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 back to Draft. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sweeney (consultant)[edit]

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

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

This page is a mess and reads like an advertisement or personal website for this guy. It's been PRODed and G11d and had the tags removed both times. It's possible this guy is notable, but I think we've well passed the WP:TNT point for this particular rendition of the page. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been improved to include additional reliable sources and the text has been modified to eliminate promotional tone. I came upon this page today, and I have made several edits in the attempt of making the article less like a personal website or LinkedIn profile, and more like a subjective page on a notable person. The subject is set to be portrayed in The Front Runner, about Gary Hart's presidential run in 1988, in which the subject served as Hart's press secretary. I'm not saying that being portrayed in a film makes a person more notable, but the page for the movie alerted me to him in the first place, which says something. As you can see from the edit history on the page, I have been making copyedits and attempting to source the content. KidAd (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tagged this last for speedy. This is horrible and needs to be removed from mainspace. I don't care if it is deleted or moved to draft to be worked over, but this needs to be done over from scratch. Horrible industrial waste in our beautiful project. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Refs are a jumble of broken links and primary sources. Send back to draft at least. Not ready for main space. Concerns regarding promotional tone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Carefully looking at everything he maybe notable so i think it should be moved to draft and improved upon PlotHelpful (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEYMANN Keep (see new iVote below). his book was widely reviewed (I added a few of the reviews). I also added profiles of him that ran in the Washington Post and People Magazine after the Hart campaign folded. Someone else has added a profile formteh Los Angeles Times. I have beefed up article a little; It needs a lot more work. Most of the coverage is the last century (eg. Gary Hart#1988 presidential campaign). I used a proquest news archive. Lots more out there that can be added. search bar is useless, but gBooks searches on his name with keywords brings up a lot of useful stuff from which article can be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that swaths of PROMO have been removed from the page by multiple editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify until all promotional content has been removed - then protect. Deb (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are seeing PROMO, please take it out. Article was started in 2005 by @Ombudsman: who may or may not wish to weigh in. However, desirable as it is to have Wikipedia:Good articles, perfection is not required to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, the nomination isn't primarily on the grounds of notability. Deb (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oddly, except fo rtotal lack on inline sourcing, the 2005 [1] version was better written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify until all promotional content has been removed - then protect. changing my mind. Frankly, I do so many AfDs on consultants and authors that I tend to search for notability first, and only look at article history later. Sweeney is certainly notable. But, now that I have looked at page's recent history, I see what appear to be multiple accounts coming to add blatant PROMO to the page, and replacing it when deleted. settling on a PROMO-free version and page protecting makes sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems like an interesting fellow, but not a Notable one. Comes off as self-promotional. --Leflyman^Talk 23:35, 28 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 (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CobbleStone Software[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A7 and G11 Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 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. No sources and nothing found inevitably means a delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WHIS ratio[edit]

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

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

No source provided or found to suggest this topic is notable. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, google and news aren't showing anything that could be used for wp:n. No refs in the article although my google searching did return one for radioactivity.... Szzuk (talk) 18:40, 28 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 19:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viva+[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced futurism Rathfelder (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There have been no substantive edits since 2014 to this article about a television channel. The link to the channel's website is broken, and so is the link to the parent company's site, so the article has no usable sources (much less any independent sources). A look at the parent company's actual website didn't establish whether the channel still exists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Visi Media Asia. Szzuk (talk) 19:38, 28 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. Sandstein 19:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sid is Dead[edit]

Sid is Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · --is Dead Stats)

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

Non-notable American upcoming film.--RTY9099 (talk) 10:30, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 8 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 19:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commoner Party of Thailand[edit]

Commoner Party of Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable political party. Nothing found in a before search of much interest Dom from Paris (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Plenty of coverage, including these articles in English[2][3] and more in Thai.[4][5][6][7][8][9] It's a minor party which hasn't had the chance to contest any elections yet, but the support it has received from prominent activists and scholars is significant. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: could you indicate from when these Thai sources date? I am on a mobile and can't convert the Thai dates. Are they just run of the mill coverage of the creation of the party? There are general elections coming up in 3 months I believe, have they announced candidates? Do we have an idea of how many members the party has ? This might give us an idea of the significance of the party. As mentioned below there is a new party with the same name are they linked? I can't connect to their web site, on their Facebook page they seem to be reposting coverage from 2013 and 2014. Thanks. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domdeparis, All of the above links are about this party, not the other one. While most cover the party announcement, the Voice TV programme is presumably an in-depth interview with the founder (presumed because the video isn't loading for me). The Kom-Chad-Luek article is from this January, and contains political analysis of the possibility that an influential businessman will be running for election under the party. Elections being held on 24 February is still a big if, and the official decree will not be made until after 10 December. That said, I haven't seen recent in-depth coverage of the party, but there's plenty of passing mention that indicates it is very much expected to be active in the upcoming election. The Election Committee lists 23 registered members for the party (keep in mind that political activities were banned shortly after the party's registration). --Paul_012 (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012:Yes I saw that this is not a good period for democracy in Thailand. Oddly enough this is not something we hear a lot about here in Europe (or at least in France). I'm not in a position to judge these sources but I trust your judgement and if you believe they are enough to meet the criteria please don't hesitate to !vote keep and I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite confident yet either; I'll be happy to leave this discussion open for further input. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for that, let's see what happens. cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Clear pass of GNG. Another failure of WP:BEFORE. Note that nom's claim that nothing "of much interest" was found is a red herring. The value of sources is not dependent on what nom finds interesting. Besides sources in article and those listed above by Paul_012, see:
  • • Commoner Party ready to take an uncommon approach
    • Commoner Party Seeks to Put the Poor in Parliament

192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have noticed but the sources in the article refer to a commoner party founded in 2014 by Tanaporn Sriyakul.[10]. The 2 sources that you have added (that I also found) mention a party "the new Commoners Party," founded by Kittichai Ngamchaipisit and Chumaporn Taengkliang, in 2018. They do not seem to be the same party hence my nomination as the sources for the 2014 party are seriously lacking. When carrying out a before search it is important to read the details of the sources, which I did, nothing suggests these sources talk about the same party, but I may be wrong. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My use of "of interest" is in the sense of attracting attention and not what I personally find interesting. My apologies if this was not clear, the English language can be a fickle thing sometimes. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the parties. The tags at the Nation suggest they're the same, but that's as likely as not to be an error. Withdrawing my !vote. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:55, 10 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 Victory (DJ Khaled album). Sandstein 19:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fed Up (DJ Khaled song)[edit]

Fed Up (DJ Khaled song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another non notable song with no reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Victory (DJ Khaled album) as plausible search term. The song didn't receive much coverage on its own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:33, 9 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 19:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chot- Aj Isko, Kal Tereko[edit]

Chot- Aj Isko, Kal Tereko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The film fails notability criteria for filims. The only review I could find was by "Times of India", which is already used as a source in the article.

Also, there is no significant coverage of the film in reliable sources, making it fail general notability guidelines as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the full review in the Times of India is significant coverage in a reliable source, but at least one more national review is needed to pass WP:NFILM or other rs reviews/significant coverage to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is the debut film of notable model/actress Jesse Randhawa. Undersigned put up few reliable sources of newspaper links like Indian Express and Times of India. Pinakpani (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  even with the newly added sources, it confirms the existence but not notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep according to Box Office India it seems to have had a wide release in 2004 so there should be archived reviews offline if not online. As well as the full Times of India review hereI did find this other full review from entertainment magazine gkamsham here and with other coverage it just about passes WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Atlantic306. TOI is a good enough reference and glamsham can also be considered. Considering that the actors are notable (and probably even the director considering he directed a very mainstream movie in Hum Tum Pe Marte Hain and considering he has received press - including a passing mention of the movie in contention in [11]), I think its better to let the article be. Also the fact that the movie is pretty old according to Indian standards and does not have any super stars, there is also the difficulty in finding reliable online sources. Deletion should ideally serve some purpose (weeding out promotion etc), and I am inclined to WP:AGF on this. Jupitus Smart 18:04, 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. Sandstein 19:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kya Tum[edit]

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

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

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie is released in October 2018 and has references for evidence of same. You can check one of the references ^[1]

• Delete The plethora of unreliable (read=blog, tabloid) sources outnumber the reliable sources; the latter is represented only by Times of India, but that is a one line synopsis. The topic unfortunately lacks the depth and persistence of coverage required to demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion. ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you can check the following reference for in-depth coverage ^[1]

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Vidarte[edit]

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

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Does not meet WP:BIO; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/TH_Godrick with no other contributions outside this topic. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep accomplished award winning business creator. 52 references show much more notability than most Olympic athletes (deemed auto notable) pageant winners who regularly get articles for single title wins. If we are going to delete businessperson articles like this, why not just prohibit all pages on businesspeople or businesses and reserve Wikipedia for entertainers like football players (get an article for playing in a single professional game) and the like. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Forbes 30 under 30 is an example of notability but this page badly needs to be neutralized and copy edited as the templates say.Trillfendi (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom's comment: "30 under 30" is a trivial award. Re: notability of Olympic athletes, that should be discussed at WP:NSPORT and has no bearing on this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references are all about the companies >80%. 30 under 30, is meaningless, and utterly promotional. Forbes produces, I think it is 1470 x under y lists per year, of one sort or another. It is promotional and Non RS. The references are a mix of press releases, churnalism and trade papers, plain business reporting rags, plain churnalism. On top of that I vaguely remember an article of this type, being deleted already, re: the electricity generation by plants. scope_creep (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Forbes 30 under 30 is certainly not trivial and is not just judged by editors at Forbes but by many notable business people. This article may need some clean up, but as of this moment this is a clear keep. Also, why do people that post nothing about business try to delete all of these articles? Also, yes Forbes produces many lists but those lists are mostly made by contributors/guests -- Forbes 30 under 30 is not one of them! User:vanmodhe(talk) 13:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE, please see User:Vanmodhe. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promo article not showing a clear indication o person's notability.--Darwinek (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Promotional and references are mostly on company, which would be, otherwise, not-notable too. The comments on Olympic athletes are irrelevant, if a flaw is found with the notability of the athletes, that discussion should not be brought here. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:43, 29 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Dead Drunk[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No claims of notabiity, references are not reliable sources, can only find one film review on a blog Rogermx (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's possible that there's more sourcing out there, but I can't find even a whisper of anything that could show that this coverage exists. As far as I can tell, this is an indie film that released and just failed to get the necessary coverage needed to pass NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:54, 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 withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Street, Toronto[edit]

Queen Street, Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A smaller, redundant version of Queen Street (Toronto), was useful when Queen Street (Toronto) was a redirect, Queen Street (Toronto) is the preferred name per WP:CONSISTENCY . Queen Street, Toronto should become a redirect. The neighbourhood is known as Queen West (or West Queen West) and not Queen Street, so this article shouldn't be changed to talk about the neighbourhood. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 21:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Question for nominator @BrandonXLF: It looks like you attempted to redirect and were reverted, then brought this directly to AfD. Since using AfD for settling content disputes is a reason for speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT, can you please clarify why this should be handled at AfD rather than article talk pages or other dispute resolution venues? Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: This has nothing to do with that. I improperly closed the move proposal (I was the nominator). My edits were reverted because of that. I'm nominating this because I realize my edit I did would (that was reverted) would require a RfD. To clarify, the the revert of my edit had nothing to do with this article, but it had to do wit the improper closure of the move request, and I think a AfD is necessary anyways. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrandonXLF: Then what is preventing a merge/redirect right now? Bakazaka (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: There's no consensus to have it done. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrandonXLF: But you're not actually proposing deletion. If the merge/redirect is uncontroversial, you don't need AfD, since you can be bold and do it. If the merge/redirect is controversial, then you have a content dispute that should not be settled at AfD. Either way, it's unclear why this is at AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I'll do that. I'll withdraw this AfD then.– BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:50, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tana Joseph[edit]

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

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

Per WP:N. While her resume is remarkable, a lack of significant coverage in independent third party sources makes me the subject is not notable enough yet for her own WP:BLP. Comatmebro (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree. Going places but WP:TOOSOON. The Newton International Fellowship is semi-prestigious, but doesn't make notability in its own right (40 awarded per year). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with OP and Elmidae. Subject is clearly a rising star (pun intended) in her field, but not yet to the levels required by WP:BIO.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is a fair amount of biographical information around, but it is not independent of the subject, as it is provided by the organisations she works for. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:22, 26 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. Sandstein 19:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Buzan[edit]

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

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

I have no idea how this has survived so long, the main claim to notability is unsourced and hyperbolic, the sources for the article lack reliability and intellectual independence, all seem to be affiliated in some way, apart form the patent filings, which can't establish notability. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not rise to the level required by WP:NBIO. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Probably survived so long because he's notable. Had a BBC TV series in the 1970s, was nominated for a Nobel Prize in 2011, his books have sold millions of copies, and has enough coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Michig (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Further articles on Buzan found via the British Newspaper Aarchive from the Liverpool Echo from 1986 and two from the Irish Independent from 2002. --Michig (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, well done! Guy (Help!) 11:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @UnitedStatesian: Pinging to see what you think about the sources Michig posted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote above based on some of the sources unearthed by @Michig: (though noting that one is a press release, and that a newspaper that mentions "nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" shows ignorance of how that process works. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the good work done by Michig above. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. Sandstein 19:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buckaroo Banzai (character)[edit]

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

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

Ten years ago, after the last Talk page entry was a discussion that noted this article had been tagged as In-universe, the tag was apparently removed and no work has been done on the article. Only now was the tag put it back: In-universe is affecting the Biography and Other media sections. The remaining section "Further adventures" duplicates information already found in the main article. But this entire article is unneeded. It is unreferenced except for two refs in the lead, and those do not appear to provide material to this article. —Prhartcom♥ 19:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with article on The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. Vorbee (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the WP:OR there's nothing to merge; it duplicates information already found in the main article. —Prhartcom♥ 12:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Wysong[edit]

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

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

Unsourced, not notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. No significant reliable source coverage to meet any standard of notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that USA Today states that he used a pen name. Also, active over a decade ago, ergo, archive searches are essential. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing out the pen name, I missed that. That completely changes the search results - striking delete vote above. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:HEYMANN] I want first to note that Nom and editor writing above give no indication of being aware that this author used a pen name, although A. Frank Steward is a useful search term, turning up book reviews and articles that do not appear in searches on his actual name. note also that neither editor above gave any indication of having run news archive searches, although it is a truth universally acknowledged that many, perhaps most, authors will be notable only for a few years around the publication of their more popular books. Wysong/Steward published books between 2001 and 2008. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Part of what is GREAT - and user friendly - about Wikipedia is that you can look up the popular writers of yore, when you stumble into one. We KEEP writers like Louise Hall Tharp, Elaine Macmann Willoughby, Wilfrid S. Bronson, and Mary Nash (author) - even though nobody reads them anymore. (end of rant) WP:HEY, I have added some material, sources to the page, more reviews exist and can be added, although I believe that I have added enough to show that it should be kept. Quite a few hits where he is quoted as-an-expert on the air travel experience. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, yeah, this probably started as author PROMO, eons ago. Passes WP:AUTHOR because of the many book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient coverage to say he has received "significant coverage" if you include material under the pen-name. FOARP (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snippy[edit]

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

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

WP:DICDEF. No new examples provided in the 11 years given to provide new examples. The coverage of what Al Gore said is about what Al Gore said, not the word snippy. wumbolo ^^^ 18:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This looks like a WP:COATRACK for the Gore/Bush anecdote; it contains virtually nothing on snippy-ness per se. Redirecting is not really an option, since the word is marginally related to Irritability, but this title also relates marginally to Snip (disambiguation). Cnilep (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Grabiner[edit]

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

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

Not convinced this biography of a businessman meets WP:GNG. The Telegraph article is not a trivial mention and would count towards notability. Other than that, the coverage seems WP:ROUTINE. I have looked for other sources and seen mentions of Grabiner in the context of Philip Green, but they only appear to be passing mentions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 26 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 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nxt[edit]

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

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

BaconBach wrote on Talk:Nxt: It's not a notable project (WP:N) and there are literally no references. This does not pass WP:SIGCOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaconBach (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proxy nomination for BaconBach. I have no opinion. MER-C 15:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I too see no RS coverage, and only mentions in bottom-of-the-barrel crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per David. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. And not a moment too soon. -The Gnome (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC) See below for changed !vote. -The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. DeMartino, Ian (2016). The Bitcoin Guidebook: How to Obtain, Invest, and Spend the World's First Decentralized Cryptocurrency. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-63450-524-6. Retrieved 2018-11-21.

     The book notes:

     Nxt, pronounced "Next," is a "Crypto 2.0" (i.e., next-generation) coin that is among the most powerful of those available. It has one of the most active developer communities and its 2.0 features are among the most commonly used. Nxt features a decentralized marketplace for digital goods, a digital "token" or asset exchange, a monetary system that allows the easy creation of currencies secured on the Nxt blockchain, a messaging system, and an alias system. It is also the flagship coin in the SuperNET system, which combines several blockchains and allows them to communicate.

     These features came out over time since the currency's 2013 release and new features are constantly added. Like Bitcoin's Satoshi Nakamoto, Nxt's creator chose to remain anonymous and went by the name BCNext before disappearing in a fashion similar to Nakamoto.

     Although the Nxt community is one of the coin's strongest assets, it has also proven to be one of its biggest liabilites as well. Early on in its history, the community split for reasons that still aren't clear. This split led to the creation of two message boards, causing confusion for newcomers that persists to this day. There have also been a few scams involving members or former members of the community that further hurt the coin's reputation.

     Nxt has also been subject to a few Bitcoin-style hacks. Although all these have had to do with exchange security or user error more than the security of the coin itself, Nxt is stored entirely online—and the lack of easily stored offline wallets is sometimes blamed for the issue. In 2014, one of Nxt's biggest exchanges, Bter, lost 50 million NXT. The community considered a hard fork to reverse the effects of the hack but decided this wouldn't be fair to people who made legitimate transactions during the time between the hack and the hard fork. It was also thought this would set a bad precedent in the community.

     [Four more paragraphs.]

  2. Franco, Pedro (2015). Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering and Economics. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 203–204. ISBN 978-1-119-01916-9. Retrieved 2018-11-21.

     The book notes:

     12.7.5 Nxt
     
     Nxt uses a different code base than Bitcoin, written from scratch. Nxt also creates its own blockchain, secured using a 100% proof-of-stake system. The main applications of Nxt are a decentralized exchange, voting system, messaging, and DNS.

     Addresses use elliptic curve public key cryptography24. Transactions, and other mes- sages, are registered in the blockchain. Nxt blockchain uses a proof-of-stake algorithm (14.2.1). Nxt assumes that all clients in the network run a full node. Addresses where at least one incoming transaction has been confirmed by 1440 blocks are called unlocked addresses or active accounts. These addresses are eligible to generate the next proof-of- stake block (Nxt wiki, 2014b).

     The native currency of Nxt is NXT, with an initial supply of 1 billion NXTs (Nxt wiki, 2014a). Nxt blocks have a field called the generation signature. Active accounts sign the generation signature with their private key and then hash the signature. If the resulting hash is lower than the target, then the active account can generate the next block, obtaining all the fees. Creating blocks is called forging blocks, in contrast with Bitcoin's mining, which requires computational power. The target for every active account is weighted by the amount of funds in that address (thus the proof-of-stake) and increases (doubles) every second until a node in the network forges the next block. This network target is tuned so that new blocks are forged on average every 60 seconds.

     [Four more paragraphs]

  3. Prypto (2016). Bitcoin for Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 170. ISBN 978-1-119-07613-1. Retrieved 2018-11-21.

     The book notes:

     NXT: Using Proof-of-Stake for Transaction Consensus
     
     Unlike bitcoin's consensus through mining, NXT (http://nxt.org) uses proof-of-stake to reach a transaction consensus. Additionally, NXT is one of the very few crypto-currencies that has no mining process — all coins were distributed during the launch of this altcoin. Having a steady supply of coins, available at any given time, created a new ecosystem in the world of crypto-currency.

     What makes NXT truly interesting is the fact that any user can create their own crypto-currency within the NXT ecosystem. All newly created coins are backed by NXT currency and can be distributed in a variety of ways.

     In more recent times, NXT has gradually introduced new features such as smart contracts, an arbitary messaging service, and a proper decentralized peer-to-peer exchange platform called MultiGateWay.

  4. Antonopoulos, Andreas M. (2014). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-4919-2198-2. Retrieved 2018-11-21.

     The book notes:

     NXT
     
     NXT (pronounced "Next") is a "pure" proof-of-stake alt coin, in that it does not use proof-of-work mining. NXT is a from-scratch implementation of a cryptocurrency, not a fork of bitcoin or any other alt coins. NXT implements many advanced features, including a name registry (similar to Namecoin), a decentralized asset exchange (similar to Colored Coins), integrated decentralized and secure messaging (similar to Bitmessage), and stake delegation (to delegate proof-of-stake to others). NXT adherents call it a "next-generation" or 2.0 cryptocurrency.

     • Block generation: 1 minute
     • Total currency: No limit
     • Consensus algorithm: Proof-of-stake
     • Market capitalization: $30 million in mid-2014

  5. Lee, David Kuo Chen; Low, Linda (2018). Inclusive FinTech: Blockchain, Cryptocurrency and ICO. New York: World Scientific. p. 90. ISBN 978-981-3272-76-7. Retrieved 2018-11-21.

     The book notes:

     After the token sale of Mastercoin, NXT started its ICO in September 2013. NXT is the first cryptocurrency that uses purely Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, and it has a static total supply of 1 billion coins. In the ICO, it raised 21 bitcoins that were worth roughly USD17,000. As of September 2, 2017, the price of NXT was around USD0.12, making it the most profitable investment cryptocurrency with a return on investment (ROI) of over 669 times.

  6. Ciaiana, Pavel; Rajcaniova, Miroslava; Kancs, d'Artis (January 2018). "Virtual relationships: Short- and long-run evidence from BitCoin and altcoin markets". Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. 52. Elsevier: 173–195. doi:10.1016/j.intfin.2017.11.001. ISSN 1042-4431. Retrieved 2018-11-21.

     The article notes:

     For example, NxT, NEM and SuperNET have distributed all coins at the time when the currency was released, implying a zero-growth rate.

     ...

     Only the prices of Ethereum, NameCoin, NxT and SuperNET are found to be affected by the BitCoin price. Note that only Ethereum and NameCoin are based on the same PoW transaction validation mechanism as BitCoin. NxT applies the PoS mechanism, while SuperNET is a basket of alternative virtual currencies. In terms of the total coin supply, only NameCoin, NxT and SuperNET apply the maximum limit to the coin supply (as BitCoin does) whereas Ethereum has an unlimited coin supply (Table 3).

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

  Cunard (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your refbombing is mostly passing mentions at best. Antonopoulos' explicitly promotional work on Bitcoin should not be treated as evidence of notability, same reason we don't treat crypto blogs as evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Skyhorse Publishing-published The Bitcoin Guidebook book by Ian DeMartino provides eight paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.

  The John Wiley & Sons-published Understanding Bitcoin book by Pedro Franco provides seven paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.

  These two sources by themselves are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  These two sources are not "passing mentions" or "crypto blogs".

  Andreas M. Antonopoulos' book Mastering Bitcoin was published by the reputable publisher O'Reilly Media. According to https://books.google.com/books?id=IXmrBQAAQBAJ&pg=PR4, the book's editors were Mike Loukides and Allyson MacDonald, the book's production editor was Melanie Yarbrough, the book's copyeditor was Kim Cofer, and the book's proofreader was Carla Thornton. The content about Nxt is neutrally written. This book was published by a reputable publisher and had plenty of editorial oversight. I do not consider the book to be an "explicitly promotional work on Bitcoin" (please provide evidence that it is promotional), though even if the source is discounted, the books by Ian DeMartino and Pedro Franco are sufficient by themselves to establish notability.

  Cunard (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• David Gerard, we're arguing about extant sources and Cunard identified a bunch of them. That's what we're supposed to do in such discussions! It's not "refbombing" by any stretch of the term. The essay on reference overkill is about something else, i.e. about cluttering up the text of existing articles with unnecessary, repetitive, or irrelevant citations. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources found. This had been deleted 3 times in previous AFDS some of which were created with different names, i think once deleted it should be SALTED. PlotHelpful (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No reliable sources found. – significant coverage about Nxt in multiple book sources have been presented.

  This had been deleted 3 times in previous AFDS some of which were created with different names, i think once deleted it should be SALTED – this is not a policy-based reason for deletion.

  PlotHelpful has 66 edits in total. PlotHelpful made their first edits in January 2017 and made no further edits until 22 November 2018.

  Cunard (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, looks a perfectly reasonable and policy-based opinion to me - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PlotHelpful's comment says "No reliable sources found" but does not explain why these two are not reliable sources:

1. The Bitcoin Guidebook book by Ian DeMartino and published by the Skyhorse Publishing which provides eight paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.
2. The Understanding Bitcoin book by Pedro Franco and published by the John Wiley & Sons which provides seven paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.

Cunard (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article, as it now stands, contains precisely zero references. (There is a section it it, titled "References," which stands empty of content.) And that's almost two weeks after the article has been nominated for deletion. It would be great to see some or all of the sources Cunard dug up worked into the article and then decide if it's worth staying up. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added all of the sources I presented here to the article except for the contested Andreas M. Antonopoulos source.

  Cunard (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not see the brief mentions in articles about bitcoin as substantial enough for this to be notable or beyond a run-of-the-mill cryptocurrency website. Reywas92^Talk 05:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I cannot in all honesty reject the evidence of notability in the sources provided by Cunard. I notice that there has been no attempt to refute them but only blanket dismissals, with the accusation of "refbombing" to boot, which is absurd given that looking for references (and as many as possible) in an AfD debate is precisely what we're supposed to do. No matter how one feels about cryptocurrencies, this article now has the prerequisites to stay up. -The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for reviewing the sources and reconsidering your position, The Gnome (talk · contribs). I greatly appreciate it. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the 15 paragraphs of coverage in the Skyhorse Publishing and John Wiley & Sons books (among other sources), here are more sources about the subject:
  • Popov, Serguei (December 2016). "A Probabilistic Analysis of the Nxt Forging Algorithm". Ledger. 1. D-Scribe Digital Publishing: 69–83. doi:10.5195/LEDGER.2016.46. ISSN 2379-5980. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
  • "Call for evidence: Investment using virtual currency or distributed ledger technology" (PDF). European Securities and Markets Authority. 2015-04-22. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.

    Here is information about the report:

    ESMA has been monitoring and analysing virtual currency investment over the last 6 months, to understand developments in the market, potential benefits or risks for investors, market integrity or financial stability, and to support the functioning of the EU single market.

    ESMA’s analysis is set out in this paper. ESMA is seeking to share its analysis in order to promote wider understanding of innovative market developments, and invites market participants and other stakeholders to submit feedback and any additional information on the following topics: ...

    The report notes:

    With NXT, another VC, every user can be assigned the role to validate or “forge” NXT. One difference between bitcoin and NXT is that all NXTs exist already, as opposed to bitcoins of which around 2/3 of the final amount of bitcoin exists today. Users of NXT can earn NXT by forging. Forging fulfils essentially the same role for NXT as mining does for bitcoins, i.e. validating a set of transactions, only that rewards are not new NXT but the transaction fees contained in each block. Also, the process is different in the sense that the competitive set-up of validating bitcoin transactions requires a lot more computing power than the allocative set-up of validating NXT transactions. The processing of a block takes 1-1.5 minutes and the recommended confirmation time is 10 blocks, i.e. 10- 15 minutes.

    ...

    975 shares and other assets have been created and transacted so far via Colored Coin and NXT. Since the start of NXTs asset exchange in May 2014 around 50 new assets have been created each month.

    ...

    The benefit of cost and speed equally holds for issuers in terms of listing an asset on an asset exchange. In the case of the NXT asset exchange, a listing currently costs 1000 NXT (currently around 10 Euro) one-off plus transaction costs when sending rewards to investors.

  That the peer-reviewed academic journal Ledger (a journal published by the University of Pittsburgh's D-Scribe Digital Publishing that is dedicated to cryptocurrency and blockchain technology research) covered Nxt's forging algorithm in an extensive article and that the EU regulatory agency European Securities and Markets Authority covered Nxt in a report further establishes it is notable.

  Here are more sources:

  1. Finberg, Ron (2014-01-09). "Digital Currencies 2.0: Meet NXT, the 'Next' Ripple". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
  2. Zawadzki, Sabina (2014-07-21). Gaunt, Jeremy (ed.). "Bitcoin competitor NXT in modest start to trade vs the dollar". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
  3. Jacobsen, Stine; Zawadzki, Sabina (2014-07-18). Walker, Sophie (ed.). "Danish virtual bourse to trade NXT 'cryptocurrency' for real money". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
  4. Mizrahi, Avi (2017-09-14). "BNP Paribas and Accenture Spain Test Nxt Blockchain Technology". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
  5. Haines, Lester (2014-11-20). "NXT: The first SPAAAACE cryptocurrency". The Register. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
  6. Wienberg, Christian (2014-07-18). "Bitcoin Is Challenged as Danish Bourse Offers NXT Trading". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
  7. Bjorøy, Trond Vidar (2017-09-21). "Ardor could fix key blockchain weaknesses — if it can get its message out". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
  Cunard (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard's sources. I've been keeping an eye on this AFD. The two longest book sources above are probably okay for notability, though not as strong as the coverage primarily dedicated to Nxt. I was aware of the ESMA report since it's mentioned in the article. Just those might not be good enough but combined with the newest ones posted it is. Ranking from best to worst: Ledger, Reuters/Bloomberg, The Register, Finance Magnates ("formerly Forex Magnates" Did they change their name because of cryptocurrency?), then VentureBeat which is labelled as a "guest" post (would be better than FM if it wasn't). Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is VB "guest" another word for "advertorial blog"? - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe Ledger article, Reuters quotes and two books above meet the requirements of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, notwithstanding that some of the others are obvious trash.AlasdairEdits (talk) 12:23, 28 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 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of influential Muslims of the 16th Century[edit]

List of influential Muslims of the 16th Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unclear inclusion criteria ... "influential", lacks sourcing. WP:NOR Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep? Each name should have a citation next to it, but I thought the idea of this list seems sound, I see nothing wrong with it other than failing to have no citations per name. Govvy (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename and describe inclusion criteria. It could be an interesting list, but seems to be largely royalty/aristocracy - it doesn't include several people in the List of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars, for example, including a jurist and theologian, a geographer, a qadi and historian, a physician, mathematician, clockmaker and astronomer, and an Islamic scholar and mystic. There are several other lists of Muslim scientists and scholars which also include 16th century notables, who could surely be called 'influential'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid encyclopedic topic, passes WP:NLIST, sources are easy to find in the individual articles so current sourcing is not a reason to delete, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't generally cross-categorise based on religion and we certainly don't for people being "influential". Who gets to decide who is influential? Ajf773 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and perhaps rename. The inclusion criteria, while perhaps not explicit, are implied by the section titles. This is a List of 16th-century office holders in the Islamic world. Pburka (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too broad and ill-defined. Daughters and most (though not all) of the wives of sultans weren't particularly "influential", religious leaders already have their own list (List of 16th-century religious leaders#Islam), Ottoman sultans don't really need a sublist of List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Influential" is an arbitrary and subjective criteria for inclusion. If one deleted that word, it is basically just a category intersection. I don't see what value a list adds to categories in this very broad case. SJK (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lists of people by religion by century are just too broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this list of pashas, princesses and religious leaders - these are some of the subheads. "influential" is far to vague a definition for a List. many names are not bluelinked, but even if all of the non-bluelinked ones were deleted, clicking on some of the names leaves me puzzles ad to what makes some of them "influential" - the sole sourced statements regarding Ismihan Sultan is that she bore two sons and that, according to a legend, she "suffered" in her marriage. We have already a list of List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire. Mostly, I'm just wondering how we ope rationalize "influential."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this mess of WP:OR and WP:NPOV about some alleged "influence" that is offered unsupported. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What is "Influenital"?LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 21:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless a source can be found for such a list, it fails WP:LISTN. There is in fact an article on an annual publication The 500 Most Influential Muslims, but without a source for a list for 16th century, it looks like WP:OR. Hzh (talk) 21:00, 27 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 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Gibson[edit]

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

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

Time for another AfD, as GRG fanboys flooded the previous AfD after some off-wiki canvassing. This article is absolutely rife with irrelevant cruft, even more so than most other pages in this topic (which is truly an achievement), and once stripped of that it's the same old "she lived a long time, she died". WP:NOPAGE. Maybe a minibio, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article blatantly fails WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she was widowed for 50 years, lived in the same home for 80 years, was in a commercial advertisement, and the standard longevity secret. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the three lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just living a long time does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find very little coverage - only in-state newspaper reports of her birthdays until after she died. Does not meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:32, 28 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. No evidence of independent notability provided. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Roberts Gillan[edit]

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

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

People article is only one paragraph about famous people’s siblings; her “notability” is only derived from family members. I can’t find significant coverage / reliable sources for herself and career. Trillfendi (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - her numerous film roles are not significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR. Argento Surfer

• Keep - She is an important member of an important family and she is also an actress in her own right. What the page needs in more info, not deletion. User:Don Macleay (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’re gonna be hard pressed to find it, and even if you do, all “notability” still falls on Julia. (And 10 of her “roles” were in Julia’s films and tv appearances for what it’s worth.)Trillfendi (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't find a review that gave significant consideration to her in a non-family sense. She can't inherit notability so can't qualify that way. She is rather google unfriendly (since her sister blocks out most consideration, but is always mentioned so can't be cut out). Nosebagbear (talk) 21:16, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowfax Technologies[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Google search threw back their fundraising and advertorial. Cabayi (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:CORP notability whatsoever, just press releases and similar articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than a fluff piece padded with information about their funding. Zero actual notability available in WP:RS. A quick search of the article creator's name indicates an obvious WP:COI, so this might be a WP:CSD#G11 candidate. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for G11 (& twice previously deleted G11) but Atlantic306 disagreed. Still, it'll be useful to have A4 available the next time it comes back. Cabayi (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Sounds like this is Advertising or SoapBoxing more than anything. IanDBeacon (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for advertising Skirts89 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails NCORP as per nom Spiderone 19:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for advertising misterpottery (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is just native advertising. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. PlotHelpful (talk) 18:39, 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Barnes[edit]

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

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

He fails WP:GNG for lack of multiple significant coverage from secondary reliable sources (the second reference in the article is not SIGCOV at all) and WP:NACTOR for lack of multiple significant roles in notable films or shows. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is non-notable. Skirts89 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a bunch of minor roles does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NACTOR. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: R#Reaper. Content can be merged from history subject to consensus. Sandstein 19:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper (Gunther Strauss)[edit]

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

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

This fictional character is not notable independent of Marvel Comics and insignificant within the fiction itself. There are three incoming links from article space, and none of them are inline. An IP removed my PROD and added a merge template pointing to List of Marvel Comics characters: R, but that list is not intended to be exhaustive. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics characters: R or maybe List of Marvel Comics Golden Age characters. One RS is more than what most of these minor characters have, so a brief note on this guy somewhere seems like it would be a good idea. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: R. I don't see even one secondary reliable source. Everything about this character comes directly from Marvel Comics. As such, there's no way it meets the requirements for a standalone article. A two-sentence mention in the list of characters is about the limit, in my judgement. There's some trivia about this character on the web in fanwikis, and that's where it belongs, not in an encyclopedia. Amsgearing (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "The Marvel Comics Guide to New York City" was apparently published by Pocket Books. BOZ (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per BOZ withdrawing !vote Chetsford (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - aside from the fact that one non-primary source is used to cite a plot element, what is the value of adding this character to a list? As far as I can tell, he's appeared in exactly two comic books published by Marvel, a company that routinely published 60+ books per month for most of its 75 years of existence. There are zero inline links to the page. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'm withdrawing my !vote. Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 28 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 19:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Music Rights[edit]

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

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

Article was a draft article submitted by an editor with a conflict of interest. Since creation the article has largely relied upon press releases as references and once given a cleanup leaves very little else to demonstrate notability. Longhair\^talk 14:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm unable to find any sources outside of press releases. If those PRs are accurate, this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Per WP:TOOSOON, trivial and reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to his LinkedIn listing^[2] the CEO and founder of Pro Music Rights is only 19 years old and graduated from high school in 2018 which makes it highly unlikely his company is the third biggest performing rights organization in the USA^[3] yet.

PhilipCowan (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually quite probable that it's the third biggest PRO in the US, seeing as there were really only two in operation before 2018, and it's only the fifth in history. Whether there are enough in-depth sources about a company that's only been in existence for a few months is another matter. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per norm. Just press releases and nothing to make out of notability. PlotHelpful (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too new, fails WP:NORG, sources as mentioned above are PRish or do not significantly cover the subject. JC7V (talk) 02:26, 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. GNG not supported by keep votes. Editor's are reminded that, per WP:NRIVALRY, the notion of a rivalry must rreceive significant coverage in a number of third party sources. It is not enough simply for the name to be mentioned in match reporting. It is also highly unlikely that a genuine rivalry garnering such coverage would materialise after only a small number of games and recreation. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Is Real[edit]

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

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

No evidence that this single game was notable. Nothing out iof the ordinary happened, and no titles were decided. Just a routine cup game between two teams that happen to be located nearish to each other. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - topic draws nearly quadruple, if not quintuple the amount of web results compared to a routine match between teams, and about 7 or 8 times the amount of traffic to a typical U.S. Open Cup game, which meets WP:NOTABLE. Further, the phrase and terminology has received extensive third party coverage. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Run of the mill cup game between two local sides. Citations/links are WP:ROUTINE coverage.Dougal18 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - now that FC Cincinnati is in MLS, this will become a regular rivalry, played (likely) three times per year. It already has quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV to help it meet WP:GNG, and should continue to get more as it is played in the future. I plan on rewriting the page in the near future to better reflect that this wasn't just a one-off match. 21.colinthompson (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it was a one-off match. They have played one time. And if we end up with separate articles for USL Cincinnati and MLS Cincinnati, it will remain a one-off match forever from a WP perspective as any future games will involve a different Cincinnati entity. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as of "right now" it is a one-off match, but they will be playing more times in the future (barring the unlikely event (at this point) that the Crew aren't sold). And even if we do end up with separate articles for the two clubs, the rivalry would still be contained under one article: Portland Timbers–Seattle Sounders rivalry, Canadian Classique, and Heritage Cup (MLS) are just some of the MLS rivalries that also include rivalry matches from "previous eras" in one or both clubs' histories. We would still include the 2017 match under the Hell is Real banner, just with the note in prose that it occurred during "FC Cincinnati's USL era". The argument of this one has to be over the coverage – not over the status of the match. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be better to discuss this on the talk page, but I will wait until I know whether the article is deleted or kept. All I'll say now is that I'm concerned that WP:CRYSTALBALLing might make a delete more likely.Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and has no substantial coverage after the fact. Wait until a few rivalry matches are played before trying to revive this one. SounderBruce 00:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not convinced by GNG arguments. Coverage seems run-of-the-mill to me. GiantSnowman 10:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and redirect Not real convinced that this meets WP:GNG right now but it seems likely that this will become more clearly notable once Cincinnati actually begins play in MLS. There's also not a very clear redirect except for maybe 2017 U.S. Open Cup#Fourth Round, so that might work. The information is also mostly in the respective teams' articles as well. Jay eyem (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON without prejudice on recreation. The match itself isn't notable, but the rivalry will almost certainly become notable with the new Cincinnati MLS team if Columbus don't end up moving. SportingFlyer talk 23:43, 22 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can the supporters of this article please do something about the coloring of the text and background in the "Results" section? The blue text on a red background is hard to read. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Add six months and this will pass WP:GNG as a rivalry because Cincinnati will have played Columbus in MLS. The two teams and the MLS are desperate to call this an in-state rivalry, and WP:RS will enthusiastically cooperate. Put it on the back burner to allow 21.colinthompson and others improve it so that it's ready for mainspace early in the 2019 MLS season. It will save the effort of re-writing it. Yes, it can be WP:REFUNDed, but I've been around long enough to know that is not what happens, then we have history merge and so on, along with the risk of misattribution. It's more efficient to move to draft and move back later. If the "Hell Is Real" name becomes stale, or is applied to the first game but not the rivalry, then the draft can be moved to whatever people commonly call it. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:56, 26 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 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Lee[edit]

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

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

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. A minor role in a single Broadway production does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is not even clear her one noted role is actualty significant, but multiple significant roles in notable productions are required.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:03, 27 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 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viewen[edit]

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

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

Essentially identical to Draft:Viewen that has correctly been rejected twice due to insufficient references, failing notability. Editing pattern of the author also suggests possibility of undeclared paid editing or COI/promo editing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:CORP. Lacks significant coverage from independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing out there as far as significant coverage so fails WP:NCORP by a mile. Would also suggest locking the page from creation since the creator is so intent on disrupting Wikipedia (posting this to the mainspace despite it being declined twice at AfC). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of satisfying notability guidelines. Clearly some sort of COI editing. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. No evidence of WP:CORP notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Creator has been banned Daiyusha (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The article creator has subsequently been blocked, not banned, and was not evading a block or ban at the time the article was created. WP:G5 speedy deletion ("pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block") is therefore not applicable, and I have declined it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest American people ever. Sandstein 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Weaver[edit]

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

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

WP:NOPAGE. Consists entirely of longevity fancruft. Suggest redirecting to an appropriate list. EEng 12:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest American people ever. Of the three lists featuring her, this one has the most specific information. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable WP:GNG with with articles in the Washington Post and The Guardian demonstrating national and international notability. The argument for deletion is "Consists entirely of longevity fancruft", but the contents of the article is from the Washington Post etc. The reason we have criteria for notability is you can't build and encyclopedia on I just don't like it arguments or I like it arguments. -- Unsigned comment by someone

  You haven't addressed the basis for the nomination, which isn't notability but rather WP:NOPAGE. The single face that is even arguably nontrivial -- that she was the child of sharecroppers -- can go in a list entry. EEng 03:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As you know, after the American Civil war, slavery was transformed in part into sharecropping. She wasn't merely the child of sharecroppers, but was born into sharecropping and all the hardships that brought. Having been one of the oldest African American women to have ever lived, there is a reasonable expectation that even more detail about her life will be published in reliable sources. It is also a huge challenge for Wikipedia to expand and maintain articles on women and minorities.--I am One of Many (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still aren't addressing the NOPAGE argument. EEng 05:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that she deserves an article because of her family's profession of sharecropping is absurd. Farming has always been a tough industry to make a livelihood in and there were countless millions of sharecroppers, and no one deserves an article based on their gender or race, least of all to make other people feel good or righteous. Your argument is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is pure WP:I don't like it. You have no idea what sharecropping is, it was not a profession it was slavery for blacks in the South. You also need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's criteria for notability. @ENG, first the NOPAGE is not a policy and not a reason to delete a page, it is a consideration when creating an article. Nevertheless, I did address your concerns.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course NOPAGE isn't policy; none of the notability guidelines are policy -- they're guidelines. And if you can't see that a consideration when creating an article is therefore equally a consideration when deleting an article, then I don't think further discussion will be productive. EEng 18:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of articles on athletes, for example, which don't meet NOPAGE. NOPAGE's weight when compared to GNG and that this is an article about a black woman, gives NOPAGE zero weight. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, plus you clearly still don't understand that NOPAGE has nothing to do with notability. And you better fucking think twice before pulling the race bullshit again, because I've had just about enough of it. But what's wrong with me? Why am I bothering? As predicted, further discussion isn't productive. EEng 19:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to take a deep breath and relax and don't make assumptions about other's intentions. The problem is that non-white people and women are disproportionately under represented in Wikipedia. For example, Bernice Madigan is also under consideration for deletion and she was white. Currently, it is less likely that her article will be deleted than this one even though she is clearly less notable and there is even less to write about her. I would never accuse you of racial and gender bias, but I do think that it is important to consider race and gender as one factor in deletion decisions when there is a known bias Wikipedia coverage.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't "consider race and gender as one factor in deletion decisions". We consider the sources available. Bernice Madigan is equally a NOPAGE case. EEng 01:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her health history, her family tree, standard longevity secret, and glorification of claimed records. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as none of the sources talk about her in any meaningful depth. She was born and raised in unfortunate circumstances and made a decent life out of it, which is certainly nice but not itself notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't find much coverage of her - even when she became the oldest American, it was reported nationally in the US, but using a single Associated Press report, so she doesn't meet WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Other than that, coverage seems mostly to be local. There is the Time article, but still not multiple sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:21, 28 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 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Square, Ballarat[edit]

Central Square, Ballarat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Not able to find significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Longhair\^talk 14:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree with nom, fails WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just a run of the mill shopping centre. Nothing notable about it. Ajf773 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Plenty of very ordinary very routine commercial references / mentions but nothing at all to indicate notability. Just another one of thousands of typical shopping centres. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of the type of coverage in the article and through internet searches that is needed to show notability for similar articles shows that this mall fails to pass the guidelines for inclusion. JC7V (talk) 02:29, 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. Sandstein 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javaid Anwar[edit]

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Now there thousands of poets.Not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:54, 27 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 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future self[edit]

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

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

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

This is more than covered at Self-concept and anything not can probably be merged however this is a massive essay and what I'd expect to see handed into a teacher and not a Wikipedia article. Praxidicae (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I reverted this back to the redirect to Self-concept as an unneeded fork. The original author reverted again but later moved it to draft before moving it back to main space less than 3 hours later with no good explanation. It is a wholesale duplication of Self concept. Self concept has benefited from the contributions of a wide range of editors. This is significantly less well written, attempts to cover the same ground, but reads like a college level thesis.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The contemporary psychological research on the future self is not covered on the self-concept page. The psychological theories and applications are distinct and the psychological literatures for the two topics have essentially no overlap. The sources of the future self article are entirely from top peer-reviewed psychology and consumer behavior journals. I am a new contributor and will edit the article to have encyclopedic style. I wrote on both your talk pages explaining why I reverted your redirects. I am greatly looking forward to improving this article and appreciate your input. JSRpsych (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — JSRpsych (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Self-concept because both terms are notable. desmay (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is clearly notable and the nomination provides no reason to delete. The self-concept article is broader in that it covers the past, present and future. That article is quite large and so it is reasonable to cover one of these aspects in detail per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per OP's well-reasoned rationale. Maybe merge some of the contents if they're not redundant and are properly sourced/written. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/selective merge while this article is quite large, its length is partially due to its constant repetition of the same claims over and over again, as well as its detailed presentation of multiple different studies that all have very similar results. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Reading through both Future self and Self-concept, the former seems like a valid independent subject. Merging the two would result in issues with undue weight. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the claim that Self-concept covers this subject is utter fantasy. The body of the article does not have the word future anywhere in it. Alright, the lead has four mentions of future self in it, so presumably the article is supposed to include this subject, but it actually doesn't. Having said that, Future self is horribly essay-like and needs a lot of cleanup. Possibly there should only be one article, but a lot of work and thought needs to go into that first. It won't be resolved at this AfD. SpinningSpark 00:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon A. Landry[edit]

Jon A. Landry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY (being a conference First Team does not meet it), no sources suggesting that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 08:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nairanjana Dasgupta[edit]

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

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

Is an accomplished statistician, but not exactly "Notable". Her main achievements are: 1) Being named a Fellow of American Statistical Association. 2) Named "Boeing" Distinguished Professor of Math and Science at WSU. Daiyusha (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as article creator on the basis that there is no evidence that the nominator has any familiarity with our academic notability criteria. Best to just withdraw this nomination before wasting more editor time with it. Criterion #C1: multiple papers with over 100 citations each in Google scholar, check. Criterion #C3: fellow of a major scholarly society for which this is a significant honor, check. Criterion #C5: named and distinguished professorship at a major university, double check. Only one would be enough. In fact the nomination statement describes two out of three of these but without any apparent recognition of their significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 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. Sandstein 19:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool handshakes[edit]

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

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

Article is about a specific use of handshakes, but there's no reason to have it be a separate article from handshake. I could see some content being merged to there, but it's not really well-written enough to be worth it. Sdkb (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No idea why this even exists, it looks like the work of a new editor who couldn't think of a good article topic. It's definitely not encyclopedic, and there's nothing here worth merging. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Nathan. Remagoxer (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nathan. Also, this would be impossible to write WP:NPOV as well, as there are no rules on what makes a handshake cool. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 12:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:LakesideMiners is clearly unfamiliar with Stewart's test. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Argento Surfer, is that sarcasm? LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 16:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is!. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:01, 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 speedy delete. Per G11. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LetsBab[edit]

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

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

New business that fails WP:GNG, as it has not yet attracted attention in secondary sources. Sdkb (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This one could likely be speedied. There is nothing out there as far as reliable coverage in secondary sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't in anyway pass GNG and WP:RS. @CNMall41: i concur it could have been speedy delete, no need bringing it here. ShunDream (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Went ahead and marked for G11, nothing here worth salvaging. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardano (platform)[edit]

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

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

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

Questionably notable blockchain platform/cryptocurrency. For the past few weeks some editors have been adding material, and other have been removing it due to poor sourcing. It seems probable that no reliable sources exist, in which the topic does not pass the general notability guidelines. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, all the sources I can find are just price info from various cryptocurrency tracking websites. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice - it's an interesting project with some good coverage, but only in the crypto blogs - nothing in RSes for notability. A quintessential WP:TOOSOON at this stage - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article should remain for several reasons. My main reason is that when I looked-up this topic I couldn't find a page offering rudimentary infos. Wikipedia is not printed on paper. Even as a Stub article should remain, due to the circumstance that Cardano is listed consistently in the Top10 at https://coinmarketcap.com That primarily scene sources write about the topic should not be used as an exclusion argument. Many of the articles on the topic appear to be listed at Google News, which is at least an indicator for some sort of establishment. prokaryotes (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a policy-based reason. Do you have RSes, and not just crypto blogs? - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I last edited the page it looked like this, contained references to Forbes or Bloomberg, among a couple of other scene posts. prokaryotes (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Forbes is a contributor blog. I added the Bloomberg mention (that the price peaked at the top of the crypto bubble) - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • reliability and notability-conferring of the Daily Dot is questionable, and this piece in particular seriously reads like an advertisement - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment added "not a ballot" - the previous AFD was trashed by a flood of SPAs - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Best I can find is several mentions in Bloomberg articles. Example: Up to Two-Thirds of Bitcoin Transactions Have No Economic Value which only says "At one point, 98 percent of transactions on the digital token Cardano had no economic value, Coinmetrics said." No good for notability. @Prokaryotes: As I'm writing this Cardano is no longer in the top 10. It's about 5 million less than Monero and because of Bitcoin Cash forking there is now "Bitcoin SV" at #9 which puts Cardano at #11. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:58, 28 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) Sdkb (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Kent[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person from the distant past who isn't mentioned anywhere on the internet that I can tell except for an Oxford Dictionary article where she is used as an example of a category. Sdkb (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A quick google search shows 6 books with information about Marion Kent, not including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. References and additional information can easily be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RebeccaGreen:There are books that reference people named Marion Kent, but all of those seem to be referring to people in the 1800s or 1900s. This article is about someone who died in 1500. On some further Googling, she does seem to be mentioned in three books, but I'm not sure whether any of them would count for GNG as a non-trivial mention. - Sdkb (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]