as a company or a product. Under the original company name, my searches are finding nothing better than routine acquisition announcements and passing mentions. Results are even more sparse for the company name from 2012 onward: routine listings are a long way short of meeting WP:NCORP requirements. AllyD (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for failing WP:NCORP. There's no claim to notability in the article. Ifnord (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3Pac[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH due to participating only in club sports (not varsity) while in college.

Regarding WP:MUSIC, it appears that 3Pac only caught significant attention in outside sources upon his death, such as this 2016 article by Spin magazine and certain other sources cited in the article. During his lifetime, he was mentioned trivially in this 2014 article by The Washington Post, as well as a Know Your Meme entry created in 2015 (KYM is not a reliable source). Not every online meme is notable.

None of this appears to meet criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself," because most of the news coverage was about his passing. Also, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator, only notable for dying.Awsomaw (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for failing WP:NCOLLATH and WP:MUSIC. No claim to notability under WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 05:16, 22 November 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 21:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PRODEMO Party[edit]

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

Lacking notability. The few press articles that exist are taken directly from their press releases. Strainu (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 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 21:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Schuler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Time for another AfD here, the one earlier this year had some significant SPA issues. All local, routine coverage all consisting of various steps of her Not Dying; while it's nice, simply having measurable brain waves is not notable. WP:NOPAGE, and no real place to redirect this either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE local coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that the oldest in Kansas is notable. The content of the article is routine trivia fancruft. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded far down on the List of American supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated in previous AFD, this is a clear pass of WP:GNG through multiple independent, third-party, reliable sources. It is clearly not "one event" because 1) the coverage goes from 2009 to 2011 and 2) it's a person. The coverage is far beyond WP:ROUTINE because 1) it is much more than "announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism" and 2) WP:ROUTINE only applies to the notability of events, not people. While I understand that some editors hold the position that such topics are not notable, that boils down to some variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which of course is not a reason to delete. There is no policy violation, no guideline has been crossed, no rule has been broken--there is adequate coverage and the subject is notable. It has been assessed as a "start" class, although I can see an argument that it's a stub. Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read over your arguments there, and they don't pass the laugh test. "She lived" is not "significant coverage", as the numerous AfDs on these people demonstrate. None of the sources you raise there talk about her in any meaningful way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is incredibly off base. the 2009 and 2011 articles are feature-length articles: one is 24 paragraphs, the other is 22 paragraphs. The other references include other details and you can read in the Wiki article that it is more than just "she lived" -- enough data is gathered to create a short article with details about the subject's life. Oh, and I'm unfamiliar with any Wikipedia policy, rule, guideline, or essay called "the laugh test" but I am familiar with WP:IDONTLIKEIT which it seems is your argument here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being a New England resident, pretty much every first selectman has a two articles of roughly equivalent length in a local and state newspaper. They are most definitely not notable on that basis. This is what we have here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the "first selectman" comparison, does that coverage exist of passing mentions or is there in-depth coverage of the individual over several years from multiple sources? Can you provide some examples?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the oldest living person in a US state for some time is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not any achievement that would make or not make any person notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is the coverage of the person that would make a person notable or not notable. This person has the coverage in the news. The standard is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The standard is not based on what a majority of editors involved in a discussion may think the person's achievements.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement on the list of American supercentenarians among the 100 oldest American people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 09:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that is the absolute essence of WP:IDONTLIKEIT where personal preference is used to discount inclusion even though WP:GNG is clearly passed from significant coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I wrote entails any personal preference. Read it again. Not everything that's written in a newspaper deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. There is nothing notable about this person besides her age, hence it's enough that Wikipedia records her name and age. We have lists for this. — JFG ^talk 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you wrote entails personal preference. Take the statement "There is nothing notable about this person besides her age" -- in that phrase, you admit the subject is notable but still attempt to argue that the article should be deleted. That personal point of view is precisely what is described in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "It is impossible to please everyone. But it is possible to comply with guidelines, and this will decide what is included and what not" (I apologize for making these statements personal and I believe that JFG is acting in good faith, I just believe the editor is incorrect).--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, thanks for your kind words. We just happen to disagree on a matter of editorial judgment, and we can leave it at that. — JFG ^talk 14:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also dislike the campaign to remove all supercentenarians, and the language in which it is conducted. The arguments are not logical - the Mona Lisa model's life and deeds were not notable either, she is only notable because a famous artist painted her portrait, and the portrait is now also famous - but apparently somehow the painting's and artist's notability transfer to the sitter. Anyway, as far as supercentenarians are concerned, I prefer to look at whether they were notable, in their extreme old age, with significant coverage outside their home state. If that evidence exists, then I think they meet WP:GNG. In this case, I don't find evidence of coverage outside her home states (Nebraska and Kansas), so I think she may have had only local notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment again, what an individual "prefers" is simply another WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I was trying to say is that I try to judge the notability or otherwise of supercentenarians individually, on the criteria for notability, and doing that I find that some are and some are not notable. What I don't like is the attitude of the nominators and those editors who give as a reason for deleting that it's not notable to have a pulse, and dismiss evidence of notability. I have just voted Keep on some other supercentenarians AfDs, and looked at others who certainly look as if they meet WP:ANYBIO, but to argue Keep properly I will need more time to investigate sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:59, 20 November 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 21:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Dixon Taylor[edit]

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

Another non-notable oldster. She lived, she died, and even with the attempts to puff this up it's still WP:NOPAGE; almost no sources, and none of any substance. I am explicitly arguing for deletion without a redirect, since she's far down on the list of American supercentenarians and it is highly unlikely someone will search for her name. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia about her family and her moving history, with mundane record details tossed in to pad the article. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded well down on the List of American supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age (unless collecting elephant figurines is now an accepted notability criterion). Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement on the list of American supercentenarians among the 100 oldest American people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 09:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it seems that she wasn't recognised as the oldest living American while she was alive, she didn't become notable in her extreme old age as some supercentenarians do. I can find almost no coverage of her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:00, 20 November 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 deleted per G3. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPuppeteer[edit]

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

Tagged with a PROD with the rationale “I don’t know if this is a hoax or what, but whatever it is, it clearly doesn’t belong here. I can’t think of any applicable CSD criteria, but the contents of this page are simply not true.” PROD removed by page creator with no explanation given — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 16:14, 14 November 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 21:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Robert Nay[edit]

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

Promotional article about a subject with no coverage in independent reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Having published one short story anthology that does not appear to be available anywhere and a poetry collection with a vanity publisher does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. The subject has won a "Golden Web Award" for website design, which appears to be a non-notable award that does not satisfy WP:NBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of schools in Venezuela. Sandstein 21:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio República de Venezuela[edit]

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

Consensus is that schools are not inherently notable. This article states that a school exists at a location, was founded at a certain time and has a certain number of pupils. It then links its website. There is nothing in the way of reviews or other reliable, significant coverage to suggest it passes organisation notability standards and school notability standards. SITH (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this unsourced one sentence stub to List of schools in Venezuela. It's quite rare for an American high school article to be deleted, or anywhere else in the rich Western world. But let's face it, in the aggregate we don't care as much about poor non-English speaking countries, because we don't live there, and these schools are also usually harder to source due to our general lack of familiarilty with local media and language. Hence this stub has pretty much sat alone for over 10 years, with a lone attempt to flesh it out in 2012 but only with unsourced Spanish text.[39] The school once had a Spanish wikipedia page which was deleted in November 2012 for lack of useful content. I have no doubt this school gets coverage in local newspapers which would help prove its notability, but I lack the resources to locate it. E.g., I see two recent mentions in Diario El Tiempo [40] but they are not significant, and I have no idea if there are online archives of newspapers for Valera, Venezuela. The article as it is has no useful content, so deletion won't delete much, so I say let's just redirect to List of schools in Venezuela. I also see our article on Valera doesn't even have an education section, so we have a lot of work that really should be done before we start worrying about this school.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Milowent, American high schools that have but a one-line dictionary definition or a single US News & World Report profile as a reference would also be merged into their district lists per WP:WITHIN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need more than the schools own website to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, odd that they didn't come up in my searches but it looks like I was wrong on this occasion. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scene Generator[edit]

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

As a concept fails applicable notability guidelines such WP:GNG due to lack of coverage and as a product (https://elements.envato.com/graphic-templates/scene-generators) it isn't notable due to lack of major reviews and critical attention. SITH (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Massive failure of WP:BEFORE. There are literally thousands of scholarly articles and books on scene generators. Here are a few: [41], [42], [43], [44], and so on. Sheesh. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these ... I've managed to utilise two of them into the article as citations.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above references FOARP (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: per references. The article iswas not in the greatest state. However the nominator has previously PROD'd and item that had already been PROD'd ignoring the talk page and has now misleading introduced a URL to this nomination which has noting to do with the article. (It does have a little to do with Mockup and a hatnote at the top of the article would not go amiss but it is not a perfect match and might require a tweak to the target which is why I didn't immediately do it). This usage is more in like with Physics which is why I added that to the Physics WikiProject a while ago. So I am concerned the nom. has not fully understood the article to be tackling it. But it is currently a mess. I think I waybacked one fairly good reference earlier today but haven't had time to apply it. Yup probably WP:TROUT the nom. but the article does need improved citations and disambiguating from the URL given by the nom. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC) To confirm I've now improved the article with help from refs above to point where speedy keep is in my opinion fully justified. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 14 November 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Upton[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a senior competitive game between two teams from a fully-professional league, only non-league/youth. For the avoidance of doubt, playing in the Football League Trophy either for or against a U21/U23 team is not sufficient to meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Played for a professional team, against a professional team, in a professional competition, no idea why this is even up for debate, literally this Giant Snowman just follows me, revises all my edits and try’s to find loopholes to delete my contributions, I don’t know why I bother Stew jones (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told multiple times, he does not meet NFOOTBALL. He only played for or against a youth team (albeit it in a senior competition). Were both teams from WP:FPLs? No. Therefore he does not meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG.--Biografer (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG - never played on in a fully professional league. U23s do not count. SportingFlyer talk 06:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, fails NFOOTY and GNG. An argument could be made to Draftify, but I think Tamworth are far enough outside the professional tiers at the moment that it would be unlikely that the player appears in a WP:FPL any time soon. 21.colinthompson (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 13:30, 18 November 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Breslin[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a senior competitive game between two teams from a fully-professional league, only non-league/youth. For the avoidance of doubt, playing in the Football League Trophy either for or against a U21/U23 team is not sufficient to meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Played for a professional team, against a professional team, in a professional competition, no idea why this is even up for debate, literally this Giant Snowman just follows me, revises all my edits and try’s to find loopholes to delete my contributions, I don’t know why I bother Stew jones (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told multiple times, he does not meet NFOOTBALL. He only played for or against a youth team (albeit it in a senior competition). Were both teams from WP:FPLs? No. Therefore he does not meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG.--Biografer (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, Football League Trophy doesn't really count anymore due to it's dilution of adding U23 teams. I don't see article passing WP:GNG, as citations are WP:ROUTINE. @Stew jones:, GiantSnowman is just trying to follow the rules of wikipedia so having a dig at him isn't right, you can work and hold onto articles in your own user space, then move them into main space when and if they pass these policies. Govvy (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ why have others who have only made appearances in the EFL Trophy not had their articles deleted, I would love someone to explain that Stew jones (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Most likely because nobody's noticed them yet ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW please don't !vote more than once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and unlikely to pass it in the near future. SportingFlyer talk 06:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. An argument could be made to Draftify, but considering that the player is currently without a club that would seem to be unnecessary. 21.colinthompson (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 13:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as subject now meets WP:NFOOTY as per recent comments. Consensus with others was to keep article in Draft until subject meets this criteria so bypassing Draft and leaving in mainspace shouldn't be an issue. Nominator withdraws AfD also.. Nick (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Durrell[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a senior competitive game between two teams from a fully-professional league, only non-league/youth. For the avoidance of doubt, playing in the Football League Trophy either for or against a U21/U23 team is not sufficient to meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Played for a professional team, against a professional team, in a professional competition, no idea why this is even up for debate, literally this Giant Snowman just follows me, revises all my edits and try’s to find loopholes to delete my contributions, I don’t know why I bother Stew jones (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told multiple times, he does not met NFOOTBALL. He only played for or against a youth team (albeit it in a senior competition). Were both teams from WP:FPLs? No. Therefore he does not meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I too will support in keeping the article sorely because the player is being discussed on BBC News. This in turn alone is an RS, and I don't see WP:NOTNEWS applied.--Biografer (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or Delete I am happy to draft a fringe league player. That BBC ref is clearly WP:ROUTINE and article also fails WP:GNG at present. Govvy (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: That's true, but I don't think its routine. Other articles of his didn't include BBC ref, because there aren't any.--Biografer (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy and Biografer: there already is a draft (and has been since June!). What "significant coverage" is there from the BBC? It's just routine transfer news (ie WP:NOTNEWS). Happens to hundreds of players every year, doesn't make them notable. Giant Snowman 18:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify He's played in two cup games in the past week or so, both of which were borderline WP:NFOOTY (FA Cup match against a fifth-division team, and a trophy match which would have counted had they not played the U-23 team.) Deleting this would be dumb since the WP:TOOSOON seems very close, it's not a keep because it doesn't yet pass WP:NFOOTY... let's draftspace 'im! SportingFlyer talk 22:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. Durrell is a league player who has just returned from injury. Realistically, it is very likely he will play a game in EFL League Two in the coming weeks which would make him meet WP:NFOOTY, however the article should only be live once he has done so. If/when Durrell does so, then I will change my vote to keep. Wxmdrgn (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is drafted, I ask that it's merged into my pre-exisitng draft. What say you @SportingFlyer and Wxmdrgn:? Giant Snowman 11:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I think that's an excellent spot for the article. SportingFlyer talk 11:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Agreed. Keep it there until he meets WP:NFOOTY. Wxmdrgn (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTY because he made his EFL League Two debut today, and I've added enough references to show that he comes pretty close to GNG anyway, with a lengthy non-league career behind him. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep. Durrell made his EFL League Two debut, in Macclesfield's 2–0 away loss to MK Dons.^[1] Therefore, he passes WP:NFOOTY and the article should stay.Wxmdrgn (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at the time this AFD was introduced, player definitely didn't meet WP:NFOOTY; now that he has, should be a straightforward vote (I hope). 21.colinthompson (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - happy to withdraw AFD given he has now actually played to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:23, 18 November 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) Szzuk (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Porter[edit]

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

No evidence of independent notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED applies. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This nomination makes no sense at all. There's plenty of evidence of notability. And what is it supposed to be independent of according to nom? Who knows. It's another misuse of NOTINHERITED, which actually doesn't apply at all. Take a look at these sources:
- Porter's son in US loan row -- The Guardian
- Publicity-shy Tesco son makes debut in latest internet launch -- Financial News
- Add these to the sources already in the article and we have an easy pass of GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP FOARP (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources and the man is a billionaire. It would be rare to find a billionaire who wasn't notable. There aren't that many of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GooglerW (talk) 14:25, 19 November 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 Mutant Liberation Front. The other alternative, the Liberation Front of Mutants, didn't get enough support here. Sandstein 21:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Minor character that does meet any of the requirements listed at this guideline for comic book characters. No significant coverage in reliable published sources. Entire article is just character biography, plot summaries, and trivia best left to fanwikis. The character may meet the requirements for inclusion in a list, so a redirect might be a better option. Amsgearing (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: R or Mutant Liberation Front. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front and add some info to his entry there about Exiles (Malibu Comics). I think that will provide sufficient coverage for the other eight articles that name drop him. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the nominator, I support the Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front option suggested by both of the other editors that have weighed in so far. Amsgearing (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Argento Surfer FOARP (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per basically everyone above me. SleepForever talk 06:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The pages lists numerous different Marvel characters with this name and so we shouldn't assume that the reader is wanting a particular one. The page should be retained for disambiguation and to assist navigation. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: It's this kind of stuff that people keep trying to call you out on: you happened across this article purely because you watch AFD, and yet you're telling editors who know about, and are interested in, this particular topic that they are wrong about the topic, and you know what readers who are interested in the topic are looking for better than they do. This is exactly what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Caste in Sikhism (2nd nomination), and if it keeps happening you will be TBANned. There wasn't a consensus at last week's ANI that your deletion-related behaviour wasn't disruptive in general, and there wasn't even consensus that you shouldn't be banned from de-prodding or de-prodding without an explanation -- there just wasn't consensus that you should be banned from those things, and (almost?) no one who looked at the evidence of general AFD disruption felt your hands were clean. You're seriously treading on very thin ice at the moment, with comments like the one above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the various characters listed in the article, only two have links. One is actually Grim Reaper, so I doubt readers would need help finding that. The other, Reaper (Gunther Strauss), is even less significant than the one being discussed here. I have PROD'd it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Andrew's comment above is nonsense and shows a lack of awareness of how mainstream American superhero comics work. The number of "different characters" who have born the name "Batman" for at least one issue or Elseworlds book is probably much higher than the list referred to in the above !vote, and indeed Dick Grasyon's stint as Batman has probably had much more coverage in reliable secondary sources than all the "secondary Reapers" combined, but our main Batman article is still on Bruce Wayne. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

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

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. Nothing to establish the notability of these home video ranges/sub-ranges. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 13:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to have any supporting references, and as such lacks notability and verifiability. FOARP (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom just listcruft that we don't need. --Whispering^(t) 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Cerutti[edit]

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

Delete It appears most of the "notability" is related to a company Altran. Note: Notability isn't inherited. The references also mostly revolve around Altran news. It doesn't appear that Cerutti is notable in his own right. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The french article proves you wrong. It sports 31 sources, several of which are reliable and centered on him (e.g. [45], [46]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the sources in the French article are also in the English article, and some are English-language sources like the Financial Times and Bloomberg. They profile him before his time at Altran, as the article makes clear. He clearly meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not independently notable of Altran; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or about the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability isn't inherited. All the cited sources and all of the ones I find when searching firmly put Altran as the main topic and Cerutti as a side-note. SITH (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Essentially per RebeccaGreen. The article is already overflowing with sources. The claims that the sources are about the company and not about the guy are surreally hard to comprehend. In particular see Le Figaro, which predates his move to Altran by 6 whole years and also the Financial Times source, which I can't link in to via database, but has extensive coverage also predating Altran. The citation of NOTINHERITED is a joke. It's completely inapplicable. Sheesh. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52: no it really isn't a joke. Nobody can claim notability is inherited from their company. Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't be a page in its own right if the subject of Zuckerberg himself hadn't garnered significant attention e.g. 1 2 3 4. SITH (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke in the sense that there is literally nothing in that essay which applies here. That essay is about arguments not to make in deletion discussions and literally no one is making the argument that Altran is notable so dude is notable. You and everyone else who wants to delete this are opposing an argument that no one is making by citing an essay that warns participants not to make the argument. But no one is making it. And don't forget that even if we were making it, which we're not, that's just an essay that you're citing. WP:GNG is policy and this guy meets that standard. Hence, as I said, a joke. Oh, and thanks for your condescending example about Zuckerberg. Did you even know that Jesus Christ himself wouldn't be notable as the son of God if he hadn't garnered significant attention in his own right? Chew on that for a while, and then consider withdrawing your ill-founded !vote.192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52: I didn't mean to be condescending with my example. I was actually trying to be helpful and you should assume that in future. A friendly tip though, try to be less condescending yourself like you've done here and here. People can disagree on things without you having to "sheesh" all over the place. SITH (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Going from condescension to judgmental wikistalking is a huge improvement! Sheesh! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is sustained by many references, particularly on the French-language page FOARP (talk) 15:18, 14 November 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) Szzuk (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

String transport[edit]

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

Insufficient independent RS coverage to establish notability; does not meet GNG. Concept has not progressed beyond the prototype/test stage since the 1980s and fraud concerns have been raised by authorities. –dlthewave ☎ 20:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article is a total Hoax, see CSD#G3. Sheldybett (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've declined the speedy delete request. The article itself is not a hoax and there really does seem to be such a project, although it's not getting very far given how long it's been around. It is true that there are official warnings from Lithuania and Belgium against investing in it due to illegal investment activities in those countries with a strong suspicion of a Ponzi scheme at play, but that is not the same as a hoax article. The scams themselves may have become notorious enough to become notable. It may be that the focus of the article should shift to the financial irregularities rather than the technical proposal. I have made a start at that by creating a section for it. SpinningSpark 19:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There does seem to be coverage of the scheme in reliable sources presented in the article, particularly the official warnings. It looks to me like there is a theoretical basis for the scheme on which the scams are based, and which has received some independent investigation, but the scams are probably the more notable. The article should probably be restructured on that basis, but that's not a reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. String transport has been featured on television in the news and other formats in several countries, including Vietnam (news segment), Netherlands (news segment), Belarus (news segment), Russia (documentary) Australia (news segment), Crimea (televised discussion), Japan (news segment), Italy (news segment), Oman (news segment), Slovenia (news segment), Singapore (news segment), and the UAE (expo commercial "cameo").^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 17:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also a 7 hour 45 minute live stream of SkyWay EcoFest 2018 attended by over 5,000 members available in Russian and English versions. There are many examples in the live stream of people riding inside Sky Way vehicles. This makes it very clear that the scheme is not "using money of new investors to pay old investors". The money of all investors goes towards to: 1) the technology, 2) those who market the technology to potential customers, 3) partners (including investors) who help attract investments to the company. And yes, most of these partners invested before they attract other investors - it's only logical that those who attract new people to the company usually participate ahead of time. Commissions do not exceed what is invested even though the commissions are concentrated towards the highest producers, like a pyramid, due to the level structure. This is because the commissions are a percentage of the total invested, never exceeding 100%. Reportedly the company itself sees about half of the investments, about $50 million out of $100 million thus far, so about 50%. How else would Sky Way pay to develop and implement innovative transport? The majority of value is not in the commissions but in the transportation services being developed. This is what investors are getting in return: ownership of capital.^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 18:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like you have a horse in the race. SpinningSpark 18:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I always sound like I have a horse in the race. I also defended Talk:Brilliant Light Power and Talk:SkyTran even though I cannot invest in them. For the record, I do not participate in the commission scheme of SkyWay because I am not a "marketing person". I am a pro-technology advocate who will invest where I can.
A long time ago as a child I watched Tortoise Beats Hare and I really, really hated how it ended. Why? Because, deep down, I despise false witness testimony.^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 19:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company may be a hoax, but that doesn't matter. It has clearly received "significant coverage" as demonstrated by the sources cited in the article, and as such is notable. FOARP (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concept seems to have received significant coverage, satisfying WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:43, 14 November 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. Needs work but the arguments for notability are sound. Tone 06:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Cetto[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP and no claim of notability despite it has more info on the Italian Wikipedia. Sheldybett (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IN FACT IT IS AN ITALIAN MYCOLOGIST. PLEASE NOTE THAT HIS BOOKS HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED IN ENGLISH TOO. I HAVE PROVIDED THE LITERATURE REFERENCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrea EDASA (talk • contribs) 09:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem I have with this article is that there are no independent references about him. My own search didn't find much either. Of course, his research was pre-internet and in Italian to boot, so it's not necessarily surprising my search wasn't successful. Still, there need to be some sources that show that either WP:GNG is met or that his work on fungi made him an expert so as to meet WP:NPROF. There are a lot of cites for his 7 volume work, but his h-index doesn't seem very high (though this isn't really my area). Papaursa (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. We need sources to say something about him, the article has things that are formatted sort of like sources but they are unverifiable, and I couldn't find anything. You would think that by now, two weaks after the start of the AfD and the spirited defense of the article by another editor, something would have been done to improve the disastrous state of the article, but no. In its current state it doesn't convince me that we can have an article that passes WP:V, regardless of whether the multivolume book or the club named after him are deemed enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to this source [47] he was a member of it:Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati but I don't know if this is sufficient to pass #3 of WP:NACADEMIC. The sources on the Italian page I do not think would pass WP:GNG here. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On a quick search, so far I have found that the chef Antonio Carluccio in his Complete Mushroom Book says in his introduction, "In the present book I have followed the example [with regards to naming] of the late Bruno Cetto, the famous Italian mycologist who wrote five masterly and comprehensive books on the subject, with descriptions and photographs of no fewer than 2,147 mushrooms." [48] The books were translated into German, so I will try to find reviews of them in either German or Italian - German I will hopefully be able to follow, Italian I will have to use Google translate ..... (Actually also translated into Spanish, and there are reviews in Czech here [www.czechmycology.org/_cm/CM282.pdf] and here [www.czechmycology.org/_cm/CM254.pdf].) A magazine called "News of New Mycology" (in Italian) says in one issue "An overview of the main popularizing texts of mycology can not start without Mushrooms from life, a seven-volume work published by Arti Grafiche Satu in the which the Engineer Bruno Cetto poured out his immense experience in the field."[49] On pages 133-135 of this document in Hungarian [www.gombanet.hu/upload/files/1991.pdf], there's what appears to be an obituary, in Hungarian, of Bruno Cetto, which could also be translated .... The final paragraph of the source which --Dom from Paris found says (in Google Translate's version of Italian), "Teacher of mechanical technology by profession, he applied himself with passion and method to mycology, becoming one of the greatest and most in-depth experts in the field in the European field. In this context he maintained relationships with distinguished scholars, especially in the German language. With his work he contributed to the dissemination of knowledge on mushrooms (his books, some of which translated into various languages, have become popular heritage) but also to the training of health personnel responsible for their control and the drafting of legislation on protection from part of the provincial bodies." I think he definitely passes WP:GNG, perhaps WP:NPROF as well, as there is evidence that he had a significant impact both within the field of mycology and outside it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen, subject appears to meet WP:NPROF as his works have a high number of citations by others on Google Scholar [50]. The article is a mess, I will take a stab at cleaning it up. Ifnord (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater Chocolate[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. While there is coverage in multiple publications I don't believe it is independent coverage - it appears to be advertorial, based in local publications and excessively based on interviews with the founder/owner. I don't see any credible claim to notability - being the largest confectionery manufacturer in Connecticut doesn't cut it, in my opinion. A WP:BEFORE search returns plenty coverage in keeping with a business dependent on PR to expand their market, for example announcing their opening of new locations. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG. Nom cannot redefine editorial content in local newspapers such as the Register Citizen or the News Times as "advertorial." Furthermore, all news articles are "based on interviews," so that can't possibly count against the coverage. Not only that, but the fact that these newspapers chose to interview people associated with the company speaks to its notability rather than against it. And finally consider that this company is discussed in the New York Times, for goodness sake, which is the sine qua non of notability. Just see The Time Honored Exaltation of Chocolate not to mention plenty of other regional coverage, e.g. this article from the Hartford Courant. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both the NYT and Courant.com articles only have two paragraphs each that mention Bridgewater Chocolate, failing the significant coverage test, and paragraphs that are quotes from the company aren't independent coverage. Feature sections in publications often charge for inclusion - that's one of the ways that publications make money. Is this the case here? That's up to us to judge, and I believe it is. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraphs in the NYT is more than most of the subjects of our articles have. That in itself is sufficient to meet the GNG. And paragraphs that are quotes from the company perfectly well are independent coverage for the sake of establishing notability. The fact that the NYT chooses to quote some company proves that the company is notable per the editorial judgment of the NYT. And now you're arguing that the NYT is pay to play. Sheesh! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Just because sources are from local newspapers, that doesn't make them "advertorial". There are also many large publications that wrote articles about this company, such as the NYTimes and Hartford Courant. This is also a franchised company with an international presence, so there are a variety of sources covering this company in publications written in other languages, such as Arabic.--AirportExpert (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AirportExpert (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

If there are other good sources, feel free to add them to the article. However, remember that those sources need to provide substantial coverage, and be truly independent. The two sources you mention fail on both counts. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the NYTimes and Courant articles alone do not make this subject notable, but combined with the plethora of sources from local publications the subject is.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

@AirportExpert: watch and learn - this is how we assess sources against WP:NCORP:

Analysis of references
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Sales	Y	N	Y	N	N	Promo piece, entirely sourced from the founder/owner or company PR
Bridgewater Chocolate Connecticut Presence	Y	N	Y	N	N	Announcement of a new store; entirely sourced from the founder/owner or company PR
NBR CNBC review	Y	?	Y	Y	?	A substantial piece, and a 3m40s CNBC television feature
About Bridgewater Chocolate	Y	N	Y	N	N	A company's own website is not an independent source
Bridgewater Kuwait	N	N	N	N	N	Press release on the Franchise Arabia site
Middle East locations	Y	N	Y	N	N	Franchise operator - not independent
The Time-Honored Exaltation of Chocolate NYTimes	N	N	Y	N	N	Two paragraphs mentioning the company, the second company being a quote from the founder/owner
Bridgewater Chocolate gets ready for sweet holiday CTPost	Y	N	Y	N	N	Substantial promo piece, entirely sourced from the founder/owner or company PR
Total qualifying sources					0-1	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

When assessed properly in this way the outcome is clear. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparent attempt to introduce a press release on a trivial company into WP. It's not surprising the sources are no better. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have expanded the article a bit, Curb Safe Charmer would you like to evaluate the delta? Markvs88 (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Markvs88:

The 2008 NYT article only mentions Bridgewater Chocolate to give its street address, web address, telephone number and cost per pound of chocolates. That's not substantial coverage. Your assertion that "Bridgewater chocolate is notable as it is hand-dipped" is not in keeping with WP:N, if that's what you meant by 'notable'. There are no doubt thousands of chocolatiers worldwide that hand-dip chocolate, but that doesn't make them notable as in worthy of an encyclopedia article about each.
The tradearabia.com reference is just a press release announcing the opening of the mall outlet in Qatar. It doesn't say anything else about the company, so is not substantial coverage, nor is it independent.
The Gulf Times reference is also just a corporate announcement of the opening of the mall outlet. You can see clearly - it says "according to a statement". That's a giveaway that the piece is based on a press release. That makes it non-independent. The coverage is only to say "Foodies were delighted with the opening of the delectable Bridgewater Chocolate", so that's not substantial coverage.
The 2015 Boston Globe piece by two 'correspondents' appears to be based on the State of Connecticut trying to promote its 'Connecticut Chocolate Trail', a road trip between 12 chocolate makers. It looks to me like the State has paid journalists to write a promo piece. I don't think it is independent. The first paragraph references some famous people who may or may not have ordered chocolate there - the source is presumably the company. Listing famous patrons doesn't help show notability - see WP:NOTINHERITED. The second paragraph just describes some of the products, and gives the contact details, and again the price per pound.

So, none of these help meet the WP:NCORP criteria. I see you're back after a six-year WikiBreak - welcome back. One of the things that's changed in that time is that about nine months ago, the notability guidelines for companies were substantially rewritten. Many articles that would have been accepted before your break would no longer make the cut. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Curb Safe Charmer, and I appreciate your taking the time to consider these sources. However, I do have a couple of issues to point out with this synopsis. Note that I have read the new wp:ncorp guidelines.

Ah, but what percentage of chocolate world-wide is hand-dipped? A very small segment, and a small number of manufacturers in Connecticut do so as listed in the article. To put it another way, I like beer. Sam Adams brewed by Boston Beer Company, the biggest craft brewer in the industry... and they have less than 1% of the total market. The point is relevant for Boston Beer, why not for Bridgewater Chocolates?

Yes, it is true that neither TradeArabia nor Gulf times coverage is substantial, but it *does* prove the point that the company is international, and has independent coverage to prove it. And that's all it needs to do to support the text. We don't need a 50 page dossier source just to support where a market is. I agree that significant sources are a great thing, but it's above and beyond for what this point is. I will try to further update the article, as I hope others will to see if this can be improved.

Really, that was your take on it? I thought it was abundantly clear that the paper's editor needed a human-interest piece and spent the least amount of resources to get one... while having the junior staffer get his wife chocolates for Valentine's Day. Or at least that's how it looks to me. ;-)

The first paragraph references some famous people who *have* ordered from there. As in: this is a fact published in a newspaper of record. There was no correction issued. I also note that per wp:corpdepth that "the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent". The Boston Globe is a peer of the New York Times.

The whole of the Markets section speaks to the fact that the business isn't just two huts in the backwaters of CT. This is allowed in other business articles, so why not here? "Just"? Isn't that the type of coverage that one would have of this sort of business... and that you asked for?

Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Curb Safe Charmer: I have to disagree with your analysis that articles like the one from the CTPost are not independent or secondary. These are legitimate news sources, and report in a way so their readers can be familiarized with local businesses, but are not inherently biased towards them--AirportExpert (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert.[reply]

@AirportExpert: These are at best features - soft news. Reviews may be bought; editors have to judge these carefully, per WP:PRODUCTREV. We need to ask ourselves how the piece came to be in the paper. Who contacted who? Did the journalist set out to investigate the confectionery market, or did someone with a vested interest ask the writer to do a piece, perhaps on a paid basis? I believe that behind most or all of these sources is a PR company working on behalf of the company or the State. Regarding whether or not the newspaper coverage is primary or secondary, please read WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment -- According to Curb Safe Charmer If there are other good sources, feel free to add them to the article. However, remember that those sources need to provide substantial coverage, and be truly independent. I just want to point out that this is a confused and false statement. We need sources to provide substantial coverage for the purpose of determining notability, likewise to be independent (although not truly independent, which is a higher bar that Curb Safe Charmer just made up). We do not need either of those qualities to source facts in an article. It's perfectly fine to source facts in articles to sources which do not provide substantial coverage or are not independent. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52: this nomination is about notability. My comment regarding the independence of sources relates to notability, not verifiability. I have not called into question the veracity of any sources. Regarding 'true independence', WP:ORGIND explains the difference between functional independence and intellectual independence. I meant the latter, which is indeed a higher bar, but not made up by me. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ARTSPAM sourced with NEWSPRIMARY, does not meet [[WP:NCORP]]/[[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. Sam Sailor 11:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Curb Safe Charmer's original nomination and source analysis is very compelling. It appears that this article is just an attempt to spin a couple of press releases into notability, which isn't enough to establish corporate notability. SITH (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primou[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Due to lack of critical attention, evidence of major impact or other significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, this software extension package appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as improved. bd2412 T 01:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible Research and Innovation[edit]

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

One reason I voted for Brexit is because my money is going on non-notable projects such as this. DGG thinks it is spam but it has survived four years so I will let it have this discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: I'm surprised it's survived for four years but I agree with DGG's assessment that it is G11-worthy. SITH (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: it is unambiguous promotion. See also [51]. JimRenge (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over 5,000 hits on Google Scholar and in-depth news coverage indicate that this is one of those management terms that we really ought to have an article for. I have trimmed the article back (way back) to make a reasonable stub of it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Having cut it down and added new material based on the academic literature, I don't see anything promotional in the article as it currently stands. It's certainly not promoting a product — just explaining a term that is roughly as opaque as any other that I've seen used by all scientific funding agencies everywhere. I loathe this kind of language roughly as much as anyone who has had to deal with those agencies, but that in itself isn't a reason to delete an article about it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and with the old stuff cut out, Earwig's Copyvio Detector now finds no problems. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm sorry to disagree with the other editors who've suggested this for deletion, but Responsible Research and Innovation is a reputable academic discipline that not only gets EU funding but substantial amounts of funding in the UK from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. It's about anticipatory governance in technology projects - ie the sort of ethical consideration that could (it is hoped) in the future prevent some of the data misuse and technological scandals that have become all too prevalent. There is a very solid basis of academic research, some of which is already cited here, and Research Councils are including requirements for Responsible Research and Innovation in their calls for funding from universities. For example it's included as part of the work on quantum computing that several universities in the UK are participating in. I am happy to rewrite the article, which I agree isn't very good, but it's definitely not promotional. Octaviapink (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for mentioning quantum computing! I found a few references on RRI in that field: [52][53][54]. Are you aware of more/better ones? XOR'easter (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The proposer says "One reason I voted for Brexit is because my money is going on non-notable projects such as this.". But WikiPedia deletion policy clearly says that "Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons" is NOT a reason to delete a page. Responsible Research and Innovation is research area funded by the EU, UK research councils, the US National Science Foundation, and others. I don't care why you voted for Brexit. This is totally irrelevant to serious academic research, and your personal opinions don't come into it.Pingleresearch (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC) — Pingleresearch (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
Keep: Next you propose to delete feminism or United Ireland because you are against? -- Oisguad (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oisguad, please discuss the nomination itself, attacking the nominator while also not saying anything about the article is not really a good thing to do in AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we expect deletion discussions to be about the article. But in fairness, we expect nominations to be about the article, too, and that they don't bring in the nominator's personal politics. "I voted Leave" is not an argument (nor, of course, are "I voted Remain", "I am above politics and refuse to vote", etc.). The substantive concerns have been addressed: news and academic sources demonstrate notability, we give due weight to criticisms/concerns so it can't be called promotional, and a top-down rewrite removed the copyvio text. XOR'easter (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY as done by XOR'easter. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the massive cleanup effort done by XOR'easter. WP:TNT accomplished. Brad v 16:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per WP:HEY and great effort from XOR who cleaned the article well. XOR also raises a good point. This nominator did not have to bring Brexit or politics up in this AfD, especially this coming from an administrator. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 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. Per the analysis of the sources being passing mentions of, or quotes from the subject. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carol F. McConkie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC:

Various WP:BEFORE searches are only providing passing mentions and name checks in reliable sources. Some primary sources were found in searches, such as a sermon by the subject and the subject speaking at events, but these are not usable to establish notability.
The two independent sources in the article ([55], [56]) do not provide significant coverage; just minor mentions. The remaining sources in the article are primary or unreliable, which do not establish notability.
The subject has not received independent, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reading the previous nomination's Keep votes, which were as whole ignoring the fact that reliable independent sources need to be significant in coverage as per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, is just making me shake my head. I was unable to find anything significant regarding to her and thus she also fails WP:BASIC. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deseret News and Salt-Lake Tribune are independent of the LDS church, but I'm not seeing the "significant coverage" that we should be looking for. The Salt Lake Tribune article possibly does do more than discuss her in passing (i.e., they discuss her as part of a group of people, but do dedicate a paragraph her) but none of the other articles appear to be so and one article isn't enough. FOARP (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources clearly rise to more than just a discussion in passing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In my view, the sources only mention the subject; they do not provide anything even close to significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail, inadequate sourcing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per John Pack Lambert. Multiple reliable sources (more than one) exist, so GNG is satisfied. EnPassant (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Two sources that mention a subject in passing doesn't establish notability, though. There's no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @EnPassant: WP:GNG says significant coverage in those reliable sources as well, also check WP:SIGCOV. Multiple reliable sources alone is not enough, they also need to be significant in the coverage of the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this AfD is *again* going in a wrong way thanks to a misuse of WP:GNG, I will mention each source and what they cover.

https://www.nj.com/independentpress/index.ssf/2014/05/hundreds_gathered_in_morristow.html not a WP:SIGCOV, says only

“We are a sisterhood,” Sister McConkie noted, emphasizing the reliance church organizations place on helping one another. “We need to pull together to strengthen one another as daughters, mothers, and sisters.” That spirit of sisterhood appealed to April Hajek from Mendham. “I liked being in a meeting with women of all ages.” Additionally, she enjoyed “the fact that the presentations were interactive.”

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/56117629-78/oscarson-lds-nielsen-president.html.csp not a WP:SIGCOV, says only

Carol McConkie, Oscarson's first counselor, earned her degree in English education from Arizona State University. It was there she met her husband, Oscar W. McConkie III, who became a prominent Salt Lake City attorney. McConkie, a mother of seven, has served in every LDS auxiliary at the local level and then spent the past five years on the Young Women General Board. Before that, she served, with her husband, overseeing the church's San Jose, Calif., Mission.

And Exponent reference is a blog which does not contribute towards notability. So is this what we are going to build notability on GNG and article on? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Yep, WP:BASIC just isn't met. Not seeing how this could be interpreted as significant coverage; it clearly is not. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm actually wondering what is notable about her. The only real claim to notability seems to be that she was the first counselor to the Mormon Youth organization, which Wikipedia describes as an ancillary organization. Add that role to coverage that sounds like a church newsletter, and you have a notability question.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's also worth mentioning that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North America, you are more experience than I: do you see a claim of notability here? Maybe this should have been speedied?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Panic No need to speedy this. Present consensus is clearly for delete, absent anyone finding new references substantiating notability. Like I said above, maybe the SLT article does discuss her more than just in passing, but it's the only one that does and no other article found so far does. One article alone isn't enough to substantiate notability, so so long as things remain that way the closer will likely delete. Moreover, right now it is 4 to 2 in favour of delete. FOARP (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Her career with the Young Women General Board, and as a female Mormon lay leader, seems to establish some notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the !vote directly above –

1) The subject being female does not create notability; notability is not gender-based, and notability is also not based upon personal hunches (e.g. "seems to establish some notability")
2) There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.
3) The utter lack of reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage about the subject is exactly why the subject is not notable, as per Wikipedia's standards.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – lack of coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. Also, it took me a second to realise that "first counsellor" is not a claim of notability, it's simply the job title. Brad v 16:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by user: WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) ^{[Username Needed]} 10:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If You Could See Me Now (Oscar Peterson album)[edit]

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

What makes this notable? ^{[Username Needed]} 11:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winning the 1987 Juno Award for Best Jazz Album ([57], [58]), and receiving reviews from Allmusic, The Washington Post, and Digital Audio, and having further coverage in books such as The Rough Guide to Jazz, The Penguin Guide to Jazz on CD, LP and Cassette, and The Rolling Stone Jazz Record Guide is a good start, I would say. --Michig (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: winning the Juno award would almost be enough by itself. It's always going to be hard to find information online about albums that precede the internet age, but given what a legendary figure Peterson was in the world of jazz, it would be astounding if there weren't several reviews of this record in print versions of jazz-based magazines at the time, such as DownBeat. Richard3120 (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I really don't like permastubs but I think this can be fleshed out considering the reviews. Either way it's notable because of the Juno (see WP:NALBUM criterion 4). SITH (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources and award identified above by Michig above are sufficient to demonstrate that WP:NALBUM criteria 1 and 4 are met. AllyD (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As creator, it worries me that such a discussion could be started by an experienced editor with such a cursory explanation. I created the article a long time ago, but a simple search would have proved its notability. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per every one above. When you have questions like this, it’s best to follow through with WP:BEFORE rather than bother the community with a spurious deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 15 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Adsera[edit]

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

Very far from meeting the notability requirements of WP:BIO SmartSE (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails biographical notability standards. Looking at the sources, we find little in the way of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
^[2]	Press release from his company.	Independent sources are better to corroborate claims.	It's a press release.	✘ No
^[3]	Affiliated.	It's just the homepage of his company's website.	All this proves is that the company exists.	✘ No
^[4]	Journal article written by the subject.	Published in JSTOR so likely reviewed.	Writing one journal article does not connote notability.	✘ No
^[5]	The only independent coverage of Adsera.	? I don't know the publication but it appears independent.	? Two short paragraphs explaining what a businessman is doing alone does not constitute significant coverage.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

^ "Milton Keynes Dons 2–0 Macclesfield Town". BBC News. 17 November 2018. Retrieved 17 November 2018.
^ "Adequita Capital Ltd". Adequita Capital Ltd. Retrieved 2018-04-11.
^ "Adequita Capital Ltd". Adequita Capital Ltd. Retrieved 2018-04-11.
^ Adserà, Xavier; Viñolas, Pere (2003). "FEVA: A Financial and Economic Approach to Valuation". Financial Analysts Journal. 59 (2): 80–87. JSTOR 4480468.
^ S.L., Staylogic Online Services. "El tarragoní Xavier Adserà és el conseller delegat de l'empresa Veremonte promotora de Barcelona World - Tottarragona.cat :: Diari digital independent d'informació i d'opinió de Tarragona". www.tottarragona.cat (in Catalan). Retrieved 2018-04-11.

My COI-dar is also set off by this article, but that's an aside.

SITH (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Another nom based on a misunderstanding of WP:ARTN. Notability is not based on sources in the article nor on the tone of the article but on sources in the world. And there are plenty here. Consider [59], [60], and so on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly promotional. Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform to advance certain individuals, and articles that seek to do so should be deleted with haste.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – while the article in its current form is very promotional and therefore should not be in mainspace, it is possible the topic is notable if more sources like the Valencia Plaza sources above exist. This could also be draftified as an alternative to deletion. Brad v 16:27, 22 November 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 Iraq#2008–present. Content available in history for merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnistan, Shiastan and Kurdistan[edit]

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

Merely a short article about something that did not happen and is no longer realistic. It lacks important sources and the first two terms are not common. In local circles, people who use such terms as "Shiastan" and "Sunnistan" are nearly non-existent. Sakiv (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this certainly needs a rename if kept. I don't see any other articles on the topic of proposals for a three-way partition of Iraq, and that proposal is notable. [61] [62] [63]. Perhaps Partition and secession in Iraq is a rename option? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a subsection named "Partition proposal" in Iraq#2008–present. Not enough meat here for a stand-alone article, with a single source, but that source has good info that should be extracted. There could also be some info placed in Syria#Syrian Civil War, the corresponding history section of the Syria article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think merge is a good proposal for now, unless there is someone willing to do immediate work to expand the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. While the proposal was noteworthy, it doesn't appear to be relevant any longer and therefore should be mentioned as a historical footnote or one-liner on the Iraq article. Brad v 16:31, 22 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DéjàClick[edit]

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

This is a non-notable browser extension. Fails WP:GNG and has not been updated to work with the browser it claims to work with since Firefox changed technologies in November 2017. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY and there are several tech blogs that wrote about this extension back when it was actively maintained ([64] [65]). That being said, it's not a lot of coverage, and I'm somewhat torn on whether it's enough to pass WP:GNG, hence the weak keep. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Brief commentary from tech blogs is not sufficient to meet WP:NSOFT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: let's dissect the references:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.practicalecommerce.com/Site-Monitoring-Tools-Help-Prevent-Downtime	Doesn't appear to be written by anyone involved.	~ It's a review but it's not in a major publication so reliability is difficult to establish.	DejaClick is only introduced halfway through the blog, it appears to be just given as an example.	✘ No
http://www.sys-con.com/node/550132		~ Just looks like a copy of a press release.	Copies of press releases don't constitute significant coverage.	✘ No
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dejaclick/			This just proves it exists.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The third source in the article redirects to a page which doesn't even mention DejaClick.

Overall, it fails software notability and general notability guidelines.

SITH (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse: The sources in the article are obviously terrible, but as I mentioned in my weak keep !vote above, there are at least decent sources available elsewhere which should be taken into consideration as well. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable --DannyS712 (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I found this review, but it would take several more like that to meet the requirement for significant coverage. Brad v 16:36, 22 November 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. Tone 06:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Botkin[edit]

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

Non-notable pianist. It seems that he is now a music professor at UNI,[66] but unclear if that alone confers notability or not. Natg 19 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very bad CV; simply being a professor is not enough to meet WP:NPROF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject began playing piano at age 5, then competed in his first competition at age ~~_ 6~~ 10. The subject has performed more than once at Carnegie Hall, to name one, and has won numerous competitions, including Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition in Italy. He is a professor of music at the University of Northern Iowa, where he co-founded a university music competition for students across the globe. I improved on the article (it could use more work) after finding and adding reliable sources and content. Passes WP:MUSICIANS and WP:PROF and clearly meets notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Trillfendi (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NMUSIC as prizewinner of major international competitions including the Busoni, Kapell, and Cleveland Zingarese talk · contribs 18:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dragon Queen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I would argue this does not meet WP:GNG and there is also a strong argument regarding WP:NOTPROMOTION. Not sure why this was kept the first time, but to me looks like it should be reevaluated. I don't think either of the sources come close to meeting WP:GNG. Please give your input LikeMeercats (talk) 16:58, 30 October 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 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, multiple reviews available (2 listed in the article, hence why it was kept the first time, btw the pw review is a star one), also - Voice of Youth Advocates Reviews - "Borchardt works her own magic by creating a vastly different Merlin from the star-cloaked graybeard of popular image.", Romantic Times - "Alice Borchardt is a powerful storyteller with a passionate voice that throbs from every page." (also a 2001 Historical Romance of the Year nominee), the ISFDB lists reviews in Interzone, and Vector. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of the review was a statement on the author herself, not the book, and I couldn't find the other review that was mentioned in the Amazon link (which should come from the journal, not a mention on Amazon.) IMO fails GNG because there is not "significant coverage". LovelyLillith (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheila Shoup, "Bordchardt, Alice, The Dragon Queen" in "Adult/High School: Fiction" (2002) 48 School Library Journal 154 Google Books. All you have to do to find it is put the quote into Google Books, and it comes up immediately. There are plenty of other reviews and the coverage is obviously significant. James500 (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps the article should have more of the RS "plenty of other reviews" to make it appear to be more noteworthy. As it stands, it does not. LovelyLillith (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:NRVE, notability depends on the existence of sources, not their immediate citation in an article. Coolabahapple has cited plenty of other reviews in his !vote above. All of those count towards notability. That said, NBOOK requires precisely two book reviews. As it stands, two book reviews are already cited in the article, making it appear unequivocally notable under the SNG. And GNG does not necessarily require more than one source. QED. James500 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:GNG with multiple reviews in reliable sources and also passes WP:NBOOK Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Beverly Hills[edit]

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

While in my personal opinion I think the brand itself has some notability, it’s clearly not enough for an article. The article’s and sources’ notability falls on its founder, Anastasia Soare, rather than the brand itself and that’s the case with practically every source about ABH. Media are enamored with a rags to riches story. Of the two sources listed here, they’re about the founder not the brand. I would have merged the article to her page but everything is already covered in her career section, so for that reason I don’t see the need for this 3 sentence article. Trillfendi (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major beauty brand and the stub just needs to be expanded. Plenty of sources to help: [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] - and yes, there is significant coverage about the brand itself and their products in general. Improve don't delete. Missvain (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forbes source is about Soare. Time source is about Soare. Standard source is about Soare. The only source that talks more about the brand is BoF. The other sources simply advertise and give links to the products. As it stands, in my opinion, there really is no room for improvement because her page already gives even more details than even this article does. Practically every ABH source is about Soare or their social media (which isn’t necessarily about the business itself; social media isn’t notable here).Trillfendi (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to Anastasia Soare; not independently notable, and there's no need for two closely related articles. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Anastasia Beverly Hills is a very popular make-up company. I second for improve don't delete.-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a CNBC reference. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Social media followers don’t equate to notability....Trillfendi (talk) 17:10, 18 November 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 deleted (G7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Sinaa[edit]

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

The article exists for quite a time, but I didn't find any reliable sources to confirm the notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible that sources exist in Arabic but I've db authored it anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Gladys Hooper. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Hooper[edit]

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

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. Apparently she met a few famous people in her youth, but notability is not inherited. — JFG ^talk 18:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about famous people she had met and her family. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on two different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Gladys Hooper (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.
Cunard (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cunard and WP:ATD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to appropriate list, WP:NOPAGE. "Hooper went to college with aviator Amy Johnson, the first woman to fly solo from England to Australia" pretty much sums it up. E Eng 22:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She did become notable during the last years of her life, and there is significant coverage in reliable sources in the UK and other countries when she became the UK's oldest person, when she had a hip replacement at the age of 112, and when she died. I expect that this article will get deleted as part of the ongoing campaign to remove all supercentenarians whether notable or not, so I would second Cunard's suggestion to redirect to her place in the table of supercentenarians with an anchor to the entry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per the nomination and EEng. Straightforward case WP:NOPAGE, all routine coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:38, 21 November 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. Reliable sources have been provided. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agri (caste)[edit]

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

The topic fails WP:GNG, as the article cites no reliable sources to establish that the topic is notable or even really exists. The article has repeatedly attracted unsourced and unreliable edits. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No clear significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This caste is a locally covered one only. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GeoffreyT2000, what's the definition of local? ∯WBG^converse 16:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Curiously, I can see significant mentions over here, here and here.∯WBG^converse 16:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - some significant mentions Spiderone 09:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be significant sources on the topic [75][76][77][78] aside from those found by WBG. They are also sources on related terms Mithagris, Dholagris and Sudh-Agris etc.[79][80][81]. it should not be difficult to expand this into a full article. Hzh (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh:, I will note that Raj--era sources (i.e. pre 1941 census stuff and those that derive from them esp. Horace, Enthoven et al) are blatanly un-reliable. ∯WBG^converse 15:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources from 1907 to 2012, therefore any concerns over Raj era sources being unreliable is not really that relevant. Note that the nominator claims that there are no RS to establish that the caste exists, I think we can safely say that there are indeed reliable sources to show that it does exist. The claim of Raj era census being inaccurate has no bearing on this unless the claim is that they had invented the people (which cannot be true because there are post-Raj publications on them). Hzh (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, see User:Sitush/CasteSources for a detailed discussion and a lot more can be added to it.FWIW, I am a keep solely because sources that do not derive from them have mentioned the subject in a significant manner.Best, ∯WBG^converse 05:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually aware of the claim made by Sitush because he had been deleting a bunch of Indian census figures. For what it's worth, I think he is wrong in what he did, because he is taking a position on something we should not take. Sitush made wide-ranging accusation which are just arguments presented by other people, taking sides in the argument, and sometimes turning "some figures may be unreliable" into "all are unreliable". Let's say if some post-Raj census figures turn out to be unreliable, that does not make all post-Raj census figures unreliable. Whether particular figures are unreliable is something for historians to judge, we don't make the judgement, we simply write what they say. Hzh (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, utter rubbish. Once, a historian/ethnographer/a source has been documented to be unreliable by multiple academics, we don't use that source. ∯WBG^converse 10:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush deleted everything, not just parts of those figures said to be unreliable. You'd find that a huge part of any history is contested with many people taking position on either side of the argument. We can described any disagreement, but we don't take any position on them except to report them as reliably and fairly as possible. I would have simply left the figures and explain why some may be unreliable, although personally I don't care about the figures to want to start a fight about them. This argument in any case has got nothing to do with this AfD. Hzh (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not provide independent reliable sources.13:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Alex-h (talk)

Absence of sources in the article does not mean lack of notability per WP:NEXIST, therefore an independent search for sources is useful when you want to determine notability. Hzh (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The index of The Development Dilemma: Displacement in India refers to "Agri caste" over eight pages. Only passing mentions are visible in google preview, but it clearly has a lot more to say than that. This snippet from The Journal of the Anthropological Society of Bombay is published 1953 and is hence just about post Raj era. It shows a substantial review of a paper or book about the Agri. LIkewise Agris: A Socio-economic Survey was published in 1952 and is entirely about the topic. I could go on, there is much more out there. Notability is easily established. The suggestion that they might not even exist is just plain ludicrous and a miserable failure of WP:BEFORE. As for the claim that the article has repeatedly attracted unsourced and unreliable edits since when has that been grounds for deletion. I point you to the Donald Trump article (and probably just about every article on current American politicians). SpinningSpark 15:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors have raised concerns about content in the article, but nothing that has reached a broad opinion to delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Molly DeWolf Swenson[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Coverage is either not independent, not reliable, not detailed (with some sources not mentioning Swenson at all), or local news. The tone is promotional, and I'm pretty sure there are errors of fact (that happen to promote Swenson) in there, too. Huon (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Huon. This is a promotional article that is excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important notes from Huon. Making changes to add to overall notability (i.e. Forbes 30 Under 30, RYOT sale for $10-15M), to make language more objective, and to remove sources that do not mention Swenson (some seem to be referencing other entities in the entry rather than her involvement) or that are from unreliable sources (i.e. blogs). Susa8710 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just checked the sources added by Susa8710. I don't think they suffice to establish notability; most are more passing mentions. Huon (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Susa8710. Didn’t see previous entry but this is all totally notable. Sources include New Yorker, multiple features in Variety, Tech Crunch, Forbes, Entrepreneur Magazine, etc. Won Emmy per IMDb. She was also on primetime TV for American Idol. No reason to delete this entry. Also just found another feature in AdWeek about her, more than a passing mention. Will add to entry.Frogman237 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to what Tony believes, I don't think that this article is spam. It doesn't have the characteristics of a spam article and provides adequate claims to notability (company sold to corporation, etc.). After cleaning, promotional language has been cut down by editors and can most likely be cleaned more. A simple Google search of the subject yields articles she was the subject of in sources like AdWeek Magazine ^[1] and on HuffPost ^[2] as well as a Yahoo News article about her ^[3] (her face is plastered on the headline of this one). I feel that the subject was not posted in any form of "spam" attempt and the evidence presented from basic research definitely proves notability. WillPeppers (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep It is difficult to understand the rationale for deletion, stating that there is "no indication of notability" - a simple news search unearths dozens of reliable sources including AdWeek, the New Yorker, Variety, Forbes, Entrepreneur Magazine, and the list goes on. BTW, she is an Emmy award winner as per IMDb. The nomination was made without appropriate research. Netherzone (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the AdWeek and HuffPo sources listed by WillPeppers are by Swenson, not independent coverage of her. Yahoo is a copy of reference 14 already listed in the article, not anything new. Also, the Emmy is... dubious. Swenson was a "coordinating producer" (one of two, apparently, along with a host of other producers and executive producers) of a documentary that apparently won a Documentary Emmy. I couldn't verify that Swenson herself won anything. Huon (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the sources presented herein have been disputed in terms of their independence of the subject. More input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether this article is kept or not, at the very least the "Emmy Winning Producer" claim should be edited out. Producer credits are handed out like candy by production companies. There is no such thing as an Emmy for Coordinating Producers. Emmy recognition is given to Producers and Executive producers. A winning production, for a fee, can after the fact purchase additional awards for select members of the crew at their discretion, but it is not the same as being recognized by the Emmy organization. Nor can entries to IMDB be considered a reliable source. To present oneself in such case as an Emmy Winner Producer is little more than self-promoting resume padding. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For ShelbyMarion and Huon: Here is the official list of Emmy nominees for 2017 that includes Swenson ^[1] under credits for Body Team 12 (along with only a handful of people listed, including Paul G Allen and Olivia Wilde, not handed out "like candy," at least not in this case), and a photo of her Emmy with her name and Coordinating Producer credit on it. ^[2] It is true that you can request additional statues after the fact but they do not come with the name and credit engraved onto it unless the producer was originally nominated. Coordinating Producer is in fact an Emmy-eligible credit, per Emmy rules ^[3] Susa8710 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep She has coverage in reliable secondary sources (not passing mentions) in Harvard Magazine, Yahoo, Variety, AdWeek (the one in the article, not the non indepedent one that was posted here), while having a mention in Forbes in 2017 30 Under 30. Even if I discount Entrepreteur (which is a significant coverage) for being a trivial source, and non WP:SIGCOV sources like The New Yorker, CMO and lots of American Idol related references that are all passing mentions...she still passes WP:GNG easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For ShelbyMarion and Huon Molly's move to Maverick to represent artists and support their impact and sustainability initiatives was also the subject of significant media coverage by recognized and reputed news outlets, further lending to the page's notability and her personal credibility. https://variety.com/2018/music/news/maverick-molly-dewolf-swenson-ryot-live-nation-1202728991/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisPeng (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 November 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 Soliman Biheiri#Bait ul-Mal Inc. (BMI). No prejudice against mining the history for material to merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bait ul-Mal Incorporated[edit]

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

A non-notable corporation with no reliable 3rd party sources found. Tinton5 (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Soliman Biheiri. This is about the finance firm BMI and the coverage in this article is not so good, but Soliman Biheiri article looks ok. If I recall correctly, it was a very big finance/terrorism scandal, Soliman Biheiri's sentence doesn't seem that big but a good review of both articles should be done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Soliman Biheiri#Bait ul-Mal Inc. (BMI). Brad v 17:29, 22 November 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. bd2412 T 20:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Adil Shahzeb[edit]

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

journalists are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:JOURNALIST.

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article makes a credible claim to significance so it's ineligible for A7 but this is a clear failure of WP:ANYBIO. SITH (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. scope_creep (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not seeing anywhere near enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Brad v 17:31, 22 November 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 G5. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solico Group[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. N~~ight~~D 08:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for deleting Damaisir (talk) 08:29, 14 November 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 Move to draft. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Climate U.S. PAC[edit]

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

Article is entirely sourced to the organization's own site. No indication of notability among thousands of minor PACs. — JFG ^talk 01:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

del' - no indication of notability whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added non-subject reference. There are certainly more out there too. X1\ (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no real secondary sources, and current sources are rank.

Ref 1 Them on vox medium.
Ref 2 dead.
Ref 3 to their own indiegogo fund raising site
Ref 4 to their site
Ref 5 to their site, dead
Ref 6 to their own site
Ref 7 /sites forbes blog subdomain. Non RS.

Every references is to their own sites channels. scope_creep (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now – I think this nomination may be a bit premature, as they have continued making news after this discussion started. However, the article does need to be almost completely rewritten. See [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]. No prejudice against renominating in a few months if they prove to have no lasting significance, but right now it may be too soon to tell. Brad v 17:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to allow for the possibility of improvement. bd2412 T 04:04, 23 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Duff[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria. Has been rejected many times at AfC, the creator was even warned not to submit again without changes. Reads like an advertisement too. PROD was removed so bringing it here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, I don't like this page (a 15-year-old kid who is a "philanthropist" . . . right), and it appears very likely to be self-promotion (created by an apparent single-use account), but that's not why I'm backing deletion - there's a total lack of anything demonstrating "significant coverage" as required under WP:GNG. IMDB does not substantiate significant coverage. Teen101 itself does not appear to be notable. FOARP (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage and like FOARP mentioned very self-promotional. User:vanmodhe (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User blocked for sockpuppetry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is amazing. I do not believe this is self promotional and it does not read like an advertisement. This article is very informative and factual, Dylan Duff IS a philanthropist! The definition of philanthropy states that a philanthropist is a person who donates their time and/or money to charitable organizations, which Dylan Duff does. Dylan Duff volunteers for many charities and donates 10% of his Acting proceeds to charities such as Me to We, Sickkids, and Lumos. 15:30, 15 November 2018.

Alright but how does the page being amazing address the issues raised above which is a lack of significant coverage, a requirement for Wikipedia articles? It doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. We cannot seem to find reliable sources showing significant coverage.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for philanthropists is not the presence of the word philanthropist in the article, it is the degree to which the person did or did not receive media coverage about their philanthropic work. Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Wikipedia:TOOSOON. His body of work just isn't strong enough yet, although he has won a minor award. I removed the "Family history" stuff because it's completely unsubstantiated, and possibly nonsense. PK T(alk) 15:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is not "amazing" — it is poorly sourced, and states nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. The Young Artist Awards and the Joey Awards are not notability-clinching distinctions for the purposes of getting an actor over WP:NACTOR #3 because awards — that attaches to awards (like the Emmys or the Oscars or the Canadian Screen Awards) that get media coverage, not to just any award that exists. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy. scope_creep (talk) 12:33, 22 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Gaming[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that in detail about the company. Recently launched so likely not going to be that many sources so soon. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the currently used sources are just Twitter posts by the company. No real reliable, secondary sources currently exist about the team currently. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Outside of the NHL source, everything else doesn't point towards notability. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Available sources are not RS. A basic BEFORE fails to reveal significant additional RS. Does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:38, 21 November 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 DECA (organization). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DECA Ontario[edit]

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

Provincial-level sub-organization of DECA (organization). No independent sourcing, and nothing to indicate that this particular sub-national association is notable enough to warrant its own article. Also not a useful redirect term. —C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced promotional article about a division of an organisation. No reason to think that this particular division is notable. (The parent organisation has an article DECA (organization) that itself has no independent references to establish its notability.) Maproom (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into DECA (organization). This is a worthy organization I'm sure. And it has a surprising amount of press coverage, although the great bulk of it is just passing mentions - mostly "puff piece" profiles of a promising youngster which says they were in this organization. I found a couple of articles that discuss it in a little more depth, and I have put them on the Talk page. I don't have the time to incorporate them into the article, though I don't see enough there to warrant a separate article for this sub-organization.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DECA (organization). I don't feel there is any significant content that could be merged with DECA (organization). It's all just puff and trivia, bordering on meriting deleting. But a one line mention and link on the parent page might be justified, along with any other sub-associations of this organisation (which covers 50 US states, Canada, China, Germany, Guam, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Spain!) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There doesn't seem to be anything to merge and there's nothing to show this topic merits its own article. I'm going with redirect instead of delete because, well, "redirects are cheap". Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections if the outcome is to merge any useful content and turn this title into a redirect. I just personally think that the provincial organization is so non-notable that we should just delete the history altogether. We could always create a redirect later if we really think it's needed. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're on the same page. I would have no objections to this article being deleted since I see nothing to show it's more notable than other state or provincial chapters. I tend to vote for redirects if there's a reasonable target, even if it might not be my first choice. Papaursa (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is such a small, non-notable part of a larger organization that I don't think it is worth even a redirect. It is unlikely that anyone will see this page but not the page of the parent organization. Virtually no useful content that isn't already on the parent page. Also fails WP:BRANCH Anthonyliu (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much in the way to merge, and don't like redirects as they tend to be abused. I don't think the article has sufficient stand-alone notability, as there is numerous parent articles. scope_creep (talk) 12:31, 22 November 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. CSD G3 Blatant hoax SpinningSpark 13:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murno gladst fence[edit]

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

Blatant, if well constructed, hoax. Check the Boston city cite against Internet Archives other versioncheck the IA cite for Scrutton against Hathitrust’s. Qwirkle (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The name has also been added as a district of Paris, A disease, a (Fictional) scholarly author, etc. This appears to be a vandalism account. Qwirkle (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So--this hoax dates from at least 1962? See page 1. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That one was uploaded on 12 October 2018. How about this one? [88]? See page 1, again. (There is an artist/filmmaker who has pulled pranks and hoaxes under the "Murno Gladst" name in the past.) Bakazaka (talk) 05:51, 14 November 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. I'm not going to create any redirect(s), but if anybody wants to do so on their own, that's fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct airlines Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

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

No substantive content -- doesn't list any airlines. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Africa#Congo, Democratic Republic of the which has an actual list of defunct airlines of this country. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator says, this article lacks any substantive content. Vorbee (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Metropolitan90. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'In the' or 'from the' is missing from this title, so redirecting an incorrect title should not be done. Nate • (chatter) 19:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to lack of content. I'm not sure what the purpose of this was when there is already an existing article. Natureium (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first and then Redirect List of defunct airlines of Democratic Republic of the Congo to List of defunct airlines of Africa#Congo, Democratic Republic of the like Nate said, there is no need to keep this as a title when it is incorrect. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 02:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle Jack[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Top veteran actor who rose to national acclaim in the late 90s/early 2000s. He has had major roles in several top films within those period. This is one of those cases that even if sufficient sources are not online, they will be offline. Was a major player in pioneering action film genre in Nollywood, especially in antagonistic roles. I found 1. 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.HandsomeBoy (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given by HandsomeBoy. Dsp13 (talk)
Keep This subject definitely passes notablity guideline. They are well covered in reliable sources. A quick google search shows this.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:50, 19 November 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 Qwiki. Sandstein 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Imbruce[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. He is associated with one notable entity, Qwiki, but not independently notable. Article copy is mostly about the company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the company. The company has been acquired in 2013; the subject does not appear to have done anything notable in other ventures since. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor nominating this article for deletion cannot justify that this article refers to a person who is not notable. The individual clearly obtained many press mentions over a lengthy period of time, as demonstrated in the RS, including three mentions as "Highest in class" awards - as the winner of TechCrunch Disrupt, and being named on "Top 100" lists by Business Insider over a number of years - for achievements on opposite coasts. The article also clearly states the individual is currently active as an investor, with investments current as of 2018, including many best in class companies (IE, "Uber"). With so many RS, the deletion of this article (which has existed since 2010) is puzzling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.109.165 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Section subheaders are unhelpful in AfD discussions, as they add a confusing ToC entry to any page in which this page is transcluded. I have removed the section subheader from the above comment. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Qwiki. I was going to say merge, but there really is very little substantial, independent coverage of the person as opposed to their business. What he is known and covered for is Qwiki, that's where the name should point you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qwiki, as per Elimdae. Searches did not turn up significant coverage about him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: I'm not a fan of redirecting nn BLPs to company names; the company article may get merged, while the name would still link there. Additionally, the redirects had been undone on a fairly regular basis in the past, including most recently by an apparently involved / COI-driven IP who commented at the top of the nomination. I would go with a "delete" for these two reasons. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although for the latter motivation that would only make a difference in combination with salting. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - The subject has only accrued passing mentions in WP:RS, mostly due to his association with Qwiki. Content directly concerning the individual is all either trivial or as a part of listings, indicating a WP:SIGCOV failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect- He fails WP:GNG for lack of secondary sources coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Like the nominator has said, just redirecting this article alone would not be a great choice because someone can just revert it back (without also even noticing the one who did a redirect). I feel delete then redirect should be more often with AfD closures in my opinion, exactly because redirects can be easily reverted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 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 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaTrader[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Most sources are only to blogs and the page's current references are to its own website. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete yup, cannot find any independent reliable sources demonstrating notability for this one. FOARP (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete refs are links to own pages, plus the Bloomberg directory. Bloomberg is good, directory is bad. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:43, 17 November 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) Szzuk (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dilemma[edit]

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

Delete to make room for disambiguation. The current article is a WP:DICDEF, and I'm not aware of any primary use of the term that isn't. Paradoctor (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I think the Dilemma would make a great broad concept article. The concept of a dilemma isn't something that needs disambiguation: it's pretty clear that in any usage, a dilemma is a choice between mutually disjoint options. Of course the article should be scrapped: currently, it is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and a bad one at that. However, there is plenty of room to sketch different uses of dilemma, and plenty of good source. We should discuss dilemma in formal logic, moral dilemmas, notions of dilemma in deontic logic, and the popular usage. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Britannica article is a dictionary definition. The SEP entry simply applies the dictionary definition in a particular context, it gives no information about the concept of "dilemma". As a dilemma, there is no different between ethical dilemmas and, say economical dilemmas. It's always "none of the options is particularly appealing". I don't see the meat, unlike rock, or particle. Paradoctor (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ethical dilemmas, Buridan's ass-type practical dilemmas, and economic strategy points such as the Triffin dilemma can be in a base article. Applying WP:SUMMARY here is going to be beneficial, and more so than moving the existing dilemma (disambiguation). Sure, the area looks undeveloped here, but a constructive approach can be taken. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought of nominating it for deletion but after I did some search I decided to just tag it. Instead of dab page (disambiguating what?), a broadconcept page where all the types, forms and its pop usage are discussed will be better. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"disambiguating what?" → dilemma (disambiguation) Paradoctor (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of that. I mean what else do we need to disambiguate in "Dilemma"? Nothing. Except to redirect it which is essentially deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I explicitly stated that the article should be deleted to make way for the disambiguation page to be moved here. I don't see how redirecting comes into play. Paradoctor (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"essentially deletion" No, it isn't. What little content we have is covered by Wiktionary. The speculations on what there might be are not supported by sources, and haven't been for thirteen years. That leaves me kind of pessimistic. Paradoctor (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I made myself clear from the start. I am against deletion, the very deletion you're proposing. This leaves us with only options for redirect or keep, and I opted for keep. Moreover state of article doesn't determine its notability, see WP:NEXIST. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. It also says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources". See my comment below. Give me sources or give me deletion. Paradoctor (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I started engaging with this article and its defenders back in 2015. It was longer then but consisted in the main of lists and unreferenced assertions, which put it outside of WP guidelines. What is needed, if the article is to be taken beyond dictionary definition status, is for some of its knowledgeable defenders to create a comprehensive and properly sourced article. Expert rewriting can be the only justification for retaining what, until now, has just been a catalogue of amateuristic incompetence. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you !vote keep because you think there might be substance that just nobody has bothered to locate? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leafing through the article's history, I notice two points:

The article was never sourced throughout its entire history, so the presumption now has to be that there are none that would justify more than a disambiguation page. I. e., burden of proof is on those who say there are.
After more than 13 years, the article's current state is not substantially different from the very first version.

Paradoctor (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the comment: path dependence isn't, I believe, in the deletion guidelines. What is there is WP:BEFORE. As quite often, I deprecate nominations that apparently ignore that guideline. I'm finding plenty in Google Books, one of the suggestions it makes. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor, it isn't good strategy to argue the toss with every contributor here. Some of them make valid points in favour of developing the article; it's for them, however, to prove their point by actually doing some writing. Without that, the article fails on the grounds of WP:NOTDIC, and no amount of consensus !voting is going to change the fact that historically this article has never met guidelines and on that account should be deleted. Exactly the same debate took place some years ago on the subject of Miser. It was only saved at the last moment by one of the interested editors really doing some editing. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you want to make it a disambiguation page, request a move for this situation. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEYMANN. It was in a dictionary-definition-like state for a long time, but now it's in better shape. Importantly, there is now enough content to demonstrate that a broad-concept article is feasible, and to show a path to one. XOR'easter (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this present stage, it is good enough to be a stand alone article for new content and sources were recently added. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously valid topic for a broad-concept whatever. --Doncram (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horace E. Stockbridge[edit]

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

No claim of notability and fails the WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft Space Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 00:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ Keep Yeah, I think the deletion nomination here is a little bit early. There does seem to be some evidence of "Significant coverage" of this man, assuming he's the same guy who ran the Agricultural experiment station a Purdue, including an obituary in the Atlanta Journal that called him a "rare mind, a great heart, a stalwart character" see these Google Books results: 1 2 3 4. Since, per WP:NRV, we need only considered whether the reliable sources that would support notability likely exist, not actually have them to hand, I think we can conclude that this man is likely notable, and once an article has been drafted properly it should meet the criteria for being an article here on Wiki. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not draftify. This is a viable microstub which I expanded a little to an actual stub. He clearly passes WP:PROF#C6. If any of the above people working so hard to keep this out of mainspace had taken the same ten minutes to actually create some content we wouldn't need to have this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:PROF and the article has been improved. No need to move out of mainspace, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C6. Nothing in the article is so unsightly that it needs to be moved out of mainspace to be improved. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, although perhaps changing the article to use the institution names of his time, rather than modern ones, would be more accurate. Blythwood (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I saw the article, I was surprised they have expanded it, but it would clearly meet the WP:GNG as with university presidents which I changed my mindset to Keep from now on. Sheldybett (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C6. Thank you to the editors that helped expand it. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 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.