< 14 November	16 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 merge to Illinois College#Congressional Museum and Archives. Sandstein 16:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Paul Findley Congressional Office Museum[edit]

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

This was created about six months back and despite efforts made by editors to improve it, it still reads as an advertisement piece and has a major lack of sources. Listing here for community input on whether or not it should be axed. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paul Findley. I don't see the depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources for the subject to meet notability in its own right, but it could warrant a small section on the congressman's page. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with the alternate merge target suggested by Doncram below. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Keep"~~. wp:ITSAMUSEUM. It is a public museum in fact. It is not a congressman, don't merge to the article of the congressman. Tag for editing, or edit it. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. but probably to Illinois College#Congressional Museum and Archives where it is mentioned along with an archive funded by the same donor. I came back to see about developing about the museum aspect of the article, to add museum categories and WikiProject Museums and so on, but there is not much to work with in the linked sources, so I change my mind from Keep vote before. Jimmy Carter did come to the dedication of the museum, which is something but there's not enough other content available IMO. The article's first sentence asserts it "is one of many congressional office museums in the United States", but I am not aware of any other and I don't find any other in quick searching. What is to be preserved about an office? It's neat they have a piece of furniture from Lincoln's office, but mainly what is preserved appears to be papers, i.e. it is an archive, and it is not much of a museum to visit. Scholars might possibly visit an archive, but I think in general we don't cover named archives in separate articles. It is more proper to mention them in articles about libraries or colleges. Here, the college article section is available and is not too long. The photo in the article is interesting and could be merged to the college article. Otherwise perhaps the libraries and archives of the college could be split out to a separate article if coverage got to be too long, but I think the length of the current article is excessive and should be pared back in a merge. However, a merge leaving redirect behind does preserve the information for potential future use in a libraries article. --Doncram (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Illinois College article per Doncram. There is not enough independent coverage to establish notability. Much of the article is bloated promotional info. Appropriate material can be used to expand the section in Illinois College. MB 02:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local Licks Live 1999[edit]

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

unsourced and mostly redlinks. The redlinks are worth noting because most of the artist aren't even notable enough to have an article. Fails WP:NALBUMS Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment A bundled nomination would make much more sense for this group of albums. Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mrschimpf: good point... Too late to merge them? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with a few non-notable articles on subjects failing WP:NALBUMS. Rzvas (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar AfD nominations that needs participation:

Rzvas (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notable. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:44, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local Licks Live 1990[edit]

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

unsourced and mostly redlinks. The redlinks are worth noting because most of the artist aren't even notable enough to have an article. Fails WP:NALBUMS Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with a few non-notable articles on subjects failing WP:NALBUMS. Rzvas (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar AfD nominations that needs participation:

Rzvas (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notable. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:44, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local Licks Live 1989[edit]

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

unsourced and mostly redlinks. The redlinks are worth noting because most of the artist aren't even notable enough to have an article. Fails WP:NALBUMS Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with a few non-notable articles on subjects failing WP:NALBUMS. Rzvas (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar AfD nominations that needs participation:

Rzvas (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notable. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:45, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local Licks Live 13[edit]

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

unsourced and fails WP:NALBUMS Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with a few non-notable articles on subjects failing WP:NALBUMS. Rzvas (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar AfD nominations that needs participation:

Rzvas (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notable. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:45, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local Licks Live '98[edit]

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

unsourced and fails WP:NALBUMS Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with a few non-notable articles on subjects failing WP:NALBUMS. Rzvas (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar AfD nominations that needs participation:

Rzvas (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notable. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:44, 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 soft delete. Since the rest were deleted, closing as delete without relisting since there have been no objections. WP:REFUND applies if somehow this one is any different than the others. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local Licks Live '95[edit]

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

unsourced and mostly redlinks. The redlinks are worth noting because most of the artist aren't even notable enough to have an article. Fails WP:NALBUMS Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local Licks Live '94[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

unsourced and mostly redlinks. The redlinks are worth noting because most of the artist aren't even notable enough to have an article. Fails WP:NALBUMS Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with a few non-notable articles on subjects failing WP:NALBUMS. Rzvas (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar AfD nominations that needs participation:

Rzvas (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notable. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:44, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local Licks Live '97[edit]

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

unsourced and mostly redlinks. The redlinks are worth noting because most of the artist aren't even notable enough to have an article. Fails WP:NALBUMS Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with a few non-notable articles on subjects failing WP:NALBUMS. Rzvas (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar AfD nominations that needs participation:

Rzvas (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notable. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:43, 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 delete G11 (promotional) by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Eager[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination of a declined proposed deletion. Concern was "Unambigous self promotion. Also Chorltonchild and Prof David Eager seem to be sockpuppets of each other as both accounts have made few edits to other than this article. This should have really been speedied as a recreation of an already deleted article." SpinningSpark 23:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GS h-index of 11 not nearly high enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. What else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local Licks Live '96[edit]

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

unsourced and mostly redlinks. The redlinks are worth noting because most of the artist aren't even notable enough to have an article. Fails WP:NALBUMS Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with a few non-notable articles on subjects failing WP:NALBUMS. Rzvas (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar AfD nominations that needs participation:

Rzvas (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notable. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:43, 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 delete. Per G4. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Jha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was just deleted unanimously at AfD less than two weeks ago and this new version features only barely more sourcing with two WP:ROUTINE announcements of staff changes and three YouTube videos. It still doesn't pass WP:GNG. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot we have WP:G4 for this situation, so I went ahead and placed that. If the patrolling admin doesn't think it's similar enough (this version does have somewhat more sources and content), feel free to remove it and let the AfD go through. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as G4. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:25, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk and Hot Girls[edit]

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

Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Already explained at length within Graduation album article. (AfD opened by request on behalf of 64.26.97.61) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article doesn't have an explanation in the album article about it being seen as one of the worst songs by Kanye, YOLO reference (significant) and more. Also, the YouTube link has been up too long for it to be unreliable and I will delete The Verge now. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any new information into the Graduation (album) article. The article on the parent album already includes a section about the song. The information about the song's legacy as one of the worst songs in West's career could be merged into the article about the album (possibly into the "Legacy and influence" section?). I am not certain if the YOLO part is really important/notable as it seems somewhat trivial to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The song itself is not notable ~~unless you’re a Kanye fan who sees it as severely underrated~~ but it can easily go to Graduation.Trillfendi (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is independently notable with reliable sources reviews such as the BBC, Guardian and Complex already in the article, passes WP:NSONG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:57, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley G[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ, fails WP:GNG and WP:DJ. Lack of significant coverage. Also nominating articles of the DJ's side-projects.

Wizkid (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FTD Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Flooded with them hundreds 16:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero online coverage and whole article is unsourced, breaking WP:BLP policies. aNode (discuss) 05:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I could not find any significant coverage, no sources used throughout the article, and it certainly fails WP:DJ and WP:BLP. Definitely a delete vote. ⚜ LithOldor ⚜ ^(T) 22:43, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexi Musnitsky[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.156.74 (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note IP request AfD in WT:AFD, I am neutral in this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:04, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alice White (rower)[edit]

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

Rower who is not currently notable. Has not participated in major senior international competition only a intercollegiate one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not well-versed in rowing progression, but if it looks like she may compete in the 2020 Olympics, it might be better to draftify and then reestablish when notable instead of outright deleting the page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She doesn't meet WP:NSPORT and the coverage is either local or focused on The Boat Race with her as a passing mention. As such, I don't believe she meets WP:GNG. The 2020 Olympics is almost 2 years away, so draftspacing the article in the hope she competes there seems unnecessary speculative. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~According to the FISA database, she hasn't represented her country at world champs at senior level. No need to move to draft; an article can always be undeleted if notability is achieved one day~~. Schwede 66 17:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my vote based on amended article. There are articles with some substance about her in the Cambridge News (29 March 2017 interview), the Cambridge Independent (15 June 2018 interview and 1 April 2017 reporting) and, to a lesser extend, The Press (30 March 2017 reporting). That should be (just) enough to establish GNG. Schwede 66 17:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough sources available to write an article with, because article, and that's what actually matters wrt GNG. If you've ever got a few hours to kill, we can look to have a sit down talk about all the things wrong with NSPORTS. GMG ^talk 16:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved since the nomination, meets WP:GNG. Shameran81 (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Joseph2302: Pinging to re-check things since the article has improved since the vote, for consensus. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:22, 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 16:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SheerID[edit]

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

Seems a non-notable and spammy corporate article by a group of UPEs and SPAs. A preliminary search online didn't show much more than passing mentions and routine coverage. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a transparent attempt to create the appearance of adequate sourcing by fluffing the article with a dozen sources, none of which - on close examination - are WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any coverage outside press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:47, 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. Sandstein 16:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Mishra[edit]

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

After carefully checking the sources, it seems the person doesn't meet the notability guidelines. I also found out that the posed image of the person was uploaded by an UPE. Some external links provided in template format are also unverifiable. Google search is not showing any credible sources to assert notability thus I think AFD will be a good choice to decide if it is notable or not. Sambhil32 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG being met Spiderone 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. FitIndia ^Talk 16:48, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anil C Menon[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to be any coverage of the subject in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Based on the article's content, the subject is a minor director that has directed a handful of films of dubious notability, does not meet WP:DIRECTOR, WP:NBIO. Previously nominated for BLPPROD by Praxidicae, dePROD by Tagishsimon who provided an IMDb link, attempted erroneous rePROD by Let There Be Sunshine, procedural dePROD by Arms & Hearts _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which Mayalam-language reliable sources have you checked, Rosguill? Is there a possibility that you're imposing distinctly western expectations on a distinctly non-western culture? I well appeciate the letter and the spirit WP:N, but I'm concerned that we shut out, for no good reason, non-western people & concepts for lack of easily accessible latin-script sources. I recognise that there is onus on those supporting retention of articles like this to come up with sources. Equally, I question the utility of deleting - in this case - an article on a director for whom we have fairly clear evidence that he is responsible for at least 4 feature films, at least one of which seems to have been the hit of the year. So, notwithstanding all other policy, I reach for WP:IAR and argue for keep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately we can only keep articles that we can provide verifiable content for, and as you pointed out, the burden of proof lies on the people creating/supporting the article. Having unverifiable content about non-Western subjects doesn't do anyone any good, and drops the overall quality of such content on this website. Moreover, there are reliable English-language that regularly cover Malayalam film, such as the Times of India. That having been said, you're right to point out that the subject's second film Ben Johnson, is highly regarded by RS (which I had missed on my first read through the articles for the subject's films), although the focus of such coverage is overwhelmingly on its lead actor, not on the subject, Anil Menon. Coverage of the subject's following films is either dismissive or non-existent. A director of English-language films who made one successful movie and three flops would generally not be considered to have met WP:DIRECTOR–while I'm generally in favor of giving non-Western subjects the benefit of the doubt, this subject still falls short in my opinion based on the sources available to me at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources for the subject, fails WP:GNG. Reliable sources are deficient for the films as well. For a clarification, I didn't knew this article was already once PROD.--Let There Be Sunshine 16:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 14:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. FitIndia ^Talk 16:50, 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 16:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Torsten Müller (musician)[edit]

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

Not enough independent reliable sources. He's a sideman, a bass player, and hasn't recorded any albums as a leader. Naturally there isn't going to be much press about him. Notability is questionable. Vmavanti (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPPROD. SITH (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Over the years, The Wire (magazine) has reviewed various collaborative performances involving the subject: [1]. Such reviews could be used as references to satisfy a WP:BLPPROD objection, verifying the subject's work with a variety of others (as per the article creator's Talk page comment regarding a proposed CSD A7 in 2007), but there doesn't appear to be the substantial coverage specifically about him which is needed for WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be independently notable as a musician, he needs reliable source coverage about him, not just mentions of his name in coverage of other things — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to an article just because he can technically be verified as existing. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Letters From The Colony (band)[edit]

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

There's tons of provided sources, but they're all either the band's website, the record label's website, the websites of companies that the band has sponsorship relations with, or reviews on a website that does not appear to be RS and that prides itself on covering unknown artists. I wasn't able to find anything better in an internet search. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BAND. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: relies entirely on self-published sources, doesn't seem to be notable per WP:BAND, quite flowery and promotional. SITH (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Sokolski[edit]

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

This article had a loooong WP:SYN section on secretin for autism (spoiler: it doesn't work, but the section described it as revolutionary and amazing anyway). Even that had no reliable independent sources actually about Sokolski. I can't trace anything, either. Only directory entries. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near meeting notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 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 no consensus. No clear consensus has emerged despite several relists and the debate is starting to descend into personal attacks, so I think it's best to put a lid on it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Young (broadcaster)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability or significant coverage in reliable sources. All provided sources are simply links to transcriptions or recordings of news shows on which the subject has been a presenter, I couldn't find any actual in-depth coverage in an internet search. Previously nominated for PROD by Reddogsix (who appears to have since retired) and dePROD by the article creator. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you follow WP:ENT then point 1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions is met as he is a regular business reporter on radio. However there is no current guideline on journalists (WP:NOTNEWS did not achieve consensus - which the draft guidelines he would meet) as he is a news report / presenter not an entertainer. If you take WP:RPRGM then the programs he appears are notable (Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)) then taking all of these guidelines he would be a KEEP. However I think it needs
This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous.Find sources: "2018 November 15" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
instead. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a famous broadcaster, as he has had long career in broadcasting. His article is well sourced as well as these sources here are good sources.^[1]^[2]^[3] Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have no opinion on this subject, but~~ You need to stop with these WP:ITSNOTABLE type responses. You’ve got to cite policy or allude to specific sources that prove notability through the WP:GNG. It’s not a vote - if you don’t give an actual reason, your stance is going to be ignored by the closing admin when it’s time to make a call here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my comment above was made when the above editor made their original comment, which contained zero sources. He has since revised his comment without and indication of doing so. Upon reading his newly added sources, I’d like to point out that they appear to be by the subject, not about him, which isn’t the sort of thing that helps a subject meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 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 06:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not remember him being on the Today programme, as the article makes out. Vorbee (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per arguments above he is a regular contributor on BBC and searching just on Google see he is quoted by other journalists. Problem is he is not a Kate adee so other press stories are unlikely as with many journalists. wp:gng is a guideline, and as we have no journalist guideline common sense needs to prevail and he is on the radio most days of the week which theoretically makes him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:DCBF:59BE:B586:1F35 (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you or anyone else has provided so far has been valid proof that the WP:GNG has been met in the remotest sense. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as per wp:buro they are guidelines and it is down to concensus of the editors that admits make a decision. You are not the judge jury and hangman. Precedent has been Set by pages like Charlie Stayt who is notable as being on Bbc breakfast, but whose refs are just mentions and would fail wp:gng if taken literally. As per comments before there is no wp:journey so common sense must prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:DCBF:59BE:B586:1F35 (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you should probably read WP:NOTAVOTE - if one fails to cite any valid policy or guideline in their stance, it’ll be ignored by the closing admin. What you’re doing is nothing new - these WP:VAGUEWAVE “just google it is notable” stuff is routinely thrown out in these discussions. It’s up to you if you want to leave it at that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if u want to quote policy how about wp:5p1 and wp:iar. Also wp:primary as BBC are a primary source but there is no interpretation just reporting fact which is backed up by wp:source point 3 - the BBC is the publisher. Also wp:blprimary comes in to this - there is no misuse. As previous comments from me and davidstewartharvey below Mickey Clark and others have no refs but have been accepted on here which means a concensus has been identified? This u have not answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:6B:DDDC:9D63:D9E6 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC sources presented are done by him. He wa the contributor who provided the information. That doesn’t help meet the GNG. For the GNG, we need sources about him. Like if The Washington Post did an article about him and his work at BBC. As far as Mickey Clark goes, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pointing at other worse off articles isn’t a valid argument for keeping this article. I’m not familiar with Mickey, but if better sources aren’t provided, that one would probably be likely to be deleted too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And how many reporters have stories written about them? This was my point earlier. Notability cannot always be done by secondary sources in. Wp:iar! The Notability on journalists was not agreed on but actually makes sense. This guy is notable he is on a major national radio and because it doesn't have a story about him in the times he can't be here! That then fails Wp:5p1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:6B:DDDC:9D63:D9E6 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publications do profiles on people all the time. Feel free to keep yelling IAR, but that’s not a valid substitute for a valid argument for keeping an article, especially with a BLP, where sourcing is extra important. If all it took to keep an article was to start typing “IAR” no articles would ever getdeleted, people would just resort to that flimsy defense every single time. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I keep quoting Iar as it's a Wikipedia policy just like u keep quoting many other policies or essays and then attacking others who don't. The fundamental flaw here is Iar is there to protect the five pillars. This is not a made up character but a national radio presenter and reporter who as new evidence put on yesterday shows several writers have referenced him, and his coverage was then copied into another publication cosmopolitan when they could have chosen any business reporters story on the budget! In addition u have made assumptions that BBC profile although written in the first person is by him and has not been edited, from an organisation whose public charter is to be impartial! And as per below have accused other editors of bad references when they had not done as u said, and asking them for them to put the ref links on here which is not and policy - if amendments are made during an and please add comments to say what you have done. There is no need to duplicate links here as they are in the article just go an look I did and so do most editors and admins! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:6B:DDDC:9D63:D9E6 (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:EXIST. Sergecross73 msg me 12:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to agree with the Keep! voters assessments here. Though I think the article needs expansion. BabbaQ (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? No one has cited anything specific or valid, and neither have you. Say something of substance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some more refs which show his reports are actually referenced elsewhere (Evening Standard, Published books). Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "16/02/2017, Wake Up to Money - BBC Radio 5 live". BBC. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
^ "24/01/2018, Wake Up to Money - BBC Radio 5 live". BBC. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
^ "News and Media appearances | SLG Economics". slgeconomics.co.uk. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

Can you link them here for evaluation? Because your last batch of sources was not valid for proving notability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me - I have only made one addition to the story by adding a reference from a third party source before today. The references I have added are to books where he his reports have been used as references, an Evening Standard story where his tweet has been used as part of the story, the Cosmopolitan magazine which used part of his report in their own story, Harvard University who have used his report on their own website for research as well as his interview with a trade minister of Australia which has been transcripted and added to the trade ministries official page. I believe it should be Keep as he is more notable than some other Category:British business and financial journalists who have been accepted as notable on here, but don't meet wp:gng. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please link the sources you’ve added so we can know what exactly you’re referring to. Just copy/paste the link(s) here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since you’ve refused to do this, I’ll do one for you. These sources don’t help meet the GNG. For example, let’s look at this Cosmo source you added. It does not provide significant coverage on Rob Young. It doesn’t cover him at all. All it does is display one of his tweets. That’s not even close to the third party coverage needed to prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I’m willing to change my stance if someone can provide some valid sourcing showing the subject meets the WP:GNG, but so far, there’s nothing remotely close to that. We need third party sourcing covering the subject in significant detail. Nothing presented here or in the article does this. All that’s been presented here is sourcing written by the subject, passing mentions, vague allusions to “google it”, and suggestions to “just hang some citation needed” tags on it, none of which are valid rationales for a keep at an AFD, especially for a WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out again that still, no valid policy or argument for keeping has been introduced here, nor have any valid GNG meeting sources been provided. Sources have been added to the article, but it’s been a WP:BOMBARD (or just misguided) effort. A check through of the sources will show that there are no sources providing significant coverage on the subject itself. The only reason this is even a point of debate is due to the lack of experienced editors participating. It’s not even a close call after an actual close evaluation. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He works for the BBC and doesn't own the BBC website, unless he wrote an article, or the source is him speaking then other BBC sources are secondary sources in retrospect. He is very well known for those that follow business news and BBC threads, I see WP:GNG satisfied and then some. And why on earth are you saying BBC is not a reliable source, that what the nominators rationale is, that's wrong, it's one of the most respect news services on the planet. Govvy (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? The subject's employer is absolutely not independent of the subject. Reliability is entirely based on context–BBC may be a reliable source for news, but they aren't a reliable source on the BBC or those affiliated with it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with you, I find it more reliable than anything you will tell me, thanks and good day. Govvy (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy It’s not about source reliability, it’s about the fact that he is not the subject of the sources. Being the writer/broadcaster of a source isn’t significant coverage of the subject itself. Its fundamentally and objectively not third party coverage. To satisfy the GNG, it needs to be about him, not done by him. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sergecross73 is correct: WP:JOURNALIST is not a get-out clause of WP:GNG or the WP:BASIC requirements for notability. Let's analyse the first few sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2d5xLXGJfGYgWDCFkbT55L4/the-world-business-report-team	Affiliated by employment.	No reason to suspect it’s unreliable.	Database-style LinkedIn entry, doesn’t confer notability.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06hb0tf	Affiliated by employment.	No reason to suspect it’s unreliable.	About program, not him. Just a programme database entry.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vl4kt	Affiliated by employment.	No reason to suspect it’s unreliable.	About program, not him. Just a programme database entry.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vl4kt	Affiliated by employment.	No reason to suspect it’s unreliable.	About program, not him. Just a programme database entry.	✘ No
https://trademinister.gov.au/transcripts/2010/100129_bbc_young.html		Government transcript.	He is the interviewer, not the subject of the interview.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42512723	Affiliated by employment.	No reason to suspect it’s unreliable.	Prince Harry is the subject, Young is the author.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05s3b1r	Affiliated by employment.	No reason to suspect it’s unreliable.	Prince Harry is the subject. Database programme entry.	✘ No
https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-guest-edits-bbc-radio-4s-today-programme		Royal publication, unlikely to contain falsehoods.	Prince Harry is the subject. Young is not mentioned.	✘ No
http://slgeconomics.co.uk/news-for-slg-economics/		~ Unfamiliar with publication.	Subject is the business, Young is the interviewer.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06gxxts	Affiliated by employment.	No reason to suspect unreliability.	Subject is the Musk, Young is the interviewer.	✘ 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)).

It's clear to me that while Young's work is extensive, nobody has actually covered him or his work independently, meaning he fails WP:BASIC. Just because his employer is a big news company doesn't mean he is notable. SITH (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason there are criteria other than WP:BASIC for notability is that not all professionals who are notable "receive significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". As Davidstewartharvey notes, there are no current distinct criteria for journalists - they come under 'Creative professionals'. The most relevant criterion is 1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Also relevant could be WP:ANYBIO: 1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", as there are awards for journalists. The only award that I can find that the subject of this article has won is an Africa Business Reporting Award, for 'Best Radio Feature' for a program on which he was one of 12 reporters, so I would not consider that he meets that criterion. ('Rob Young' is not an easy name to search for, as there are several others with that name, so if he has won any other awards, that would be useful to know.) So, to WP:JOURNALIST - is he widely cited by peers? This article provides 7 examples where he has been cited by other media outlets (separate from the BBC), or authors of books. I can find others, including 'New LSE CEO Indicates Deal Appetite' on MarketsMedia [2] and News-watch's analysis 'THE BBC and BREXIT: Analysis of the Business News on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme' [3]. That is at least 3 separate authors and 5 separate media sources, which would surely be sufficient to meet the criterion "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers". RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources you’ve actually linked to are still either still tied to his employer - BBC - or are like that Cosmo source I broke down above, where it’s more or less an article transcluding a tweet he made. I don’t think “copy/pasting tweets” is what they’re shooting for with “widely cited by peers” part. It’s impossible to write an appropriate WP:BLP article around this sort of sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment your argument that the cosmo ref doesn't hold up. Cosmo could quote or copy from a whole host of financial reporters - Peston, j urquhart Stewart etc who also commented on this budget and gave similar analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.136.216 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? I can’t tell who you’re talking to or what argument you’re trying to make. Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I double checked the refs and they are indeed useless to ascertain notability. Szzuk (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not know why the editor who analyzed sources chose to analyze only the first few sources. They are indeed linked to the person's employer. However, the later sources are not, eg Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Routledge and the Evening Standard. We are not judging the placement of references in the article. I do not agree that WP:JOURNALIST is not a get-out clause of WP:GNG or the WP:BASIC - profession-specific criteria are added because, as the section on Academics states, they may be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". So to me the question is whether this person meets WP:JOURNALIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say although everyone has thrown guidelines here there and everywhere at this is the question of notability. WP:GNG are just that a guideline - there is plenty of pages on here where most people would question why they are here but they meet notability guidelines set out here on Wikipedia. Would most people call TV programme Love Island encyclopedic? No - its trash television but is has pages here because it has been written about in the press which therefore meet WP:GNG. There are many music bans that most of us have never heard of on Wikipedia, which would be questioned by many people if they are notable but their pages meet wp:gng because they have been written about by the music press. But journalists who have written those stories, who then are used as references on Wikipedia, and whose work is quoted here are not allowed to be on Wikipedia unless someone else has written about them? How many journalists are written about? Very few - as per RebeccaGreen commented on unless you win the Pulzer prize or are a very large character who attracts controversy. This is why she and others here have tried to put an argument to keep - ie. Academics who outside of academia would be classed as who are notable as there work has been quoted by a broad spectrum. Rules on journalists need to be clarified by putting in the village pump again to reassess. This is especially a case for people like this gentlemen who is not just a local journalist, he is a regular voice on a national radio station and as per previous comments a precedent has been set with Mickey Clarke and Charlie Stayt - in a legal case of law this would be seen as an acceptance that well known journalists are accepted as different.165.225.80.95 (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of that has any bearing on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. You want to create a standardized set of rules for journalist notability? Great, go for it. But you need to to do that first, through creating a discussion and gaining a consensus, and then cite it at AFD. You can’t cite it already. It doesn’t exist yet. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet #3 and #4 cover WP:JOURNALIST rather than the first two of Creative professionals. People really need to ignore the first two rules, Other people are quoting Young's work on twitter and noting his comments in their own writing. Young has created how many podcast shows for the BBC, been on the news how many times? That's covered by #3 in a way, however Journalists do the quoting, write the stories, ask the questions report the news. These aspects need to be applied, instead of this dogmatic perception that other people will write about him. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s just it: If he’s so well known and so well established for this incredible body of work of his, shouldn’t there be any third party sources attesting to this? As it is, there doesn’t seem to be anything more than editors personally attesting stuff like “Looks like he did a bunch podcasts”. Not sure that’s the type of thing JOURNALIST is trying to cover exactly... Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

again you attack anyone who has a different interpretation of the guidelines or who point out the flaws in those guidelines. Firstly rebeccagreen argued that citations of the articles work are enough - you say they are only copying a tweet across - but this is not a valid point as citing bodies of work is usually just copying vabatum from that person - also as another post pointed out any business journalists analysis could have been quoted, but they chose his. There is no rules saying the quality of work is key to citations, just that they are widely cited and as there are many business journalists at the BBC alone they could have quoted Mr. Amhed and Co who did there own analysis, but they quoted Rob Young. Secondly he has a huge body for work for the bbc as he is on nearly five days a week reporting and analyzing business news (which the BBC have made into podcasts nit Mr. Young) - that he is not written about by a third party is not unusual for journalists which is point made by many here. A good example of this is Sean O'Neill the chief reporter for the Times. He has no page here, and just a quick Google news search shows that he has only had a story written about his battle with cancer and not about his huge volume of work as a top journalist. There is enough evidence here to show Rob Young is widely cited by secondary sources, and the primary sources show he is notable for his volume of work - again different from your opinion, but again THIS will be attacked as inexperienced and don't know the rules! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:9DFA:FD51:7348:A3AE (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t take these discussions so personally. It is not “an attack” to voice ones stance that people are interpreting policies or guidelines either incorrectly or setting the standards a little too low. It’s a standard aspect of these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Radcliffe (film producer)[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources, film credits are exclusively as a producer, which does not qualify for any subject-specific guidelines due to association with notable projects. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 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. Looks like we aren't going to agree on this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Grisham[edit]

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

I propose simply deleting this article. As you can see, someone placed a notability tag there. She doesn’t have enough reliable sources to establish and verify her own notability. Her current job is her “notability” of this article but where are the verifiable facts about her as a person? And most of the sources listed here are not reliable, such as Heavy.com, or sources only mention her once / in passing. Even the WhiteHouse.gov link is broken. If the page isn’t chosen for deletion I recommend redirecting it to Office of the First Lady of the United States as an alternative. Trillfendi (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The role she holds is not one that confers an automatic inclusion freebie on every person who holds it, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get her over the WP:GNG bar — it's referenced mostly to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other people, and even the few sources that are actually about her aren't all that substantive (or necessarily even reliable). Bearcat (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles about her in Business Insider, the Washington Post, Newsweek, CNN, and in French in ParisMatch, VanityFair, Madame Le Figaro. She clearly meets WP:GNG. The article definitely needs improvement, as is not encyclopaedic in tone. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No she doesn’t. The Business Insider article is about a passive aggressive Twitter war with an Ellen Show producer and Kathy Griffin and the headline even only refers to her as “Melania Trump’s spokesperson”. Washington Post article headline refers to her as “First Lady’s spokeswoman” and Grisham did not even respond to request for comment, as spokeswoman for herself! CNN article is about Melania. Newsweek refers to her as “Melania Trump’s spokeswoman” in headline and article is in the same vein as WaPo. To be honest, the CNN article is the one that made me notice this pattern and propose deletion. All of these articles are about Melania Trump rather than herself. No source verifies details in this article or even goes into detail about herself and I have yet to come across one. Vanity Fair France makes reference to her in relation to Melania, yet don’t even take the time to bold her name like they do every other person, and don’t mention her as a standalone figure. Even the reclusive, nonverbal hermit Hope Hicks has detailed articles about her and she was also a Trump spokeswoman. Grisham does not have her own notability; when this administration ends or if she resigns, what can be said of her as her own person? Nothing.Trillfendi (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Sources in article already establish notability. There are all the newspaper sources on her appointment and the separate Newsweek article on her putative violation of the Hatch Act. Nom's complaints about broken links are not a reason to delete an article. Nom's complaints about lack of verifiable facts are refuted by the verifiable facts in the article.192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

192.160.216.52 (talk) I didn’t say the broken White House link was the reason for deletion, I simply said it’s broken. Until she can get a stand alone article where they don’t even have to mention Melania’s name in the headline every single time, I stand by my initial assessment that all of these articles are predominantly about the Trumps and only mention her in passing. Even that Fox 10 Phoenix referred to her as “single mother” in their headline instead of her own name—for an article that’s supposed to be about her (just rude). “Grisham was the proprietor of Sound Bite Public Relations, LLC of Gilbert, Arizona.” yet it just shows her phone number and a map. A business that’s supposed to be hers gives no actual details?Trillfendi (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. I don't think sources like "Local mom gets a job in the White House" should be used to establish notability. The rest are not enough. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Trillfendi's source analysis in their response to RebeccaGreen's keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - between the Arizona media coverage of her appointment, which is about her and not Melania, and the Newsweek coverage of the Hatch Act violation, I think she just barely passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were scraping the bottom of the barrel here, she doesn’t meet “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.”Trillfendi (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources here aren't on her, and the ones that are directly cover her appear trivial (hiring, "local gal makes good") per my review and the comments of others above, especially Trillfendi. SportingFlyer talk 13:32, 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 16:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zineta Blank[edit]

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

Many issues here, as seen in the templates, but my proposition is on the notability front. My German skills are remedial at best but of these sources don’t demonstrate her notability, they try to connect it to other models’ careers or judging the Ford Supermodel of the World competition (one source given about that makes no mention of her). No source could be found in English, or in reliable fashion sources like Vogue, NYT, etc. Non-notable model agent. Trillfendi (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: both English and German source searches turn up nothing to suggest passage of WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMODEL. SITH (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Off wiki research suggests vanity creation and maintenance Lyndaship (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My before search doesn't turn up anything which seems to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:03, 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 16:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mizuo Tamai[edit]

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

Boilerplate rationale adapted from my previous AfDs of similar photographer articles (such as Keizaburō Saeki), which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion, but have improved and de-orphaned quite a few more when sources have been available.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. None of the English transliterations turned up anything of use. He appears once by name in the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography, but without elaboration.

I have also checked his Japanese name, but all I found was this page, which appears to be either a fan page or something produced by the photographer himself, so it is not reliable for the purposes of verifying notability, and this book, "玉井+瑞夫+"&dq="玉井+瑞夫+", which appears to be a trivial mention. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted.

Courtesy ping to Hoary, who is knowledgeable on the topic of Japanese photographers, and whose commentary on these AfDs is invaluable to me, especially when it causes me to alter my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could've sworn most of the non-notable Japanese photographers had been nominated en bloc. Anyway, PMC's thorough source searches corroborate the conclusion I reached looking for offline sources through WorldCat, JSTOR and Dawsonera which is that Tamai fails WP:CREATIVE. SITH (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've deliberately been doing them one by one to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. Some of them are reasonably notable - I've avoided nominating anyone who actually has a ja.wiki article, or who I can find even a decent sliver of sourcing for. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: that moment when I go through my AfD stats for my old account and realised I had a Japanese photographer trainwreck nomination... SITH (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk it up to youthful enthusiasm and never speak of it again? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 玉井瑞夫インターネット写真展 (Tamai Mizuo intānetto shashinten, described above: "appears to be either a fan page or something produced by the photographer himself") is the top page of a website about Tamai and his works. It seems to have been put together scrupulously. However, it's a private production by a niece of the photographer, and thus hardly usable for our purposes. Tamai had a long and complex career in which he seems to have tried his hand at a wide variety of photography, reaching a professional and/or exhibition-worthy level in several of them but not obviously becoming particularly well known in any. Perhaps he's best known now as an associate/friend of Ei-Q; perhaps the most widely used photograph of Ei-Q is the one by Tamai that's used on the cover of this book (published by this rather prominent art gallery in Shibuya), which is also described as containing a photo-essay on Ei-Q by Tamai. I suspect that I could find more sources about Tamai in books, but I'll lack the time to search for them until a year or so from now (if not longer). Tamai was still alive in 2005; I don't know if he's still alive now, but if he is then he surely would have retired. His niece's website about him seems appreciative but primarily informative. A [beyond-a-mere-stub] article here about him is something I'd like to read. However, I can't foresee anyone creating it. Delete without prejudicing the fate of any future article about him. Uh, PMC, on your pinging Polbot, please see the last part of my comment at your previous AfD nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit. It's not intentional, I forgot to uncheck the box on Twinkle. Although I suppose it does create a helpful record of all the nominations in one place. Thanks as always for looking into these for me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:39, 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 Draft. Withdrawn by nominator and moved to draft. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cholera epidemic in Lexington, KY[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedic article, at least not in this form. Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this was a student's work prematurely moved to the main space, so that I move it to the draft space and withdraw this nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 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) 04:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aborted (The Clash album)[edit]

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

Not only is this an unreleased album, it was never recorded. A number of songs were written with, according to the one source, some hope it would become the next Clash album. There is no indication that this ever even got off the ground. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: poorly-written speculative essay, containing factual inaccuracies (Joe Strummer died in 2002, not 2003 as stated several times in the article). The one source in the article and its contents are already included in the Clash article, so there is nothing to merge. And a redirect isn't possible as Aborted was not the name of the album, it's an invented title by the article creator, so it's not a valid search term. Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM and is basically a fancrufty, speculative essay. SITH (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current state of the article is no reason to delete. That no reliable sources can be found to support its claims for notability is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have some familiarity with this situation. Upon Joe Strummer's untimely death (in 2002, not 2003), news broke that he had recently been writing with Mick Jones. That is well-known and confirmed in this article's one source. But fans and media jumped all over this little piece of news, launching into wishful thinking about a reunion of the classic Clash lineup, with a melancholy "what could have been" feel. It was fully rumors and speculation, leading to a false "lost album" legend over the years. The topic is best left to fan sites where fantasies and legends are encouraged. But there is not, and never will be, verification of the sort necessary for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Conner (engineer)[edit]

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

Interesting historical stuff, but it appears that merely having an entry in the "Dictionary of Scottish Architects" is not sufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO (as per my suspicion and this comment at the BLP noticeboard). Searching for sources about Scotsmen named Conner is admittedly not without issues, so if someone can come up with a better source, please do tell. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Current sourcing is entirely not in-depth enough. And searches did not turn up enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I make frequent use of the DSA in referencing articles about Scottish towns and their buildings, for which it is an invaluable resource, but would in no way see appearance in that database of a building or anyone associated with work on it as evidence of notability. Regarding this case, Glasgow architects are quite well covered in books nowadays, so I would have expected that if the subject's practice was significant, more detail could be found than passing mentions regarding work on the Arlington Baths Club. I don't see the subject's encyclopaedic notability established and, given the subject's role being limited to two lesser phases of development on that building, I also don't see a merge or redirect as appropriate. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless I am missing something the notability of the subject has not been demonstrated and I would agree that inclusion in the Dictionary of Scottish Architects does not in itself suggest notability. Indeed the DSA article does not suggest the sort of particularly prolific or high profile career that would generally be expected of someone meeting notability requirements. Equally, while his father had some notability due to his position in the Caledonian Railway, notability is not inherited. Dunarc (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (moved from talk page) As the author of the page I obviously would be a little biased in the assessment to retain or delete. I was interested in Benjamin Conner and felt he warranted a page due to his involvement in railway infrastructure (perhaps spurred on by his father Benjamin Conner) and also by the intriguing fact the Arlington Baths appears to be the only building which he constructed or indeed help to construct. I felt the page further supported both his father's page and that of the Arlington. I also hoped that further editing may bring to light what structures in Scotland he had been responsible for as a civil engineer. As for his contribution to the Arlington Baths, whilst it may be a 'lesser' addition he did in fact complete the existing façade of the building which has Grade A architectural status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bespinfugee (talk • contribs) 10:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he meets WP:ANYBIO for being elected to Institution of Civil Engineers for his work on railway structure design. The emphasis on the only recorded building design by other voters is incorrect because architecture was not his career focus. Did anyone read the DAB "engineer"? Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean that qualifies via the "recipient of well-known award or honor"? Does that apply to an organization with 88,000 members? Seems like a rather low bar there... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae raises a valid point. Overall membership of the ICE is huge, and I do not think that that is honour enough to meet notability - I think you would have to at least be elected as a fellow of the ICE before notability criteria was met - as the article stans, Conner seems only to have been an associate member, which the ICE article would suggest is quite low down in the membership. Dunarc (talk) 19:27, 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 merge to Acid Rain Program. Sandstein 16:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Rain Retirement Fund[edit]

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

Non-notable environmental activist organization, apparently local to Maine. Article is mostly sourced to their own web site, which is long dead. I tried improving the contents and salvaging what could be; in the process I realized that the whole article is basically a massive WP:COPYVIO of the organization's dead web pages. For example:

The Acid Rain Retirement Fund raises money and bids alongside polluters in the annual auctions for as many allowances as their funds can buy. was copied straight from thier home page,[4]
The whole "Accomplishments" section is lifted word for word from their April 2013 press release.[5].

I did not find any independent coverage to pass WP:NORG, and the copyright violations by themselves would require a full rewrite, but from what sources? Hence delete. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There's not a single WP:Reliable source utilized in the article which establishes the subject's notability; of the fourteen sources cited in that article (most of them primary), thirteen of them do not even mention the subject. The only one which does mention the organization is their press release from their own website, and the content it supports are blatant copvios. I did some independent searching but could not find viable sources to establish notability for this organization. It's also hard to escape the conclusion that the article strays considerably far away from describing the organization itself. Regardless, with both WP:GNG and WP:NORG being failed here, this is a fairly straight-forward call. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete. Gee I'm surprised you folks are having such difficulty finding reliable sources for this article. I found several that cited ARRF with a brief Google search, including:

WIRED. 2004. Using Capitalism to Clean the Sky

https://www.wired.com/2004/04/using-capitalism-to-clean-the-sky/

Debra Israel. Environmental Participation in the U.S. Sulfur Allowance Auctions.

Indiana State University. http://isu.indstate.edu/disrael/so2_ere_fig.pdf

Early retirement for SO2. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/prius/partthree/story/0,,1322030,00.html

Blas Luis Pérez Henríquez. 2016. Environmental Commodities Markets and Emissions Trading: Towards a Low-Carbon Future Routledge, p. 116

Scott J. Callan, Janet M. Thomas. Environmental Economics and Management : Theory, Policy and Applications. Cengage Learning, Oct 28, 2009 cited p. 280.

Harry Moren. 2009. The Difficulty of Fencing in Interstate Emissions: EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule Fails to Make Good Neighbors. Ecology Law Quarterly Volume 36.

PRABINA RAJIB. 2014. COMMODITY DERIVATIVES AND RISK MANAGEMENT. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.

U.S. Environmental Protection Administration. 2018. Clean Air Markets: SO2 Allowance Auctions, 1993-2018.

https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/so2-allowance-auctions Official record of ARRF purchases of emissions allowances may be found each year 1995-2010.

Until the recent change in Presidential Administration, ARRF was actually listed on the EPA homepage as one of 3 organizations buying allowances to prevent their use.

Doesn't this mean ARRF is sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia? Seems like. Sorry I haven't had much time lately to edit this article, but my editing time has been eaten up dealing with other stuff.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC) I do not mean to suggest this is a comprehensive list of sources--it is not. But the ease with which these were found, and the frequency with which ARRF has been noted in the publications of others, does suggest it has been noticed by many. Inclusion in scholarly books is particularly indicative, especially if it is cited as an example of emissions trading to prevent acid rain. Is it notable that ARRF has withdrawn emissions allowances for more than 9 million tons of air pollution from use by anyone? Does one know of any other organization or person who has done that? Also, although based in Maine, ARRF has assisted individuals and groups nationally in learning about acid rain, especially school kids--it is after all, an educational organization.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps; you are definitely building the case now. This may be enough to convince me to switch my !vote, but I'd like to highlight some of the weaknesses in the sources, all the same: The Wired article is a bit of a blurb, and only mentions the ARRF three times, and thus is not what you would call in-depth coverage, and the piece from The Guardian is even more underwhelming in this respect. The EPA is a WP:PRIMARY source, and thus not useful for demonstrating proper WP:NOTABILITY. The Debra Israel article obviously discusses the ARRF in something approaching the detail we'd like to see, but it is unpublished and thus less than ideal. However, I do believe that, for all of their flaws, these sources are beginning to add up to something. I presume that the additional sources are behind paywalls, or else you would have linked them here; when I get a chance, I will look into them to see how robust and direct the coverage is there. Since these remaining sources give the appearance of all being WP:RS if even one or two that discuss the ARRF in a non-cursory fashion, I'll change my !vote. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree about the paper by Debra Israel. If you can find it on the internet, it has been made public and is therefore published. Moreover, it was published under the auspices of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana State University, which is the principal training ground for management-level personnel in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and many similar state agencies, and is described in Wikipedia as "the largest public policy and environmental studies school of its kind in the United States." Furthermore, I believe ARRF is cited in several of the references in that paper. I will try and check, tho they are not n my library.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not what "published" means in either general parlance or in the specific academic sense--which you must know, being as you have a PhD. More to the point of relevant usage here, it is not "published" as that term is defined under our WP:Reliable sources policy, which requires that the source has been passed through an identifiable editorial body with an established reputation for fact checking/peer review, that is providing a platform for that piece as an express publication. Self-published sources are generally not permitted for the purposes of WP:verification or WP:notability analyses, and that threshold is not really altered by it's being hosted on a university server, which is common practice when academics wish to share an as-yet unpublished work in progress. So most editors would discount it as being viable towards the analysis at all. But in this instance, I am crediting it with some persuasive influence; I would never !vote to let the article stand on that one source, but as part of a larger collection of sources, I'm inclined to give it some weight. Just not as much as something that comes from a journal. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think what "published" means in academe is as uniform as you suppose. In top research universities it may mean a book or peer-reviewed journal article, but in many four-year universities and colleges, esp. those lacking graduate programs, anything that has been made public--and is therefore believed to be subject to outside comment--may be considered "published" when it comes time for performance reviews, even national conference papers (which are often peer-reviewed before accepted for the program), book reviews, encyclopedia articles, and internet journals, which often are not peer reviewed. Each school, actually each department, sets its own criteria for performance evaluation, including tenure and promotion decisions.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Acid Rain Program. Among other things, the detailed material in Wired [6] merits a mention in Acid Rain Program. As the article creator notes above, the Trump administration famously gutted the EPA website, and in the process removed the mention of Acid Rain Retirement Fund from it. (Might be able to find that sort of stuff via Wayback.) Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Acid Rain Program per Softlavender. (Selectively, to avoid any copyvio issues.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:14, 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 16:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sonny[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Flooded with them hundreds 09:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing in the article, its references or anything I've found in source searches suggests he passes WP:MUSICBIO. SITH (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of general notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Little more than a bedroom DJ, no evidence at all of notability. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 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. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 16:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace (2018 film)[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. Closest to coverage in a reliable source that I can find is [7], which is more about the director than about the film (and is arguably not independent, as it is a Harvard publication about a Harvard alumnus). Originally nominated for PROD, dePROD by Necrothesp, arguing that it passes WP:NFILM due to having a notable cast. However, the guidelines at WP:NFILM states that an article may be considered notable if The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. (emphasis mine). I don't believe that the latter condition is fulfilled, especially in the total absence of coverage in reliable sources (or even reviews?). It's possible that it may later receive more coverage, as it made its debut at a film festival, but that would just mean that this is WP:TOOSOON. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 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) 01:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The film appears to have earned the director an award [8] at the London Independent Film Festival, and has coverage elsewhere - [9][10][11]. Hzh (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hzh's arguments have not been discussed, and a single delete vote without any text is not going to cut it right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:00, 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) 03:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harini Ravi[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. Citations provided are not notable. UNICEF links are dead and appear to be passing mentions. Article created by an editor banned for paid editing. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google and Google news searches provided no reliable sources for the subject. I see no credible claim for notability as a musician (WP:MUSICBIO) and even if there were, without sources to support the claim, the subject fails. Unless there are more sources in print-only media, that cannot be found using Google, the subject does not seem to meet any notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above Spiderone 14:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:03, 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. and salt. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modestas Mankus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Quite simply, zero coverage of the person apart from two unabashedly puff-piece interviews. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. (I must say that there seems to be a lot of non-notable stuff coming from AfC in the last few days...) NOTE: this was at AfD before, but due to some draft moving shenanigans, I can't tell whether it qualifies for CSD:G4. Erring on the side of caution here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hide discussions with confirmed sockpuppets
Keep Clear sources provided for notability from Huffington Post and Cambridge News. Seems to qualify. More sources could be added but overall seems sufficient enough.User:vanmodhe (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Note: I've struck this vote, as I've blocked the user as a sockmaster who was socking at this AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that would be the puff-piece (i.e., entirely uncritical, by-the-numbers) interviews I mentioned. That's not independent, in-depth coverage... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] :: I disagree that those interviews do not count as an independent sources. There are more than several questions that are not "puff-piece" type of questions. User:vanmodhe (talk) 15 November 2018 (UTC) Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] If you read WP:RS, interviews are specifically excluded as, well, interviewing the subject creates material that comes directly from the subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] :::: I have read it and there is no mention of interviews. Also, the interviews once again do not come directly from the subject in mention. Yes, the interviewee is interviewing the subject, however, they are allowed to make up their own mind as writers. It's not a press release or a promotional interview. There is no syndication between the two parties. User:vanmodhe (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] We try to avoid non-independent, primary sources. It is a primary source because the facts come straight from the subject. "Q: What happened next? A: subject answer." I'm sorry you do not see why that is a problem. It is a very different process than a reporter for a good publication who goes through and verifies what multiple people have said about the same question. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] :::::: Interesting, I wouldn't define this as a primary source. If this source was an interview specifically made to be used for this Wikipedia article then yes I would understand but that's not the case and also HuffingtonPost has editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanmodhe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC) [reply] Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Keep Having read through all of the sources there is a clear argument for notability. Firstly, the subject has been interviewed by two well-respected sources and is the core subject of those interviews. Yes, the interviews are not critical of him as a subject, but they do not have to be to prove his notability. Secondly, he has clear achievement in business having founded Our Culture Mag which seems to be a fairly legitimate source as it appears on Google and Apple News. Having Googled his name, he comes up as a musician and entrepreneur which is mentioned in the article. Google News displays dozens of articles written by him for Entrepreneur Magazine and Our Culture Mag, a magazine he founded. Altogether, the subject’s biography could be improved, but I do not see any reason for deletion as of this moment. User:Josephhunz (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Note:I've struck this vote, as the user has been blocked as a sock of User:vanmodhe. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Most business owners, entrepreneurs and creative professionals are not notable. The fact he writes for his own non-notable magazine is of no consequence. Does he satisfy WP:CREATIVE for his writing? No.--Pontificalibus 07:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Closer note: The account Jospehhunz was created the same day it made the post above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hide discussions with confirmed sockpuppets

Keep Clear sources provided for notability from Huffington Post and Cambridge News. Seems to qualify. More sources could be added but overall seems sufficient enough.User:vanmodhe (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've struck this vote, as I've blocked the user as a sockmaster who was socking at this AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the puff-piece (i.e., entirely uncritical, by-the-numbers) interviews I mentioned. That's not independent, in-depth coverage... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:: I disagree that those interviews do not count as an independent sources. There are more than several questions that are not "puff-piece" type of questions. User:vanmodhe (talk) 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:RS, interviews are specifically excluded as, well, interviewing the subject creates material that comes directly from the subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::: I have read it and there is no mention of interviews. Also, the interviews once again do not come directly from the subject in mention. Yes, the interviewee is interviewing the subject, however, they are allowed to make up their own mind as writers. It's not a press release or a promotional interview. There is no syndication between the two parties. User:vanmodhe (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We try to avoid non-independent, primary sources. It is a primary source because the facts come straight from the subject. "Q: What happened next? A: subject answer." I'm sorry you do not see why that is a problem. It is a very different process than a reporter for a good publication who goes through and verifies what multiple people have said about the same question. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::: Interesting, I wouldn't define this as a primary source. If this source was an interview specifically made to be used for this Wikipedia article then yes I would understand but that's not the case and also HuffingtonPost has editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanmodhe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having read through all of the sources there is a clear argument for notability. Firstly, the subject has been interviewed by two well-respected sources and is the core subject of those interviews. Yes, the interviews are not critical of him as a subject, but they do not have to be to prove his notability. Secondly, he has clear achievement in business having founded Our Culture Mag which seems to be a fairly legitimate source as it appears on Google and Apple News. Having Googled his name, he comes up as a musician and entrepreneur which is mentioned in the article. Google News displays dozens of articles written by him for Entrepreneur Magazine and Our Culture Mag, a magazine he founded. Altogether, the subject’s biography could be improved, but I do not see any reason for deletion as of this moment. User:Josephhunz (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I've struck this vote, as the user has been blocked as a sock of User:vanmodhe. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most business owners, entrepreneurs and creative professionals are not notable. The fact he writes for his own non-notable magazine is of no consequence. Does he satisfy WP:CREATIVE for his writing? No.--Pontificalibus 07:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Closer note: The account Jospehhunz was created the same day it made the post above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those two "interviews" do not represent in-depth coverage and are clearly promotional. The Huffington Post one even contains a link to his crowdfunding campaign! Fails WP:BASIC.--Pontificalibus 07:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article that uses puffed-up weak sources to try to establish notability. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more sock content
Disagree that Huffington Post, Entrepreneur Magazine and Cambridge News are weak sources. Also, promotional articles are posted as such via these sources with appropriate tags. These are clearly not promotional. Also, they are not press releases, syndicated stories or conflicts of interest. All of these sources are independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanmodhe (talk • contribs) That's nice that you disagree, but that's the way it is. Primary sources are weak sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

even more sock content
Keep The overall article seems sufficient with reliable secondary sources. Keep. Canislupis0 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Note: I've struck this vote, as the user has been blocked as a sock of User:vanmodhe. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Closer note: The account Canislupis0 was created the same day it made the post above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] ***Closer note: The account User:Hammersoft is a stalker. Canislupis0 (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Further discussion at your talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Portrait Academy[edit]

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

No obvious notability. Only source self published Blitzcream (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a small art gallery/studio that might or might not be operating. I found this URL that has a scrolling banner announcing an "upcoming" event with a date in 2007!! PK T(alk) 13:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arts organizations are not entitled to an automatic notability freebie just because they can technically be verified as existing — they need to get over WP:ORGDEPTH on the strength of media coverage about them, which none of the sources here are demonstrating at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 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 Delete (G11). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shivangi Pathak[edit]

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

No claim of significance per WP:BLP, and it also undersourced as well for the minds of it. Sheldybett (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a case of WP:PROMO as this unreferenced autobiography is pure self-promotion, adding G11 regards Atlantic306 (talk) 13:54, 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. Wordgardener If you would like the article put in your userspace so can retrieve the text, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fred[edit]

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

None of the independent provided sources are more than mere mentions of the subject, does not pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, Google Scholar searches returned no evidence that the subject's work is widely cited, and I tried searching both for several different forms of the subject's name, and specifically for their listed publications and those that supposedly were influenced by them–the fact that the article only cites one other author of dubious notability as the subject's legacy leads me to believe that this subject does not pass WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi there, this my first article and I hope you'll forgive me if my response is incorrectly formatted. I added some more detail and more sources to this article. I'm not sure if they will satisfy the stated reasons for deletion, but I felt I needed to at least give it a try. I would say that some of the sources are definitely more than mentions of the subject mostly because they appear to based on the author's message and the terminology used in the book, even if they don't give full credit. I think this person is known for introducing a new technique in employee training, and has influenced multiple companies over the past two decades to use it. There has been coverage on this technique and this author for around 20 years. This person's method is now practiced in many hospitals and school systems because of their influence on two other authors to promote the same learning techniques. Thanks for your consideration. --Wordgardener (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the additional citations you've provided, the only one that appears to potentially have the sort of in-depth coverage of the subject necessary to demonstrate notability is [12], but most of the article is behind a paywall and the amount that is visible for free is not sufficiently in-depth. If it covers the subject in more depth, it would count toward the subject's notability. As for your claims that the subject's innovations have been put into practice, in the absence of sources that clearly reference or otherwise cite the subject they appear to be original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Saying that they "appear to be based" on Fred's publications simply because they are similar is insufficient–we need verifiable proof. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. If the speed to proficiency method was notable and well researched, then maybe the originator would be notable. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 02:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did my own search as well as checking the references in the article and I don't see significant independent coverage of him. A number of the article's references don't even mention his name and many are not independent. I didn't check those behind paywalls, but the others were not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:07, 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 All India Trinamool Student Congress. Sandstein 16:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trinankur Bhattacharya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Student and local politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics. Hitro talk 10:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Trinamool Student Congress - there is a reasonable amount of coverage (though not in the most reliable of sources), however since he is supposed to be notable via a political route he has to satisfy NPOL. NPOL clearly isn't met and thus a redirect to the group seems more reasonable than a delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems to be the best option Spiderone 14:57, 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 moved to Draft:Tahli Gill, as proposed. bd2412 T 18:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tahli Gill[edit]

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

fails WP:NCURL and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's a skip (team captain in curling) of Australian women's team on 2018 Pacific-Asia Curling Championships; she has player record in World Curling Federation database. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the Wp:NCURL criteria does she meet?

Have won a World Curling Tour event or participated in a Grand Slam of Curling event.
Have participated at the World Curling Championships or the World Mixed Doubles Curling Championship.
Have won a medal at one of the following World Curling Federation sanctioned events: the World Junior Curling Championships, World Senior Curling Championships, European
Curling Championships, World Mixed Curling Championship or the Pacific-Asia Curling Championships.
Have participated in the Brier or the Tournament of Hearts.
Have won a medal at the Canadian Junior Curling Championships.
Have won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championship, Canadian Senior Curling Championship or Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Trials.
Have participated in the Continental Cup of Curling, Canadian Olympic Curling Trials, TSN Skins Game or Canada Cup of Curling.
Is a member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame

I may have missed what was on the page but I don't see any of these criteria having been fulfilled and WP:GNG is not met. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft until the relevant event has been completed. WP:TOOSOON She may satisfy criterion Pacific-Asia Curling Championships by next week if all goes well? Aoziwe (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I didn't find any refs to Pacific-Asia Curling Championships, whcih have presubaly now completed. I did find 2 brief mentions in newspaper articles via ProQuest, which I have added to page, however neither is very strong GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:49, 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 16:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There is only one entry on this disambiguation page which is not a clear WP:Partial title match, and that entry—Dead Sea (novel)—can be dealt with by a hatnote at Dead Sea. Other than that, this disambiguation page is simply a list of pages with "Dead Sea" in the title, which is not what a WP:Disambiguation page is supposed to be. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've cleaned up the dab page, and it is unneeded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would not be proper to make a hatnote at the main Dead Sea article to the novel, which is clearly obscure. It would be giving outrageously undue coverage to the novel. It is proper for the main article to have a hatnote just saying for other uses, see the disambiguation page. This is a good usage of a disambiguation page. (Besides, I think there probably are other uses, which might have been in the disambiguation page but have been deleted, I am not checking.) TWODABS policy does not require deletion of disambiguation page, it just states that a disambiguation page might not be necessary. Here it serves a purpose. --Doncram (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the novel is too obscure to warrant a direct hatnote, but not for a hatnote to a dab page whose only separate entry is itself??? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, exactly that. Glad you understand.

Also, by the way, the disambiguation page might include "See also" type links perhaps to some of the partial match type items that have been deleted from the page. --Doncram (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it could include links to other "Dead Sea" places which show up in Google search on "Dead Sea of", such as:

"Dead Sea of China", a waterpark: "The saltwater pool, known as China's 'Dead Sea' is located in Daying county, Sichuan province, and was a riot of colour as the masses grabbed their rubber rings and descended upon it yesterday. The indoor water park is said to be the largest in China and covers 30,000 square meters." Covered in several sources.
Manitou Beach or Little Manitou Lake, referred to as "The Dead Sea of Canada" in at least this source and perhaps more generally, I am not sure
Probably the Great Salt Lake is referred to as a "Dead Sea".
The Dead Sea on the border of Israel is not the only highly salty lake in a endorheic basin, to use the geology term, while perhaps many/most others are called Dead Sea.

These are not "partial matches" which I know enrage some disambiguation page editors to no end (I don't know why, I don't see them as so terrible to mention). These are "sometimes also known as" type places, which are very valid to include. --Doncram (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per TWODABS. Making a hatnote at the article does not violate UNDUE, it simply tells people where to find something. The other suggested "dead seas" do not meet the qualifications for being listed on a disambig page - partial title matches and nicknames do not apply. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:55, 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. Willing to provide a copy if anyone wants to merge anything from it into WWDC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stump the Experts[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be nontrivial coverage of this event in reliable sources. At most, reliable sources may mention it in passing as part of a discussion of WWDC, or provide some links to videos of past sessions. —Kodiologist (t) 14:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 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) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - company gab session, no refs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:33, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Bastien[edit]

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

Page was created by subject and by those personally connected to subject. Has not demonstrated they are discernibly notable and is instead purposefully pushing his own business. Larsfisherman (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable business person who has founded non notable businesses. The article just says he founded some businesses. Too few sources. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are for his manage proposal and not his business activity. WP:TOSOON. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:27, 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 redirect to Graduation (album). Sandstein 16:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Glory (song)[edit]

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

Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Already explained at length within Graduation album article. (AfD opened by request on behalf of 64.26.97.61)) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized ((R from song)) to album article Graduation (album) for now is a fair solution per WP:ATD-R and WP:MUSICOUTCOMES, and it can boldly be done before nominating for deletion, cf. WP:BLAR. Article can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. Sam Sailor 13:55, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RoboCop (song)[edit]

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

Contains unreliable source(s), original research, does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. (AfD opened by request on behalf of 64.26.97.61) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There seems to be some GNG coverage already used in the article, worst case, redirect to whatever album it's from. You have 20 seconds to comply. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:49, 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 no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coldest Winter (song)[edit]

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

Contains original research, does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Content can be incorporated into 808s & Heartbreak article, where its hardly mentioned. (AfD opened by request on behalf of 64.26.97.61) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I would like you to point out where you believe I used OR within the article because I have looked through and there are sources throughout - if you are considering citing the information to the left of the infobox as OR, then you are incorrect because that's general information about the song to begin the article, many editors do that to song pages. Also it didn't need to chart to be suitable for Wiki, since there is information about the live performances, music video and more that can't be merged into the album page. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:56, 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 no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Say You Will (Kanye West song)[edit]

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

Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Also contains original research. Similar to Bad News, the information regarding live performance at Hollywood Bowl can be used in a separate article designated for the concert. Considering the amount of coverage the concert seemed to have received, and reviews from published by verifiable sources that have individuals have taken the time to gathered here along with the fact that its has its own page at Wiki Commons, quite odd the concert (which I think meets notability standards) doesn't have a Wikipedia article. (AfD opened by request on behalf of 64.26.97.61) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSONG. There is more criteria than a song having charted listed there, one part says: 'Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.' The song was covered by two artists, rapped over by two artists and a remix was released by West featuring another artist. Therefore, it meets the standard of notability. Also, I have fixed unreliable sources now. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:56, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mister United Continents[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable contest. Page deleted in 2016 by discussion but recreated. No sources only links to the organization itself. Only one winner has an article and maybe they should not have one. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pageant.-Richie Campbell (talk) 03:48, 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. Very strong consensus that there is no inherent failure to satisfy notability (with certain very clearly notable examples) and thus any AfDs should be strictly limited to federations that fail to meet notability. There was also consensus to specifically point out a need to check that country's wiki during any future BEFORE checks.

Some of the Keep !votes indicated specific statements that all articles should be kept, however this aspect is less clear-cut. I considered leaving this AfD open until the Keep all aspect was resolved, but that would be functionally ignoring a consensus on this specific AfD. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Orienteering Federation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this article in 2015, but it was closed as no consensus (NPASR). Since then, I still do not believe that this organization, or other national orienteering federations / organizations are notable for their own articles. Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also bundling the following pages as non-notable orienteering organizations:

Orienteering Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belarus Orienteering Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Croatian Orienteering Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Český svaz orientačních sportů (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dansk Orienterings-Forbund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eesti Orienteerumisliit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finnish Orienteering Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pakistan Orienteering Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fédération Française de Course d'Orientation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deutscher Turner Bund, Abteilung Sport Orientierungslauf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Magyar Tájékozódási Futó Szövetség (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Federazione Italiana Sport Orientamento (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I note that none of the also bundled pages have been tagged for deletion, in spite of the fact that it is 9 days since the main article was tagged. Second, I note that these articles are a mixed lot. Some are quite detailed and well referenced and some are very brief. --Bduke (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I had to re-edit the nomination as I had the new tags pointing to the original AfD. I think they are now correct. Like other national sporting organisations, I think Orienteering Federations are likely to be notable. I have no interest in this sport. The article for my own country, Australia, is well sourced and and the others can be with some effort. --Bduke (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't looked up all the nominated federations, but the one that's the reason I found this AfD – the Finnish Orienteering Federation – is the national organisation for 60,000 active participants, according to excellent third-party sources. At the very least, I think the nomination is a bit too broad. /Julle (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, there's no reason to blanket-delete national orienteering federations. Although it's not an olympic sport, it's still somewhat popular in some European countries. Some federations might be small and perhaps not notable, but certainly not all of them should deleted. --Pudeo (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Some of these are quite well referenced. And some are not, but a quick look at the various home language wikis for these articles shows that there is a lot of material that could be brought over. Just because a lot of the world does not have English as their first language does not mean ignore it. Aoziwe (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. I disagree with the blanket nomination - surely notability (WP:GNG and WP:ORG in particular) has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not merely by saying "hey these look stubby and unpopular". On the other hand, I don't see a single valid "Keep" argument above. "Likely to be notable"? Notability needs to be proven, that's what guidelines are for, and there's no point in guessing. "60,000 active participants" - so what? WP:GNG and WP:ORG require sources, not hands. "Although it's not an olympic sport, it's still somewhat popular in some European countries" - doesn't matter since the articles are about the organizations, not about the sport. "Quite well referenced" - the best among the arguments but still not enough: do these references count towards meeting WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG or not? Finally, as a member of WP Croatia, I'd say probably the best choice would be to rename Croatian Orienteering Federation to Orienteering in Croatia and amend the contents accordingly. For one thing, it makes no sense to create an article on a more narrow topic in the absence of an article on a more general topic. This could be the way to go for other nominated articles too, although again this is best decided on a case-by-case basis. GregorB (talk) 21:02, 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 United States elections, 2018. Content may be merged from history. Sandstein 16:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Wave 2018[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Should not have been originally created and it is debatable of whether this will be notable given the results being announced. Also, there has not been a history of any other "wave" articles. ----ZiaLater (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen this term frequently used and described in media sources over the past few months. I'm really not seeing how Crystal applies here, given the expansive coverage before the midterm. Even if Republicans win all 435 House seats (a laughable proposition), it still doesn't change the pre-existing coverage. (I'll make a formal vote once I've had a better chance to look over the sourcing). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the sources, and I think this meets notability requirements. The amounts of sources proposing a "blue wave" are massive, and even now there is wide discussion about what happened. One CNN article is calling the event a Rainbow wave rather than a blue wave, while another article by the Hill indicates that there was a countering red wave. There was some concerns about WP:Crystal, but I don't think the policy applies: the article does not make a prediction, but describes a prediction made by numerous third parties. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spirit of Eagle: The way I interpreted this article was that it was created out of the potential that a "wave" of Democratic politicians would be elected. That is also how I read it in the media, not being portrayed necesarily as a "movement" but the "potential" of Democrats achieving a majority, winning in landslides, being part of a huge "wave", etc. Since this article was created before the election, most of its content seems WP:CRYSTALBALL. Following the elections, it seems there are arguments on both sides of United States politics that there was either a "wave" or not one. This can never be determined except for possibly by scholars in some time. However, the term "blue wave" still is mostly discussed as the "potential" of the Democratic party making huge gains during the election. This is highly subjective and seems to not be the case.[1][2][3] ----ZiaLater (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article is about a prediction, rather than a prediction in and of itself. This prediction was heavily prominent during the 2018 midterm cycle; the very fact that its still being discussed, debated and disputed indicates its notable.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misnomer; it never happened. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-documented. I don't like the argument that it didn't happen, because we still have the JobsNotMobs article even though Republicans lost the House. wumbolo ^^^ 21:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: This may have to be looked at as well. JobsNotMobs does not seem very notable or encyclopedic.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem here isn't the question of whether the election results represented a "blue wave" happening or not — the problem is that regardless of whether it happened or not, none of the content really demonstrates a reason why "Blue Wave 2018" would need a separate article from United States elections, 2018. It's not a standalone thing of its own, it's just an aspect of the election itself. We didn't create or maintain or keep "Blue Wave of 2006" as a separate article from the United States elections, 2006, and the only difference between the 2018 and 2006 blue waves runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS: our job is not to create or maintain an article about every phrase that happens to pop up in the current news cycle, it's to create and maintain articles about things that people will still be looking for articles about ten years from now. And by the same token, we never created an article about "Orange Crush" as a campaign mantra in the Canadian federal election, 2011 either — we do list it as an entry on Orange Crush (disambiguation), but the link is to the main election article itself, rather than to a standalone article about the use of "Orange Crush" in that election as a thing in its own right. JobsNotMobs is not the same thing: that's an actual concept that was brought up as a campaign issue intended to influence the election results, not just a descriptive phrase about one party's prospects in the election results. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be fully replaced by a single sentence in United States elections, 2018, which is all the due WP:WEIGHT this concept deserves in an encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 13:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per User:Netoholic and WP:NOTNEWS. The topic is/can be covered in encylopedic fashion at United States elections, 2018. (Delete JobsNotMobs too if ideological parity is desired.) — AjaxSmack 03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Blue Wave" is a term, and phenomenon (potential, worked towards or real) which has received significant coverage this year, outside the US as well as inside (I'm in Australia, and there were frequent references to it in discussions and reports about the US elections - and one of the existing references in this article is from the UK). The fact that there isn't an article about the blue wave in 2006 does not seem a valid reason to delete this article - although it might be possible to revise the article to "Blue Wave (US elections)", and have subsections on 2018, 2006, etc. (I also find coverage of "Blue Wave (of) 2006", and there is no mention of the term at all in the United States elections, 2006 article.) There's a Category of "American political catchphrases" (with 119 pages), so why not add this one? It certainly exists, and has significant coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States elections, 2018. It's a term that was generally used to describe the desired outcome in those election for the US Democrat party, and has no notability independent of those elections. People may wish to search it in future to see what articles from the pre-election period were talking about. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States elections, 2018 for reasons stated by FOARP. "Blue wave" was a descriptive term for a victory by one of the parties in the election, e.g., "Will there be a 'blue wave?'" Nicknames don't usually merit their own separate articles. Levivich (talk) 23:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — MRD2014 ^Talk 15:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Research Administrator[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG. Natureium (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an interested party, would adding third party/external references allow for this entry to remain? Thanks. Amgray19 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is required coverage from independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have some notability to me. The organisation behind the certification scheme may not be able to pass NORG, but the certification itself gets past GNG.
- Guide to national professional certification programs has the topic as a section heading and clearly has substantial coverage.
- Certification and Accreditation Programs Directory has the topic as a section heading and clearly has substantial coverage.
- Chapter 24 in Research Administration and Management gives it a short paragraph.
- Perceptions Of Research Administrators On The Value Of Certification (a doctoral thesis) is pretty much entirely about the CRA.
- "2010 Profile of a Research Administrator", Research Management Review, does not have in-depth discussion, but what it does have is some statistics on the proportion of research administrators that have the CRA. They do not include any other certifications, implying that this is the most widely recognised (possibly only) scheme in the field.
- "The research administrator as a professional", a different paper from Research Administration and Management, confirms that there are no other "education and certification program[s]" for the profession besides the CRA.

SpinningSpark 19:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources above it seems reasonable to say that the profession has enough coverage and consideration to pass GNG. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a couple of cite books added, there are more out there. Meets GNG. Sam Sailor 13:06, 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. Proposals to move the article to a different title are better dealt with through WP:RM. bd2412 T 18:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trinbagonian nationalism[edit]

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

Essentially an essay about cultural identity in Trinidad and Tobago, it is comprised almost entirely of original research. None of the provided sources use the phrase "Trinbagonian nationalism", or even just "nationalism", and many seem to have very loose relationships with the claims that they supposedly support in the text. A google scholar search for "Trinbagonian nationalism" indicates that it's possible that a good article could be written on this topic with reliable sources, but it would require a complete rewrite from the current revision. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - clear-cut case of WP:A11 (coined by article author). Tagging in case an admin agrees. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout - That's what I get for jumping to conclusions. Still, voting delete. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than a hasty move to AfD, this seems a case of WP:CIR and WP:BITE. This article refers to nationalism among Trinidadians and Tobagonians; as you may see in the article just linked, Trinbagonian is just another term for the people of Trinidad and Tobago. A quick look at Books and Scholar shows that the term is appropriately used in scholarly circles. In fact, it is essential, and it is better known as "Trinidadians and Tobagonians" nationalism: Books and Scholar (I have access to even more references). You cannot discuss Trinbagonian politics broadly without referring to this nation's nationalism. The term simply refers to the universal "political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of" this particular nation (Trinidad and Tobago). To reiterate: the demonym Trinidadians and Tobagonians is interchangeable with Trinbagonian.

It may read as an essay. But it seems that user:SammyJ1234 began this article in the best way they could (here) when they noticed its lamentable absence from the English Wikipedia. When they requested a peer-review for the article (here), they showed more than good intentions. We need more attention on these topics. But rather than driving away new editors who are willing to put in the time and energies in filling up the gaps in areas where we badly need help, we should welcome them, thank them for their efforts, and lend them a hand (WP:LOSE2WIN). BTW, this AfD should be listed also in Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean. Den... (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you hugely for your support! I am desperate to improve this article and keep it up on Wikipedia. I'm happy to wait for editors to confer, but have taken your recommendations and am working to improve the article following your guidance.--SammyJ1234 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Wow. Full of original research. At some point, after lots of work, might be ready for mainspace, but clearly not now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. I completely agree with Den.... This is a notable and worthwhile article topic, albeit currently quite poorly-written and with an undesirable title plus a lack of encyclopaedia tone. Once improved (and its current essay-like state is no reason for deleting it) it should fill an important gap in this encyclopaedia. I have created a redirect to it from Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago, and I hope it will be moved to that as its main title once this discussion is concluded. The subject of nationalism within Trinidad and Tobago appears to have been written about in a well-cited publication entitled Race and Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago: A study of Decolonization in A Multiracial Society by Selwyn D. Ryan, 1972, as well as in the collaborative university website already cited in this article, as well as in this book. These alone ought to demonstrate that nationalism in these islands is an important encyclopaedic topic. But if the article creator can't swiftly fix these issues, then Onel5969's proposal to convert back to a draft for the time being is not at all an unreasonable one. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not about its subject. It's an essay about the country, very little of the article is about nationalism. Maproom (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago. Even Nom admits the subject is notable, it is important to remember WP:DINC. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Move? Delete? Keep? Draftify? Fairly evenly split.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Redirect to Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago per User talk:AlessandroTiandelli33 FOARP (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is real, and the name "Trinbagonian nationalism" is not an invention of the page author (it gets a few hits on Google Books and Google Scholar.) I don't really understand the justification for move/redirect, so I say keep. SJK (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and weak move) - I think there certainly is grounds for this. I don't think the status of the article is quite so dire as to necessitate removal. I am pro the keep because I think it is a term more likely to be looked for, but there is relatively little loss if it stays here and a new redirect is put in. There is sufficient sourcing to demonstrate the topic exists. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:47, 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 Alternative hip hop. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic hip hop[edit]

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

Lacking in verifiable sources to establish notability or credibility. (AfD opened by request on behalf of 64.26.97.61) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 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) 19:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with alternative hip hop.Trillfendi (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant reliable sources discussing the concept. We can't merge unsourced content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources discussing the genre (random example); it's just they're all spread out, which makes writing the article under our policies difficult. However, that's not a reason to delete it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own searching failed to find any WP:RS. The source pointed out by User:Ritchie333 is a reference to Guardians Of Sound: The Acoustic Hip Hop Ensemble. Some group calling themselves "The Acoustic Hip Hop Ensemble" doesn't mean "Acoustic Hip Hop" is an accepted genre name. I could declare that my garage band plays, "narco-classical synth pop", and that would mean exactly nothing. I'd be happy to see this AfD relisted to give User:Ritchie333 time to show us other sources he's found, but the way things are now, I can't see any reason to keep this. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 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 no consensus. By this, I mean there is a consensus to merge, but not where. However, that decision can happen on the talk page, outside AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Arrow[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: M or Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spider-Man: The Other. There are enough articles linking to the character that some context is needed. This target has some info already but would need a little more to be truly useful. Argento Surfer (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lopifalko (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gekas[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:ARTIST; no books published; no solo exhibitions (only group exhibitions, and none at notable galleries); awards aren't particularly notable (only 1 has a WP article); not in any museum collections. Lopifalko (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is SIGCOV in Google news, mostly around this photographs resembling paintings of his daughter, or something like that. This and an award nomination seems to sum up the coverage. At first I thought it was a one-time thing, butt he coverage spans several years and is global (for some reason). I added two Google books sources and several decent news sources. The novelty of the portraits of his daughter appears to have led to persistent coverage in many languages and publications. Meets GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sustained coverage over a number years. Multinational coverage. Seems to have sufficient WP:NEXIST to pass WP:GNG. If a subject passes GNG it does not have to pass any NSUBJECT. The subject has been noted worthy by multiple IRS as a photagraphic artist even if not within our current guidelines. If it improves the encyclopedia then WP:IAR, and I believe it does. It seems to me from the IRS to be a well done relatively unique photo-art form and deserves an article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough references to pass WP:ARTISTS. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Withdrawing nomination. Apologies for having been too hasty. Thank you ThatMontrealIP for your good work. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:50, 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 keep. Basically, nobody challenged the additional sources presented by ThatMontrealIP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Thompson (photographer)[edit]

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

Doubtful GNG, appears to be publicity-focused, and no secondary sources. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might scrape under the bar of WP:ARTIST given there are plenty of independent reliable sources out there. However I would expect it to be WP:NOTYET because the awards are not notable, only one self-published book, and 4 solo exhibitions (1 of which at a notable venue, Royal Palace of Caserta, but what kind of exhibition I do not know). -Lopifalko (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I added three sources: Daily Beast, Petpixel and an Italian Newspaper blog. He is mentioned a lot on the web, usually in independent magazines. The three sources added make for weak GNG. You do not need awards, museum collections or a book by Phaidon to meet GNG, although those are of course good! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not even the self-published book now after ThatMontrealIP removed it. As far as I know PetaPixel is not a WP:RELIABLE source, and not a notable source for what it cites: "Thompson has received attention for his artistic interpretation of the selfie" and neither is the other source cited for that claim, Fstoppers. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The selfie attention is a very reasonable and mild claim, which I sourced. I'm not trying to puff this guy up, I am just stating what I found in searches. I removed the self-pub book as it did not make sense to have a section devoted to a book sold through the subject's web site, sourced by the same site. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, if you mean you added the PetaPixel and Fstoppers sources to show attention from those web sites then that attention is not notable. If you added those sources because they talk about attention given him from elsewhere then they are again inappropriate: the PetaPixel article mentions only coverage by The Daily Beast and upvotes on comments on Reddit, and the Fstoppers article does not mention attention he has received from elsewhere. Regarding the book, it makes perfect sense to have a section for publications that lists a self-published work. Self-published works are respectable. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a volunteer here and not interested in tedious back and forth arguments. There's a ton of coverage for this, including Rangefinderonline.com. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not interested in arguing for the sake of it, I only seek to help enlighten. Again, Rangefinder is not a notable publication — we have no article on it. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already highly enlightened and cognitively aware, but thanks. As to the sources, you have disqualified three independent, in-depth sources so far. Please point out the WP policy that says an RS has to also have an article on it. If that is the case we will need to remove the millons of sources in use on Wikipedia from publications that do not have their own WP page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "I only seek to help enlighten", I meant that I wasn't arguing for the sake of it, I was hoping to shed worthwhile light. I'm sorry if my wording offended. The last thing I want to be is obstructive here, I genuinely thought I was shining worthwhile light on the understanding of the subject.

I specifically said Rangefinder was not a notable source rather than not a reliable source, so as not to confuse the two concepts; where as I said I did not consider PetaPixel to be either notable or reliable. I've written 80 article on photographers and 99% of the time I have not cited sources such as PetaPixel and Fstoppers because I didn't consider them reliable. I don't even read such sources when researching a person, keeping instead solely to broadsheet newspapers and much more established print and web magazines, so as not to take in facts that I wouldn't be able to source. Likewise I would never draw attention to coverage by such sources as being coverage worth noting, because I do not consider them notable. I have taken note of what has been said here and stand corrected, this will make my life easier in sourcing in future.

I do understand that not having an article on a publication or web site does not infer unreliability, but what I meant is that the lack of an article for me lends weight to the idea that it is not reliable. I do know that reliability is about context. I have used this yardstick a lot in my own editing but I now see that it is not something that stands up to argument. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the larger picture. See the very good sources below.13:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Weak Delete There are enough sources, but they are quite not mainstream. He does not pass WP:ARTIST yes, which I assume a case of WP:TOOEARLY and quite does not pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a failure of WP:BEFORE here. I am pretty sure, for example, that Esquire is a good source. Additional fabulous RS and in-depth sources, tracked down form looking at the artist's web site:

Yahoo News: "Surrealist Photographer Takes Out of This World Self-Portraits" (2012)
Huffington Post: "His photos May just change your life" (2013)
The Daily Star (DHaka, Bangladesh): "The entrancing self-portraiture of Kyle Thompson" (2014)
Harper's Bazaar, Spain:"El surrealismo mágico de Kyle J. Thompson" (2015)
Portland Mercury: "Breathing Life into Disaster Porn: Kyle Thompson's Ghost Town" (2015)
L'intelletuale Dissidente, "Kyle Thompson, Dove Nessuno Oserebbe Andare", (2017)
Esquire (Italy): "Kyle Thompson Porta le Sue Foto Surreali Alla Reggia di Caserta", (2018)
there are more listed on his CV, but I will stop there. Clearly meets GNG, and the nomination lacked WP:BEFORE due diligence. Pinging ArtHistorian.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough about him. ¶ The disagreement above over the Petapixel article, or Petapixel as a whole, puzzled me, so I went looking for it. It seems a decent little article, not the best source for any major claim about Thompson, but OK for its purpose. ¶ Websites that have en:WP articles about them are on average more noteworthy than those that do not, but this is merely a generalization and has many exceptions. The lack of an article here about Petapixel indicates a failing of en:WP, not of Petapixel; yes, some of the content of Petapixel is fluff, but consider this article of theirs on one aspect of the racket of photo contests and this article on Martin Stavars aka Marcin Stawiarz, the person heading a number of these contests: this is investigative, valuable journalism. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the many sources found by ThatMontrealIP. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:01, 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 JKT48 Members Election. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JKT48 6th Single's Members Election[edit]

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

If this exists at all, might be a redirect to Members of JKT48, but outside of that article, no in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the live TV coverage of the event. It HAPPENED, why don't you just admit it? They have been and are reliable news outlets in Indonesia. I have seen a promotional material on the exact same website and it is tagged "advertorial" on top and "(adv/adv)" on the bottom, like this, or "adv" tag on top like this one and this one. Notice the URL even stated they are adverts (adv-nhl-detikcom). I am a person who is sensitive for promotional material even in the slightest, so I know which one ads and which one does not, unlike your markings. Please point out where the promotional thing is in sources on JKT48 6th single's page, if you can. Do not just insisting without any hard evidence. – Flix11 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the nominator means is that if the entry on Wikipedia should exist it should not be more than a redirect to the page they mention. Not that the event didn't exist. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with JKT48 - non-notable. Davidelit (Talk) 04:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If merge, the main info should be inside the body of JKT48, not merely redirected. – Flix11 (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the members article. The secondary sources are simply routine coverage of the event. Nothing shows this was a sufficiently notable event to warrant a separate page. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this, make a page for all 5 members elections so one page will include all infos from 5 separate elections. @Domdeparis: How about it? If so, the redirect of JKT48 Members Election should be filled from infos (timeline, result table, etc.) from this 6th single and then from 10th, 17th, and 20th singles will be there as well. Their respective pages shall be merged or deleted after the copy. If this is agreed, then I have no objection to merge this separate page to JKT48 Members Election, which I think more suitable than JKT48, which already has so many parts. The only thing matters that these infos are accessible for English-speaking readers, not only for Indonesian speakers (which require them to open the ID WP pages instead). – Flix11 (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with JKT48 Members Election, which is now a redirect. This page can fully contain the information of this and subsequent events took place in 2015 until tomorrow (5th annual event). If merge to members page I think it will be too packed. – Flix11 (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A redirect doesn't seem necessary.--1l2l3k (talk) 20:59, 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai[edit]

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

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) 03:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete the sources are very poor (e.g. this one), and i looked and didn't find better ones. I did find find this piece, about cancellation of an Australian speaking tour after a 2012 talk by him was dug up called "Jews are the enemies of Islam and the real peace"... but that is not enough per BIO either. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 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 speedy keep. Blatant trolling: WP:SK#2. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 09:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ticciati[edit]

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

Should be disambiguation page. Inurwikilol (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: the AfD rationale does not appear to be valid. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just like other surname pages - the origin of the name, and a list of people who have the name. It should only be a disambiguation page if there are also other entities called Ticciati, like places, companies, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has been indeffed and this should be closed without further waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 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 speedy delete G7. The creator opened this MfD, therefore closing as G7. Admins can verify this by checking the logs if need be. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Youth Commission[edit]

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

This organization has never had more than cursory coverage in local news outlets, insufficient to qualify for an article under WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Note: I am the creator of the article. Catrìona (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Whole Genome Sequenced Family[edit]

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

This is some sort of weird ugly WP:SYNTH, most likely written by Libby Mitchell, the University of Utah School of Medicine Social Media Coordinator - user:UUHCLibby.

The article is a mix of ZOMG, self-publicity and publicity for the various family members. It is about as far from an encyclopedia article as you'd want to see; more something that you might find in a newspaper or magazine.

I have grave doubts about the notability of whatever the subject matter of the article is; I very much doubt that the claim "First Whole Genome Sequenced Family" is credible ... genome sequencing on family members is surely not that uncommon across the research community, for obvious reasons.

What we seem to be left with is, here are a group of people who have an interesting genetic condition. Someone has done some genetic research on them, and, err, that's it. Having a genetic condition does not make the family itself notable. We do not need to know 'about Debbie Jones'. We don't need to know that she does public speaking about overcoming challenges. We do not need to know the same sort of information about each of the members of the family.

There /might/ be an article to be had here. However this version is so so far away from it as to suggest that the best course of action is to throw this one away and await an uninvolved third-party starting a sane and measured article. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came across this earlier and found it so bizarre that I watchlisted it because I couldn't think of what should be done with it. At the very least, it's a TNT situation. Natureium (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note This started out as Draft:The First Family Ever to Have Their Entire Genome Sequenced (which is where I first saw it). That was then WP:G7'd after User:Ilmchal12410 blanked the page. User:Ilmchal12410 in turn started out as User:8f8t but was renamed when I pointed out the promotional aspect of the username. Some of this is explained in the history of User_talk:Ilmchal12410 before those conversations were removed. Hopefully this explanation will save people some time doing archeology. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the OP. I am happy to make the changes necessary to make this article more wiki proper. I can provide more proof they were indeed the first family to have their genome mapped as part of their connection to the Utah Genome Project. My intent in posting this was to make people aware that this has happened -- nothing else. UUHCLibby (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be used as either a soapbox or a publicity machine. Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the sustained coverage that would represent notability. We are long enough afterwards that this should show up in scientific reviews or textbooks were it to be a 'thing', but it looks more like the science story of the week, forgotten the next week. (If kept, it needs some thought about what is important about the story. Giving individual sections of one or two sentences for each of the children gives the distinct impression of molehill mountain-building.) Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amplifying this, the refs break down into 1) non-notable local news, 2) science story of the week without any sustained interest, 3) a distribution company bought distribution rights to a documentary about one family member and are sending it straight to video (which doesn't bode well for much added notability coming from that venture). I don't consider this as meeting WP:NOTABILITY, and that is without even factoring in the clear WP:COI and admitted WP:NOTPROMOTION issues. Agricolae (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the two main contributors are connected. Other user's have pointed out Libby's connection, but just would like to note that the other major contributor was previously registered as User:8f8t, an abbreviation for the name of the book mentioned in the article. This is obvious self promotion. I haven't yet delved into whether or not the subjects are notable, but even if they are the article should probably be nuked and started under a more appropriate name. Even after I did a rewrite the content reeks of a press release. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO, WP:NOTNEWS. If the event is notable, the article should be on that, and not a mishmash of bios of the people involved. As far as I can tell, there are 2 papers referencing the event, with a respectable number of citations to be sure, but neither the original papers nor the citing papers make substantial comments on the event itself (nor of the specific people involved). Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP, but also because who defines what a "family" is? Scientifically, for the reasons of genetics, this makes no sense. A family would be the entire lineage, not just two generations. So why is this notable? Four people related to each other were sequenced via Whole-Genome Sequencing? I don't think that, in and of itself, is notable enough for its own article. At best it should be a footnote in the Whole-Genome Sequencing article, or in the article about Genetic inheritance. It certainly has not met merit of notability to standard wiki levels per independent reliable source-derived citations demonstrating notability. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needless cross-categorization in addition to lack of depth from independent sources needed for GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:04, 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.