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.
Not notable. A one-man hobby project. No documented notable uses. No secondary literature; the few journal articles that describe the language are all by the author of the language. Oisguad (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the topic fails WP:GNG; other than the two interviews of the creator ([1][2]) cited by the article, I could not find other reliable independent sources. The majority of the article is directly sourced from falconpl.org which is not an independent source. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comments. WP:NOTPROMOTION. LikeMeercats (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An informative article. Passes the notability.JPL549 (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was a flurry of interest in the period 2008-2010 when the interviews were done and Niccolai wrote the first articles. But I can't find any independent coverage or any indication that it is in much use today. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete. Concur with the above - not seeing any sources outside the creator. He published few articles, got an interview about it, but now it's 10 years later and nobody thinks it is important. Heck, not even the creator himself has been publishing more on this. Still, perhaps a soft delete by redirecting to some list of programming languages that could mention it in in a sentence or two may be best. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 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. If significantly reliable sources back the claim to notability of this "study" in the future, I'm open to be argued against this decision to delete. Lourdes 03:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a local pilot project of newborn screening (one of many ongoing in the world at any given time). Sourcing is primarily to project announcements which were run in local media. I believe such pilot studies hardly ever cross WP:N. Here, I propose to merge and redirect to newborn screening. — kashmīrīTALK 08:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete this was created in good faith through AfC and really should not have been passed. Refs are mainly directories, press releases, and the like; this is essentially an advertisement for the trial. We do have articles on clinical trials, but only after they are done and they have some clear enduring importance as shown in reliable sources -- for example STAR*D or Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial. We can't know if this trial will be important until after it is done. We should not merge it anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This one likely won't be important, at least in its part related to spinal muscular atrophy, as last July the disorder was added to the federal Recommended Uniform Screening Panel[3]. Over the next months, newborn screening towards SMA is expected to be incorporated into screening panels of each individual state, including N Carolina, so this study will have to be terminated (unless N Carolina decides otherwise). — kashmīrīTALK 22:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep My intention in posting the article was to clarify how this study differs from regular newborn screening, as families may turn to Wikipedia for the facts when deciding whether to enroll in the study. It only launched recently, so most of the references thus far are to news articles and the press release, but I also referenced the NIH project information which speaks to the notability of the study (see “public health relevance statement”)[1]. I also referenced a scientific journal article written by the investigators that substantiates the need for a second tier of newborn screening to develop an evidence base for conditions nominated for the Recommended Uniform Screening Panels (RUSP)[2]. Although a research study, Early Check is the first example of such a system implemented in the United States. Even though SMA has been added to the RUSP, it’s still up to individual states to undertake the process of adopting SMA to their panel, funding the start-up costs, and implementing the testing[3]. This means that the actual implementation of SMA could be years from full implementation. Hopefully the study will provide further justification for SMA, as well as “establish an infrastructure for testing other candidate conditions,”[4] including fragile X, which has not yet been added to the RUSP. Is Wikipedia the right resource for individuals seeking clarity about current state or national research studies? I think it has the potential to be so long as the study information is available publicly. —
Hi Amj16, Per WP:MEDRS, a study considered for inclusion in an encyclopaedia would have to be referenced in multiple reliable sources independent from the study; a few press releases and an entry on the NIH website are not sufficient in the light of the Wikipedia notability criteria.
Also, I am not sure this will be the best place to educate people how a clinical trial varies from regular medical intervention; we have a dedicated article Clinical trial for this.
In my view, Wikipedia is not there to inform about each and every clinical trial – the trial's website and/or Clinicaltrials.gov are the right venues for that, per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Actually, it will even be in the potential participants' best interest to be referred first to the trial website when searching the internet for a given study – especially that at this stage, any Wikipedia article on Early Check can only summarise the information from its website, possibly introducing errors. Hence my nom. — kashmīrīTALK 21:55, 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) 23:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note, person who moved this out of AfC has been blocked as one of many, many socks of sockmaster per SPI. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to have the necessary sources to pass WP:GNG. The sources are simply reposting what was fed to them as per this quote from ncmedsoc "We will share more updates with you as we receive them from RTI." a couple are almost identical word for word. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:08, 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. MBisanztalk 02:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No sources to be found in a WP:BEFORE that are significant, reliable, secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 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. MBisanztalk 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns; no secondary references in the article and no substantial references found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 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. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When you're using WND as a source, you have real issues. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local news and regulatory approval are insufficient for the WP:NCORP criteria and I am not finding better. AllyD (talk) 17:23, 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 no consensus. MBisanztalk 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A middle school with nothing but routine coverage. Searches turned up not enough in-depth coverage of a non-routine nature to show it passes wp:gng. Onel5969TT me 18:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lakelands Park Middle School has enough proper sourcing to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - there has been undiscussed content and sources removal. The more fully sourced version can be seen here. Just Chilling (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What was removed was merely cruft, with no place in an encyclopaedia; I would have removed it also. ——SerialNumber54129 12:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 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. MBisanztalk 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac listed in the article presumably provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one.
The remaining sources in the article are primary or unreliable, which do not establish notability.
WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks and a couple of faint passing mentions in rs. North America1000 08:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not meet WP:GNG, and consensus is that LDS leaders are not presumed notable (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Sources in article are not independent (Liahona, Ensign, and an almanac branded as Deseret News but actually assembled by Church News staff) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill"). Search finds passing mentions in routine coverage of church announcements and events, and some quotes without any additional analysis. It doesn't add up to significant coverage of the subject. Open to alternatives if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is certainly remembered: University of Vermont, 2013, 'Interpreting the Interstates' [5]; the Vermont Journal, 2016, 'Romaine Tenney: a celebration of a farmer’s life' [6]; the Rutland Herald, 2014, '‘I will die here’ Fifty years later, a Vermont farmer’s tragic tale lives on' [7]; the Burlington Free Press, 2016, had 'History Space: Creation of Vermont interstates' [8]; his story seems to be included in the book Greening Vermont, The Search for a Sustainable State, according to this 2013 review of it in the Barton Chronicle[9] (I don't have access to the book to check); there was a 1h 35m TV program Romaine Tenney: A Celebration of a Farmer's Life[10]; and there's a song, The Ballad of Romaine Tenney[11]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local remembrances of a local incident are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Typical WP:ONEEVENT. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". Does that article exist? If yes, redirect. If not, then see if that event is significant before putting together an article for that. As far as Mr. Tenney is concerned, WP:ONEEVENT should apply. --1l2l3k (talk) 21:10, 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.
She is an unsuccessful political candidate, and this article should be redirected to the relevant election overview page per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Her career as a nonprofit executive has not received WP:SIGCOV and she doesn't meet WP:GNG. The coverage of her campaign was routine and the article doesn't warrant keeping when we typically don't have articles on unsuccessful political candidates. Marquardtika (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy close Articles for Deletion is not the place to propose merges and redirects. (A selective merge, carrying along the WaPo and Newsweek material — which, to me, rises above "routine" coverage for congressional district races — seems a reasonable course of action.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician. Fails to meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then recreate as redirect. As always, candidates don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but this demonstrates neither that she has preexisting notability for other reasons, nor that her candidacy exploded into a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies. As for whether this should be deleted and then recreated as a redirect, or just redirected immediately, the burden of proof is actually on whether there's an affirmative reason to retain the edit history — that is, the onus isn't on the "delete + redirect" crowd to prove that retaining the edit history behind the redirect would be actively harmful (which is almost never true in the absence of extreme BLP violations), it's on the "redirect without deletion" crowd to prove that retaining the edit history behind the redirect would have any positive value. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine. No need to delete the article history. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 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 subject has mere-mentions in the Times of India, but otherwise does not appear to have any coverage in RS and does not meet WP:GNG. Searching on Google Scholar returns 2 citations of what appears to have been a blog post written by the subject, which doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. The article as written doesn't provide any credible claims that would establish the subject's notability, and if it weren't for the possibility that there are sources in Konkani or other languages that I can't reliably search for I would have nominated for CSD A7. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This page is just a stub, and if given some time, I could surely beef it up. As I have argued elsewhere, we are having problems in convincing the Wikipedia Admin about the notability of writers in non-English languages (specially smaller languages like Konkani), because much of their work and recognition is in non-English languages, is not searchable online, and is often not even digitised. This is a systemic problem, and needs to be addressed. I have raised it on other Wikipedia mailing lists too. If given some time, I could demonstrate this person's achievements. I have made this page out of the sincere belief that Isidore Dantas deserves to be noticed for his contribution to Konkani and writing in Goa. fredericknoronha (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some more time for addition of proper citations and reworking of tone. I will work and try to make according to the wikipolicies. QueerEcofeminist (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is about a notable writer in a regional language, here in Goa. He has even written a dictionary, which can be found below: Modern English to Konkani Dictionary - Isidore Dantas SerTanmay (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have been adding more details to this page, to make sure it doesn't get deleted. Isidore is a really significant writer/translator/lexicographer in the Konkani language. Not only has he co-written an English-Konkani dictionary recently, but he has also shared it under the Creative Commons, and the link has been pointed to by @SerTanmay. He has contributed to the Konkani Wikipedia [12] both by way of translations of dozens of articles and of hundreds of search-strings to set up this language wikipedia. Of course, I know all this is irrelevant to the issue at stake, as there is no quid-pro-quo for Wikipedia work. Nonetheless, am pointing it out just to show that a person's work in one small language can be wholly invisible on the global dining table of the English language. More importantly, I am concerned about what happened when globalised, one-size-fits-all Western-defined norms of "notability" are applied to small langauges which are not searchable in English, in scripts other than Roman, and often not even digitised for the most. fredericknoronha (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, withdrawing nomination. Thank you to everyone that was able to provide content and sources to improve the article. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 02:03, 24 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. MBisanztalk 02:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would appear to fail a number of specific notability criteria - WP:ORG, WP:WEB - as well as WP:GNG. Given that that the article was created in 2014, it seems reasonable enough to start a WP:AfD discussion to allow those who might have this watchlisted to contribute, rather than speedy deletion. That Talk:YouthDebates is still a redlink would appear to be both a validation of the need for a deletion discussion, and also an indication of what I expect the outcome to be. My !vote isWP:A7, but let's see what happens. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo^^^ 21:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A7. Neither the organization's own website nor its Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts confer notability, and out of the two (2) sources which this principle leaves, one is a flattering interview with the founder, and the other reads like a press release. Not what I'd call independent reliable sources. Bishonen | talk 03:28, 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 delete. MBisanztalk 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sound engineer and music producer with about three years under his belt. None of the sources currently present in the article are more than trivial mention, see source assessment below. The article on French Wikipedia, fr:Nk.F, is slightly more bombarded with sources, and there are a few more sources to find searching for his full name, Nikola Feve, but looking through them I find no indication that we have a pass under WP:MUSICBIO nor under WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. PROD was contested by an editor with no prior edits to the article, which of course is their right. SamSailor 18:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)).
Comment As a matter of fairness my general rule is to not involve myself in AfD votes when the sources are in a language I can't read. Kudos, though, to SamSailor for providing as thorough of a source assessment as one could ask for. I can't see how this won't be a delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source review. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanztalk 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. References all refer to his death, not his notability or the notability of his work. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references which could be included which do give evidence of the notability of his work, eg [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" WP:NEXIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs)
comment I disagree that the cited reviews demonstrate that ”The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” Per WP:PROF#c1. The reviews appear to be fellow academics discussing his work, but it doesn’t support that it had a significant impact on his field. Academics reviewing each other’s work in this way is common and not an indication of significance. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The newly added reviews are enough for WP:AUTHOR, and falsify the nomination statement that the references are all about his death not his work. The new statement from the nominator that we should ignore the new sources because they are "common" is both moving the goalposts and unsupported by policy. Notability is about the depth, independence, reliability, and multiplicity of sources, not about how common they are. Sources are also common for national leaders; does that mean we should consider national leaders non-notable? Then why apply the same reasoning to book authors? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment “Falsifying the nomination” is an unnecessarily harsh accusation; a quick look at the history of the page shows that the citations you are referring to were added after I nominated the page for deletion. I’ve done nothing besides start a discussion regarding deletion and give my opinion on WP policy. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 06:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have a better word for "cause to become false"? The nomination statement may have been true of the references in the article at the time of nomination, and is not true now, so it has become falsified. Besides, AfD nominations should not be about the references that exist in the article, but about the references that can be found more generally — you did look for such references before making the nomination, I hope? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic about falsification is ridiculous and I already stated that I disagree that the references given here that have been added to the article by others support notability, so your second point is irrelevant. Because the article has been improved by others I don’t get how you can interpret that as an action by me to make something up, that’s absurd. Not sure why you’re being so confrontational and accusatory, it’s not conducive to a civil discussion about policy. Im not going to engage in this “falsification” debate with you anymore but I’m disappointed by your lack of WP:GOODFAITH. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 12:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of reviews. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:HEYMAN. Reviews of his books demonstrate notability as an author. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:00, 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.
In its current form, this page has no text and does not belong in article space. It does not explain how these nominations and awards have general notability, film notability, or web notability. This table, which is only a table, can reasonably be added to some article, but there is no indication that an article is waiting to be built around this table. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 24 October 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) 16:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:56, 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. MBisanztalk 01:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:DABPAGE for subjects that do not have standalone articles, and indeed may be for the same person (as per IMDb). As there are two plausible targets, this can't be converted to a redirect. So it looks like it should just be deleted as non-functional, and probably confusing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless as a redirect due to multiple targets so can't pick one. DAB was work-around. Better to not have article at all. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking an article on more than one person no reason to have this page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DAB reader is waiting to see the article. it's not an article Alex-h (talk) 21:24, 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. MBisanztalk 01:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GRIDIRON per nominator. No prejudice on recreation if he plays a game, obviously. SportingFlyertalk 00:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusionary standard, not an exclusionary one. Accordingly, notability needs to be further assessed under WP:GNG. In this case, Kalu was a four-year player (46 games, 2014-2017, see stats here) and key defensive player (cornerback/safety) for Nebraska who received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. A sampling of coverage includes: (1)this feature story that was published in multiple newspapers in January 2018. Other sources include: (2)this from Aug. 2016; (3) "Showing their true colors Kalu has big-time talent on field, low profile off it", Omaha World-Herald, 4/2/17 (1,469 profile available for fee at Newslibrary.com); (4)this from August 2017; (5) "Joshua Kalu staying at safety where Bob Diaco believes he can become one of nation's best", Omaha World-Herald, 8/2/17 (443 words, available for fee at Newslibrary.com); (6) "Joshua Kalu may be 'best safety in the country'", Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/1/17 (652 words, available for fee at Newslibrary.com); (7)this from August 2017; (8)this from March 2018; (9)this from March 2018; (10)this from April 2018; (11)this from May 2018. It would be nice if a Nebraska fan would integrate some of these sources into the article, but that's an editing issue, not a cause for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of which are either local coverage from Nebraska or Houston (which he's from), even, arguably, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, since both of those articles originally appeared on Landof10.com, whose twitter site says they specifically cover Nebraska football (they've apparently since shut down.) I don't think he reaches the national coverage standard we use for WP:NCOLLATH, and I still have major concerns about players passing WP:GNG through articles that talk about their attempts to make the NFL, and then they don't actually make the NFL. This wouldn't cut it for notability in any other sport.
Also, I have absolutely no interest in drawing this out into a long argument like we have in a couple other recent AfDs. I just think the coverage presented above is routine and indicative of the type of coverage any local college player or low-level NFL hopeful would receive, and want to put it on the record: I simply think that by definition a player which fails both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH must be a "locally notable amateur athlete" and must pass WP:GNG with non-routine coverage to be notable. I'm going to un-watch this AfD, so please don't ping me, but feel free to respond of course! SportingFlyertalk 12:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no bar on use of metropolitan dailies such as the Lincoln Journal Star or Omaha World-Herald (the two largest newspapers in Nebraska) as GNG sources. Moreover, there is also coverage in geographically-remote sources such as The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Moreover, the coverage consists of in-depth articles written about Kalu and is the antithesis of WP:ROUTINE (i.e., passing mentions in game coverage, brief transactional announcements, etc.). Much of that coverage also has nothing to do with his post-college attempts to make the NFL. This is clearly not "the type of coverage any local college player" receives. Far from it. Compare, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Barnard where no such coverage was found and the consensus is to delete. Cbl62 (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 01:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. His college career is not notable on its own, and has never appeared in a regular-season game. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. We can recreate this if he recovers from his injury and plays in a game. SportingFlyertalk 00:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusionary standard, not an exclusionary one. Accordingly, notability needs to be further assessed under WP:GNG. In this case, my searches (google, newspapers.com, and newslibrary.com) do not turn up significant coverage of Barnard in reliable, independent sources that would satisfy the GNG bar. Moreover, while he was named an FCS third-team All-American, this is not sufficient to meet the standard for WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG, perhaps can be recreated later if he winds up playing in a game. Smartyllama (talk) 14:50, 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.
This topic is a WP:FORK of entomophagy, a simple synonym, and the articles should be merged or simply redirected (though the article's principal current editor has cut materials from entomophagy, so some restoration will be needed). I am sorry that it is necessary to have to bring this back to AfD, but a significant admission has been made by the article's creator, acknowledging the synonymy of the two terms. He asserts that the concept of 'edible insect' (a class of objects) differs from 'insects as food', which is plainly true, but does not affect the fact that here we have a straightforward fork with two articles covering the same topic. This article needs to be redirected to Entomophagy, which means the use of insects as food. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep. It is not beneficial to open a new AfD on the same day the previous one closed just because you didn't like the result. The nom's rationale brings nothing new to the debate. The so called significant admission by the article creator is merely a restatement of their already known position. SpinningSpark 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nothing to see here that adds significantly to the just-closed discussion. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is AFD spamming. —Lowellian (reply) 18:53, 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. Lourdes 03:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been subject of edit-warring. I checked the sources: all of them are affiliated (press releases, PR bio) or primary (her own writing). She appeared briefly on a minor and now cancelled late night show, she won a minor beauty pageant (not a national one), and that's about it. These are not indicia of notability, and they do not support WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment Unsure (especially given the germination of this AFD) about this. using the news link in this AFD throws up 424 results, and whilst most are not brilliant there is a stalking case, stiff form a few sources about here hosting TV shows.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - there is definitely some reliable coverage out there, so I agree with the other two keep !vote, but at the same time I sympathize with the nominator's concerns as the article really is not in that good of a condition and most of the references in the article are unreliable. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is independent coverage of her being stalked (not mentioned in the article), and also of her when she was a Red Eye host (eg [20]). There's also Forbes 'Are Women On The Rise In Hosting?'[21] (by a Forbes writer, not by or based on a press release from Nosuchinsky). Agree about the quality of the article and references. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:01, 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.
Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Searches are only providing passing mentions and quotations in reliable sources. Could be redirected to Nu Skin Enterprises. North America1000 05:28, 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) 23:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 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. MBisanztalk 01:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just another event; references in no way strong enough to establish notability TheLongTone (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, and the article appears to have been created by the organiser. noq (talk)@
Delete Event has no coverage in reliable media sources, it's just another promo piece for an event. ShunDream (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 23:40, 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.
This is a recreation of the previous article 7ujuh (film) which has been deleted. The creator of this article (One48) is the same user whose previous accounts has been blocked for disruptive editing and creating inappropriate articles here. Fandi89 (talk) 11:36, 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 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. MBisanztalk 01:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NBAND, and fails WP:V due to the only sources being primary (an official website and a MySpace page). WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:43, 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) 08:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable; no verifiable sources.Awsomaw (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing in the article that makes this group clear NBAND: no chartings or awards, also no independently notable members. [Noting that I had to remove some promo in the meanwhile] Looking outside the article, I could not find significant coverage of this group in multiple, independent and reliable sources, so WP:GNG is not met either. A non-notable, WP:MILL musical group, in short. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find anything other than routine coverage, including of their US tours. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:29, 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. MBisanztalk 01:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The antibody is still in investigation phase. Too early for an entry in Wikipedia. Not verified whether the drug has been approved for human use. PubMed has no information related to the topic. Hitro talk 07:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this appears to be WP:TOOSOON, especially if "As of 2010, about 50% of drug candidates either fail during the Phase III trial or are rejected by the national regulatory agency" (from Phases of clinical research#Phase III) is still correct. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep experimental drugs are considered to be notable at phase II. This drug is in phase III trials. Natureium (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless Natureium can point to a guideline verifying that phase III drugs are intrinsically notable. The only ref in the article is for the assignment of a nonpropriety name by the WHO. That's about as WP:ROUTINE and WP:TRIVIALMENTION as it gets. SpinningSpark 22:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find where I've read this in the past, so I'll hold off on using that as a reason until I can do a deeper search. I'm actually pretty tired of trying to keep track of all the things that are considered notable regardless of RS for no reason other than that at some point someone decided that they are notable. (tiny villages, trains stations, small legislative districts, extinct species, roads, etc.) Natureium (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. I couldn't find any mention in PubMed, which is a red flag. However there are press releases available so I added one (Business Wire) to the article. I also added a short description from the National Cancer Institute. I looked for a specific drugs notability guideline in Wikipedia, at WP:N, WP:SNG and WP:PHARM, but we don't seem to have one. In particular, I could find no mention of Phase II or III drugs being inherently notable. I am reluctant to delete because I think that bemarituzumab is likely to become notable in the next couple of years. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the drug does not currently meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline standard. Axl¤[Talk] 14:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Axl: We could userfy it, if you want to curate it. SpinningSpark 14:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to my userspace, thanks. I don't have any special interest in this article/drug. Of course I have no objection to userfication into another willing editor's userspace. Axl¤[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 delete. MBisanztalk 01:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't consider Discogs to be WP:RS, and cite it only in support of facts, never as evidence of notability. I do, however, sometimes cite it as evidence of lack of notability, as I now do. He seems to have recorded precisely one remix, in 2015. For good measure, a Google search turned up precisely nothing that looked WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, etc. Narky Blert (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Discogs consists of user-generated content, and is not proof of lack of notability either. There are multiple reliable articles on Insomniac, Hip Hop Weekly and other blog sources like yourEDM. Seems like the artist has some notability and noteriety within the music and entertainment industry. Although Discogs and other articles along with AllMusic or IMDb may have the more WP:RS than other reliable sources, they do show some noteriety for musicians. Especially independent artists. 22:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B043:458D:6160:2228:B01:8302 (talk)
Do Not Delete. I do consider Discogs to be WP:RS, and actually do cite it only when in support of facts. I do also see that he has some good press on Insomniac and Hip Hop Weekly and this can sometimes be cited as evidence of notability. I do agree that he seems to have recorded a few good remixes, in 2015 and 2017. For good measure, a Google search turned up a few good articles on that looked WP:RS. Passes WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, etc. 11:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.75.34.70 (talk)
Comment. Discogs consists of user-generated content, and is no more WP:RS than, for example, AllMusic or IMDb. Narky Blert (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet GNG/BASIC. SamSailor 14:59, 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.
There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of this subject in independent reliable sources, although there are several mere mentions, as well as coverage by Taiwanese government sources that I would hesitate to call "independent". Since the subject is a caucus within the US government, I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to judge it by WP:NORG (which it certainly fails). If we are to merely judge it against WP:GNG, I am still leaning toward it not being notable based on a lack of coverage in RS, but this is a much weaker case. Another version of this article was deleted via PROD about a year ago with the concern Does not meet WP:NORG. I am unable to locate sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail, apart from the fact that the caucus exists.. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:10, 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 07:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. Not sure WP:Before was carried out properly since I do see at least three pieces in reliable, independent sources that are (at least in significant part) about them (123) FOARP (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw additional sources demonstrate notability. I'm as surprised as you are that they didn't show up when searching. signed, Rosguilltalk 14:05, 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 article has one source, which in turn is a bare bones blog post. In searching for more sources I came across another blog that was a collection of in memorium listings, that included Daman, a restated press release about his successor as bishop that mentioned him having been the bishop before. Then there is this [22] statement by a head student at a Catholic boarding school in Nigeria that name checks Daman's existence. Here [23] is another blog about him. None of this is even close to an independent, third-party secondary source providing indepth coverage which is required to meet the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always considered that diocesan bishops of major denominations are notable. Please stop nominating these articles for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, aside from JPL's generally restrictive views on inclusion, he may be doing this because many of his Mormon-bio articles got AfD'ed.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NBISHOP. There are Catholic sources with information about him, including [24], [25] and this archive of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria [26], and coverage of his death, in Scotland [27] as well as African sources [28], [29], in The Nigerian Standard (no longer online, but still here [30]), if you want to add additional information and references to this stub. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:34, 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. MBisanztalk 01:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant roles at the level to meet what is required for finding an actress notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on some of the material added as references after the nomination, in particular the WSJ article, the Balancing Pointe article, and the Ballet Magazine interview. The latter two are specialty media, but still point to notability. TJRC (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references and information to the article, which lacked focus on her primary profession, ballet. I will attempt to improve it further RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep as per Wall Street Journal article WSJ article, Ballet Magazine, and others. Her primary profession is a dancer, not an actress. Netherzone (talk) 03:06, 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.
Does not meet WP:NCORP. Many references but nothing in the way of WP:CORPDEPTH. Draft was previously declined through AfC on two occasions. This page was created a day after the last rejection. CNMall41 (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP. I declined the draft as too promotional and this version offends only marginally less. Since the author is forcing the issue, the sources provided lack either the depth or the independence required by the guideline. An independent search for reliable sources brings up routine industry buzz. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have now made the necessary amendments to the article. Kindly review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passion d (talk • contribs) 09:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both article and draft have been speedily deleted per CSD G5 (works of a sockpuppet). I'll leave it to an uninvolved editor to close this AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 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. MBisanztalk 01:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Fails WP:GNG.-- Yankees10 17:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable baseball player. Lacks the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:NBASEBALL. Papaursa (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is essentially one massive listcruft page; its sole purpose is to track who stayed where on the Titanic, whether or not they lived through the disaster, and how long they survived before kicking the bucket (which in turn could be interpreted as a form of fancruft). In that sense then this list ultimately reduces itself to nothing more than random assortment of unneeded information. I put to the community that the page should be deleted and that salvageable information (what little of it there may be) should either be siphoned out to relevant biographical articles or merged back into the ship article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, largely on the basis of Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I don't know that the article needs to be deleted - there is an encyclopedic way to write it, even if the current version needs a hacksaw. Much of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class sections is probably salvageable, provided better sourcing can be found (an issue I raised at the GAR I started earlier today), and it's too much material to be merged back to RMS_Titanic#Passengers (the main article is already rather large). Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep The Titanic is primarily notable for its prominent passengers, not for sailing or for sinking. Dimadick (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep There maybe some issues that could be discussed on the talkpage there, but this is a ridicules nomination and from an admin? How can you nominate an article that made it through a GA. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TomStar81: Then clearly you aren't learning, articles thrive on citations under established GNG rules and when an article has sound structure, like this one, you're going nowhere with AfD, what you're doing and the way you're doing it is all wrong. You clearly haven't started a conversation on talk pages about problems you view the articles to have. What I don't get is you're an admin, I thought of all people you would understand and respect how wikipedia works, I think you might be delving down the dark side.. Govvy (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TomStar81's expertise in Wikipedia seems to be military history. This article may be off his/her comfort zone. Dimadick (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on the afd, not me. What I edit and where I contribute are my business, and that I have put this up for AFD only means that I am of the opinion that it doesn't belong, not that my comfort zone need to be judged. Now if you're quite done wikihounding me, lets turn to the matter at hand and do our talking on the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list serves no purpose. Prominent passengers travelled on a lot of other ships - should we have lists of passengers for every voyage? Why not keep lists of people who died in other disasters, like Empress of Ireland? or list of people who died in the Battle of Iwo Jima? List of passengers who died in airplane crashes? car accidents? Crook1 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Empress of Ireland have as many prominent and notable passengers as the Titanic did? Astor, Guggenheim and Strauss alone were worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Several of the other passengers became notable after the sinking for either their role during the disaster or for their reports, books and interviews in the days, weeks, months and years following (ie, Jack Thayer, Lawrence Beasley). The ship's band, technically passengers, are well-known. In addition, the latter two lists you mentioned are silly in comparison; this list is, barring stowaways, complete. Ancestry has databases for outward-bound passengers, survivors ferried on the Carpathia, bodies buried at sea, crew members, etc. It is a finite list and, again, barring stowaways who become known in the future, does not require any further additions. Listing all passengers who died in airplane crashes or car accidents is both unlimited and unmaintainable. This list is not. Piratesswoop (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Whatever the list of names needs done to it, if anything, is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. There's quite a bit of good content here besides a list of names. It looks like this and Crew of the RMS Titanic were spawned off Sinking of the RMS Titanic to sharpen the focus and balance the main article, while keeping encyclopedic details about those on board, per WP:Summary style. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Half the reason the ship's sinking was so infamous is because of its passengers, especially many of the more prominent first class passengers. The reason we don't have articles like this for passengers on the Empress of Ireland or the Luisitania is because the passengers involved in this sinking were significantly more prominent. I, personally, spent a lot of time expanding this article, so if there are any overlying issues with it, I'd be happy to aid in amending them. Piratesswoop (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meritless nomination. This easily passes WP:LISTN, as it would be hard to find a group of survivors/victims more documented as a group. There are also a high number of individuals with articles who are indelibly linked to the Titanic's sinking, as shown by the substantially populated categories for victims and survivors in Category:RMS Titanic's crew and passengers. So this also has significant value as an index of articles by significant shared characteristic per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. This could also be easily defended as a WP:SPLIT from the main article, as for such a historic event it is an appropriate level of detail for this subtopic. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the list of non notable individuals should be removed. It is far too much intricate detail only of interest to an enthusiast which has no place in an encyclopedia for the general reader. Lyndaship (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As postdlf has noted, the Titanic passengers have received a great deal of scrutiny. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally ridiculous nomination. The subject has received significant coverage for over a century now, and it's virtually impossible for an article which meets the sourcing requirements under WP:GA to fail WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove list of non-notable passengers which runs afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. An external link to a full list of passengers and crew would be adequate. Otherwise there is a lot of useful information in here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is clearly enough sourced material for an article on the topic, but I can't !vote Keep on the entire ship's manifest being listed here. The manifest could possibly be included on Wikisource. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on SIZE - This page is a massive 217kB, but 174kB of that are the needless tables with lists of non-notable passengers (except for a few in 1st class), and even more needless tables of lists of "who-died-when". That means there is perhaps 43kB of possibly useful info, but that may just be duplicated from the main Titanic article, that also has it's own "passengers" section. Remove the tables, give the rest a serious overhaul, then determine if it's worth keeping, merging to the main article or deleting. Oh, and stop calling this nom "ridiculous". TomStar81 has posted a well-written and worthwhile nom about a "ridiculous" page. - wolf 20:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and because the passengers have been extensively analyzed by sources, individually and as a whole. Whether the page should include the full list is not a proper subject for AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yet that's what people are suggesting and that is a part of the sound reasoning provided in the nom. So there ya have it anyway. - wolf 02:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So if this nomination is treated as a valid use of AfD, then what we will get is this: you have an article with two parts, one of which an editor would like to delete. Unable or unwilling to win consensus to delete the article section on the article talk page, editors will come to AfD and says "Merge the parts I like somewhere else, and delete the rest." To me, that's just another way of using AfD as cleanup, and finding a sympathetic forum when the article talk age and normal dispute resolution options aren't producing the desired outcome.
The only thing AfD should do is produce an up or down result on the question of whether 'passengers of the Titanic' is a valid topic for a stand-alone article. Summary style questions as to what belongs in the parent article Sinking of the RMS Titanic and what in any spin-off articles, whether to have an embedded list or not, and what that list should include, are all outside the scope of AfD. Those issues should not be mentioned at all in the outcome. Close this as either delete, keep, or no consensus. Full stop. Seek an appropriate venue for disputes over any other question. In my humble opinion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft! Seriously? Dennis, you really think you can control what people post at AfD? I think you'd have a better chance of herding a clowder of kittens in a cat-nip factory... ;-) - wolf 17:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think AfD closures can focus on what AfD is for, and ignore extraneous commentary and advice in the !votes. If they reward that with prescriptive closure statements, it encourages more editors to forum shop at AfD when they should be resolving content disputes in the appropriate venue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - This article contains a lot of good information and also a lot of stuff that probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, like the entire passenger manifest. There are several other Titanic articles that seem excessively detailed such as Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic. Let's clarify the scope, clean it up, see what's left and maybe have a higher-level discussion about how to cover the Titanic overall before considering deletion. –dlthewave☎ 00:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense, thats the problem here: most of the 1st class passengers were independently notable, meaning that we have articles covering them specifically. Most of the second and third class passengers we not independently notable, which qualifies them for a list perhaps but not really an independent article here. If you apply notability here then you run into the problem that the article's most notable people either already have articles here or can be said to be notable enough to warrant one, while the others should be in a list, but then the problem becomes what anchors the list? Essentially, at what point does the wheat end and the chaff begin? The wheat we have a use for, but the chaff is good for practically nothing - unless its military chaff, in which case its worth a few million to the lowest bidder :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list of people who were aboard one of the most famous voyages in history, analysed and written about numerous times, is most certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: @Necrothesp: says it well. And it provides a target to which to redirect some of the otherwise non-notable passengers, such as Mabel Fortune Driscoll currently at AfD. PamD 10:27, 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. MBisanztalk 01:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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:NALBUMSZackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:15, 15 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 delete. MBisanztalk 01:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
John Carter UAE Geostub. Fails WP:GEO. Nomination in September didn't work out because of a Twinkle issue, so retrying. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Copied nom statement which is slightly more detailed from duplicate AfD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I AfD'd this page using Twinkle but it doesn't seem to have worked. Trying again. Page fails WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note.I have attempted to fix this AfD, that was left uncompleted. 68.148.240.210 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Another version of this AfD nomination is already live at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Al Quwayz (2nd nomination). Bakazaka (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Sorry for mess. Other AfD noted as withdrawn, so please can we consider this as the AfD nomination? And delete the thing! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ANOTHER Note For anyone who wasn't around here in September, this was one of about 100+ geostubs created by a since-blocked Admin out of an outdated Gazetteer of the UAE which resulted in a load of unverifiable place names being created in the UAE, 99.9% of which were total rubbish. This is another one, neglected at the time because of Twinkle/my incompetence (delete as you feel suits) - it fails WP:V, WP:GEOLAND and, just for kicks, GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on high confidence in Alexandermcnabb's extensive verification efforts on this and many, many other articles like it. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't readily find any sources when searching for the transliterated name, but I must admit that I no longer want to spend 30 minutes or more on each of these unsourced or poorly sourced stubs. SamSailor 14:15, 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.
Trivial mention as producer for Damso