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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G3. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BBJ Breaks The 4th Wall[edit]

BBJ Breaks The 4th Wall (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 film with no indication of notability. (redacted per WP:CHILDPRO Nate • (chatter) 01:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)), the director, producer, and main star of this film has been deleted per CSD A7. I suspect this may be a hoax or that User:Kingofthemonsters1985, the page creator, is also behind this film due to the fact that User:Kingofthemonsters1985 is the copyright holder of the film poster. This is most likely an amateur work, as evidenced by the misspelling of "too intense" on the poster. The author's attempt to list the film on List of RKO Pictures films was reverted as a "fake film". A Google search for this film brings up nothing. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G3 Pretty clear 'using our walls to place their mess on' case of someone putting their pretend Ralph Breaks the Internet clone film here. So tagged. Also going by the WIX we've got a WP:CHILDPRO case here, so the image with their name should also be removed. Nate • (chatter) 21:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have also edited the rationale here per CHILDPRO; the name can still be seen in the history. Nate • (chatter) 01:50, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raisa Etush[edit]

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

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

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

A non-notable Russian actress. More often episodic roles in little-known films.--RTY9099 (talk) 23:28, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:NACTRESS due to her only having minor acting roles and a lack of any WP:SIGCOV of her career. There is also essentially WP:NOPAGE here as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Karatayeva[edit]

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

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

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

A non-notable Russian actress. Just Meritorious Artist and widow of Anatoli Papanov.--RTY9099 (talk) 23:22, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:NACTRESS due to her only having minor acting roles and a lack of WP:SIGCOV of her career. There is WP:NOPAGE here as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mara Balls[edit]

Mara Balls (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 quick google search indicates that most of the links are in finnish or are social media related, and there are not many of them, leading me to believe that this musician is not sufficiently notable as per WP:BAND. Nerd1a4i (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's notable in Finland for sure, one of the most interesting new musicians. I've got thousands of albums, but haven't bought many recently - Mara Balls is different, fresh and full of energy and opinions, not like those copying puppets made by music industry. She has some English texts, too.Risto hot sir (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The search obviously was not well done. See the links given below in other conments.--Urjanhai (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First thing I find when searching is Helsingin Sanomat, the dominating newspaper in Finland, with a video story about her. (She also gets her concerts and albums reviewed in national media.) Then an article in YLE, which is the national Finnish broadcasting company. Here's an interview in YLE, too. Whether these sources are in Finnish or in English is of course irrelevant, as the only thing we say about non-English sources is basically that all other things alike, the English ones are preferable, but any language is fine. /Julle (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Note that in-depth story about her is from Yle Uutiset, top Finnish news program. Passes WP:GNG, based on lots of Finnish RS interest in her. HouseOfChange (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The first random links given in comments above at once show that the criteria given in WP:BAND are easily fulfilled in this case.--Urjanhai (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Risto hot sir (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable since it meets WP:BAND --DannyS712 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian winners in International beauty pageants[edit]

List of Indian winners in International beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no indication that the topic as such (as opposed to individual winners) is notable and meets WP:LISTN based on coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 12:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same probably applies to most entries in Category:Nations at beauty pageants, so this is kind of a test nomination. In all of these cases, I don't see this as much more than attempts at nationalist posturing. There are beautiful people all over the world, so there's no particular link between nationality and beauty pageant victories. In addition, the information is presumably already present in the results pages of the various notable pageants themselves. Sandstein 12:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was expecting this to be more or less complementary to Category:Indian beauty pageant winners, but it seems both narrower (only including "international" beauty pageants and excluding intranational ones), and broader (including individual winners who don't merit articles). I think if there's a valid core it's one that looks more like the category, as a standard list of notable people of a particular nationality by accomplishment/occupation, and the list can in turn be organized under headers for the pageants. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is list of non-notable pageants and winners except for the Big Four international beauty pageants which has a similar page, India at Big Four international beauty pageants.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN because it is primarily a list of non-notable pageants and winners except for the Big Four international beauty pageants, and the topic is not discussed as such a grouping at all in WP:RS. I also agree with the nominators statement about articles such as this being petty attempts at nationalist posturing and there are indeed beautiful people all over the world. I would also support nominating for deletion other similar pageant lists as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Distinct lack of encyclopaedic interest. -The Gnome (talk) 18:06, 4 December 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. Meets NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fielding[edit]

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

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

DELETE - This article should be deleted as the player in question has never made a professional Football League appearance Stew jones (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Played in the EFL Trophy for an FPL team (Mansfield Town) against an FPL team (Scunthorpe United), as seen here. Article certainly needs improving, though. R96Skinner (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues. Nominator is indulging in WP:POINTY editing and would be advised to stop. GiantSnowman 09:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY having played in a competitive fixture in the EFL Trophy between two sides from fully professional leagues. Kosack (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL note subject is 19 years and is currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:24, 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. Mifter (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LGD Gaming (organization)[edit]

LGD Gaming (organization) (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 while back, I lead a cleanup effort on the original LGD Gaming page, which eventually lead to me culling all content outside of their Dota 2 division as their sourcing was either nonexistent or just unreliable at best. Due to that, I just ended up moving the page and scope to PSG.LGD, which was their Dota 2 division that formed a branding sponsorship with the PSG football team earlier this year, as they actually have valid media coverage. I'm now nominating this attempt at recreating a main LGD Gaming page due to the bad sources that fail WP:N, such as Liquidpedia and Chinese social media links. I've already explained this situation multiple times to the page creator LGDGamingFan, who just doesn't seem to understand why this was done in the first place. This has been an issue for months, with another editor being banned for sockpuppetry, threats, and claimed WP:COI to the organization. For more information, see the PSG.LGD talk page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a unnecessary split that cant meet the notability requirements independently. I’d be open to a merge, but I think the whole reason the article creator made this was because of the subjects’ connections, so I doubt that would do much to help with their dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said in the nomination post, I changed the scope of the article once I found that the company's coverage in reliable sources, outside of its Dota team, was severely lacking. Therefore, I don't even agree that a merger would be ideal with the current sources, which is the entire reason I changed the scope in the first place. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No inherit notability Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; possibly undisclosed COI. Lordtobi (✉) 17:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly not notable Chetsford (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here. Are you saying that LGD Gaming isn't real and it is a fictional organization that does independently field teams away from PSG? LGD Gaming is an esports organization independent of PSG. Please help me understand why you are trying to get this page deleted. Is it your contention that LGD does not: Field esport team independently of PSG? Is LGD Gaming a fictional organization that does not exist? Help me understand so I can get the right information and source it for you. Apparently, sourcing their own web site isn't enough? LGDGamingFan (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about this source from Blizzard's Contenders League Page itself? Is this not good enough?LGDGamingFan (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about official stats as they appear on ESPN? Is that also not good enough or real? I am trying not to be snarky, but I have zero understanding of why yo think there is not good sourcing.LGDGamingFan (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you are simply confusing WP:V with WP:N. Outside of their Dota 2 division, LGD Gaming lacks coverage by third-party reliable media. Their own website, social media links, and Liquidpedia all fail WP:N and thus should not be the only cited sources in the article. And while the Overwatch Contenders link also fails WP:N, the ESPN link you listed, which is one of the reliable publications I've been asking for that passes both WP:V AND WP:N, is just publishing stats for a single season and gives no other context importance to the company, meaning this is not that helpful and can't save the article on its own. I'm not making the claim that the organization doesn't exist, just rather it fails notability guidelines as a Wikipedia article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply doesn't pass notability. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved down because I'm 99% @Dissident93: isn't talking to me. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So does this Esports Observer article where it says that in regards to the 3.94 million square foot esports arena just built and will accommodate LGd Gaming's League of Legends team, pass notability. My problem is the information is out there, but it seems you or whoever didn't really look that hard to find it. Almost as if some didnt want this article to happen?

"LGD Gaming and Allied Esports have opened up a joint office and esports venue in the town. This will become LGD’s home venue for the League of Legends Pro League (LPL)." "In addition, part of LGD’s management team will move into the town." LGDGamingFan (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Daily Mail article on LGD Gaming's PUBG roster move count? Who is the authority on which publications count in your eyes?

Or what about DOTEsports who is reporting on the first season of China's Overwatch League which LGD Gaming is playing and sanctioned by Blizzard? LGDGamingFan (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct, these are not considered reliable sources. If you don’t understand identifying reliable sources on your own, WP:VG/S is a good guide for sources related to the video game world. Pretty certain Daily Mail has a much wider, general consensus for not being usable on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Fox Sports Count in relationship to to the facility LGD Gaming will be using for it's offices and League of Legends team? It seems like there isnt a single esports site on this list of sites I am looking at. In fact, ESPN has quoted and used Dot Esports, Esports Observer, and VPEsports in their articles.LGDGamingFan (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Fox Sports Asia is probably usable in a general sense, but that source is short and primarily about an esport venue, not the subject itself. It’s more of what we call a “passing mention”, which is usable in writing an article, but less so for proving notability. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of the reliable publications that do mention the non-Dota 2 sides of LGD are supplementary and not the ones you generally build articles around. Meaning, if we already had a well-sourced LGD Gaming page, these would be included. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect not independently notable, but could redirect to PSG.LGD --DannyS712 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGD Gaming already does, by the way. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:04, 2 December 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. A majority wants to keep, and a minority wants to redirect or merge. Nobody, including the nominator, wants to delete. This means a trout for the nominator for misusing the deletion process, and no consensus to redirect or merge. Such proposals can continue to be discussed on the article talk page, where they belong. Sandstein 17:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Time Store[edit]

Cincinnati Time Store (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)

Yet again, undiscussed blanking and redirection (by the same editor).

We have a policy for article deletion: use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the last time round the dancefloor. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you AfD'ing the article? This AfD appears to be a manipulation of the system not made in good faith. It's generally understood that the nom is a !vote for Delete. -- GreenC 15:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is out of process, but deletion by redirection is any even bigger manipulation of the system. This is the most sensible venue to bring that kind of abuse to. SpinningSpark 18:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah see what you mean ([1] [2]). DBR's are like Presidential Executive Actions, largely dependent on no one watching who might disagree and roll it back. -- GreenC 20:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store, a sourced section that covers the topic in sufficient detail. By comparison, the standalone article in question has been unfootnoted for a decade and no reliable, secondary sources cover the concept as distinct from Warren, its founder. Bold redirection is a preferred alternative to deletion, but the nom doesn't even advocate for deletion, so this should be (once again) speedily closed. There are no reasons given for keeping this article in its current condition, especially when there is an extant, sourced section to cover this concept in summary style. czar 21:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a big difference between unreferenced and needing inline citations. The book Men Against the State is reliable, secondary, verifies the article and is independent of Warren, so Czar's claims are inaccurate at best. As an administrator, Czar should really know the difference between boldly redirecting and boldly redirecting again after being challenged. SpinningSpark 23:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no reliable, secondary sources cover the concept as distinct from Warren, its founder

By this I meant that the Cincinnati Time Store is always covered in context of Warren's life, not as an independently notable concept, hence why I said it should be covered within Warren's article. As for your other claims, is the patronizing tone really necessary? It's been a year between edits. If you'd like to dig out the footnotes from that source, go for it, but I could only source a fraction of the text when I tried. czar 00:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge into Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store. The source provided does make the subject notable enough, but it seems like the topic could be covered better as a section in an overall article. A single source makes a separate article just for that topic difficult to justify. That being said, the section as it is now contains further sources and could theoretically be used to expand the article if we opt to go that route. I don't support deletion at all, this should really just be a debate over whether to merge or not since it clearly passes WP:GNG. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Keep or Merge to Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store. This kind of thing was an interesting socio-economic experiment and may deserve an article apart from its creator. Do not delete totally. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Close, no action. This is not a deletion discussion. It is not Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. It should be closed to allow the more considered merge discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed how the the nominator was wrong to twice bring this article to AfD with no policy-based rationale for either keeping or deleting (and note that I said as much above). But while we're here, I don't see how it's reasonable to expect discussion hidden away on an unfrequented talk page to be "more considered" than that which we already have above. Opening yet another discussion is just needless bureaucracy. What no one has answered in these reams of text: Where is the sourcing that affirms that this article topic is independently notable from Josiah Warren? If it lacks significant coverage in sources, it should be merged to that parent article and covered in summary style proportion. That can be decided here without dragging this on any longer. czar 03:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, reconsidered ...

• Redirect to Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store. No sources to justify a separate article. The target already has coverage, allow further merging of material subject to consensus, with discussion at Talk:Josiah_Warren#Cincinnati_Time_Store.

WP:TROUT Andy Dingley for the non-nomination for deletion both this AfD and the previous. AfDs should not be opened in "keep" rationales. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep per last nomination. Meets WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the last nomination, it was speedily closed for being out of process, not even close to "snow keep". czar 02:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read what I wrote above, you would note that I was talking about this nomination, not the other. You misinterpreted unambiguous communication. There isn't a snowball's chance that this is going down as a delete or a merge. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment I added a lead section that summarizes the venture and 6 new sources on Google Books to demonstrate notability and verifiability. There are more sources in Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store that could be imported. I imagine the rest of the article can be sourced to the two non-inline sources, but I can not verify. -- GreenC 15:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added 4 6 7 sources (and counting) and more text related to notability of the store.

While we don't 'count votes', The Doors had an answer. Five+ to One says it all 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #1 & #2 as the nomination does not give a reason to delete. The topic is quite interesting and notable so if someone keeps blanking the page, contrary to WP:BLANK, they should be blocked for WP:DISRUPTION. Andrew D. (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In case my earlier keep is ignored for not giving a valid rationale, let me give one now. I find the sources adequate, they discuss the subject in depth. The argument that they don't count because they all mention Warren has no basis in policy. Of course they all name Warren. He was the founder of the store. Any source that didn't mention that fact in all likelihood would be deficient for our purposes. SpinningSpark 22:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep/weak no merge The topic is clearly notable (plenty of sources), the question is one of organization. That doesn't belong at AfD. That said, sources like this [3] are enough to get me to believe that we should have an article on this topic--when Bloomberg is writing an article assuming you know what a topic is, that topic is likely notable enough for an article. It's in the title for goodness sake. But yeah, I don't think merge/no merge matters all that much as long as we have the material here. Hobit (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Kemple, Steve (March 19, 2010). "The Cincinnati Time Store As An Historical Precedent For Societal Change". Cincinnati Ohio: Presented at CS13. pp. 1–3. Retrieved November 29, 2018. should settle this issue. This makes 7 sources I've added. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That ref is an unpublished conference paper. It's not even a reliable source... czar 02:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above, notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: Note the depth by the article actually covers the store itself, apart from its creator. Note that none of the comments above mention how the refbombed sources like [4], only allude to the Cincinnati Time Store in passing mention or as an invention of Josiah Warren. The sources only discuss the Time Store in context of Warren. These sources, which only mention the Time Store project in passing, do not make the case that the topic is independently notable from its creator. They add nothing above what could be adequately covered in Warren's article without needing a summary style split. czar 02:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Review of recently added sources:

These sources are used to give the appearance of significant coverage, which clearly doesn't pass scrutiny after the most cursory of readings.

And if you can look past all of the hand-wringing about process to read the actual source material, everything mentioned here fits easily within the scope of Josiah Warren and time-based currency without warranting a summary style split. The literature never writes about the individual/distinct importance of CTS but about Warren (the individual) and his role in the development of the time store/bank concept. czar 17:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with your characterization of the sources, or that editors are "ref bombing". -- GreenC 19:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And strong evidence of both on the article's talk page. czar 04:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of something. -- GreenC 08:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't go along with your idea that the context in which the sources discuss the topic rules them out for establishing notability. There is no basis for that in either policy or our editorial practice. All that matters is that there is sufficient information to fill a page, and it is verifiable to reliable sources. If Warren was only notable for the time store, then there would be a case for a single merged article, but that is not the case. And even then, the merge target would be this article, not Warren's, per WP:1E. SpinningSpark 10:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re: "no basis", that the context of a topic's coverage determines the manner by which we treat the topic is a basic tenet of NPOV (policy). The issue isn't that the sources naturally introduce Warren alongside CTS but that the sources being used as evidence of CTS's independent notability are primarily about Warren: his ideas, his tribulations, and how the CTS is a brief expression of his ideas (and would be one of several). Proportional coverage, mirroring how CTS is covered in reliable sources, would warrant covering the CTS as a summary style section within the parent. You only need to read the current CTS article copy to see how it's a stretch to write a dedicated article based on this sourcing—it's a series of passing mentions strung together to give the appearance of content ("fill a page"), and the only meaty sources that actually give detail on the CTS are chapters/books about Warren. All signs point to CTS warranting proportionate coverage within Warren's article. I'd have no argument with splitting that section out summary style if it became disproportionately large for Warren's article, but having actually read through the content, I really don't see how that would be the case any time soon. Not sure why 1E would have any relevancy: Warren is far, far more notable than the CTS, hence why so much is written about his life and why the CTS is only covered in context of it. czar 16:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you cite (WP:PROPORTION) has nothing whatsoever to do with the case you are trying to make. It does not support it at all. PROPORTION would govern how much material on CTS can go into the Warren article. It has nothing to say on how much material on CTS can go into the CTS article. SpinningSpark 16:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a core principle. WP:PROPORTION is directly tied to Wikipedia:Summary style. It's a question of how to determine when a CTS article is needed as independently notable from its parent article/coverage, not on "how much material on CTS can go into the CTS article". czar 17:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that something is supported by policy does not make it so. I note that even after being challenged, you are still not citing the text of policy that supports your claim. WP:PROPORTION does not link to or even mention summary style. Even if it did, WP:SUMMARY does not support your rationale either. SpinningSpark 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what more you want. There is no "policy"-level page that governs when to merge—it's supposed to be common sense. This comes directly from the NPOV policy page:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

"Should strive" is aspirational, not a set of specific criteria. Look at the text of CTS right now and the majority (that isn't sourced to an unreliable source) is a hodge podge of minor assertions, owing to their origin: one-sentence asides (passing mentions) in sources. That's "undue weight to minor aspects of its subject". So in the spirit of due weight, reduce the those minor asides to those that provide more light than heat. Apart from the asides, you're left with Wunderlich and Martin, and if you're treating the subject (CTS) proportional to its treatment in the corpus of that reliable, published material (i.e., a book and chapter, respectively, about Josiah Warren), then we don't cover CTS in any more depth than that would belong in the CTS section of Warren's article. Is that too theoretical—does it need to be demonstrated? I look at the current CTS article to see what I could merge back to improve the Warren article and apart from the summary sourced in the lede, what is there? If the Cincinnati Time Store section of the Warren article was properly expanded to FA-prose, there would be nothing that the CTS article could contain that would warrant the split/fork. czar 22:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 17 refs in the article. You listed 8 above you had trouble with, of which most of them are actually fine - reliable sources containing facts used to write the article with. You've set the bar for the refs way too high beyond typical norms.

• You are doing word counts ("short paragraph", passing mention"), instead of looking at what fact was cited and how it was used to improve the article. Significant coverage can be 1 word or 1 sentence if it's significant. Your opinion it's not significant is just that, your opinion. If it is being used to write the article with, it probably has some significance.
• Any source including Time Stores will include Warren the founder, logically and evidently. Sources don't need to be entirely about the topic.
• Paywalls are not an "obfuscation", it confuses the medium with the source, sources only need be verifiable.
• Calling a source "idle speculation" is your opinion. Wikipedia allows for multiple POVs even if you disagree with them.
• Shiller is a Noble laureate, when he mentions Time Stores in a major publication it shows continued long-term cultural relevance of this topic the very essence of notability. Your attempts to water this down are unconvincing and shows how high you have set the bar.
• You ignore other sources in the article that clearly show notability. The above list is a fun-house mirror representation of the sources.

-- GreenC 18:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, which sources did I not address above? I grouped citations together (with "+") to avoid monotony. If you'd like me to address the sources you added after my comment, I can do so, but I think it's fairly straightforward that those too are passing mentions. If we're at the point of stringing passing mentions together to write an article, then we have to ask whether the topic itself is covered in depth. We're not talking about "significant coverage" because we already established that the topic is covered within chapters/books about Warren and no one has advocated for deletion.
• The "obfuscation" wasn't the paywall, but making a vague wave to a citation behind a paywall to look like it contains more content about the subject than it actually does.

• Perhaps this Cincinnati Time Store was the anticipator of all future LETS systems.
  — "Editor's Introduction". The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 65 (5): 997–1000. 2006. ISSN 0002-9246. JSTOR 27739607 – via JSTOR.

  How is this not speculatory? This is one of two sentences about the CTS as a brief aside in the citation. This is indicative of the types of sources dumped into this article.
• Shiller made reference to the CTS as a quip/aside and a promotional press whipped it into a headline. Those articles make no connection between CTS's passing mention and Shiller's ultimate point: that an economist famed for predicting previous, actual bubbles is predicting Bitcoin to be a bubble (neither of which have to do with CTS) and en route to this point, that Bitcoin would be a failed experiment just like time banks/stores—saying nothing to the extended import of the CTS itself apart from being one of those time banks/stores. If CTS was of such importance to the article's message, why is it only alluded in the most cursory of fashions? Because it is incidental to the point of the headline. The way in which the Shiller ref is being used in the article is nonsensical, hence why I brought it to the talk page.

czar 19:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As of November 27, the article had two sources and non inline. It since has been greatly expanded. -- GreenC 14:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above re: textbook reference bombardment from passing mentions. czar 16:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to repeat arguments others have already disagreed with, it just creates walls of text. This Comment is factual information to clarify the complicated history of this article, it is not making an argument either way. -- GreenC 18:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with User:GreenC and disagree with the Tsar, er, I mean User:Czar. The article is well-sourced. The creator of the store and the store as created as linked, but distinguishable and separate. Both deserve their own articles. That all these sources established, once again, no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "fact" of the article's expansion had already been made (and addressed), if you heed your own advice.

(edit conflict) And the reference to "WP:Before" is a totally unthinking comment: We've established many times over that the nominator was out of process. If it was intended as careless invective against me, I'll raise that I own print copies of the major sources "discovered" over the course of this discussion (and others that haven't yet been) as part of a project on Josiah Warren that I have been planning since 2016. My position (for redirection/merger) should come across as reasonable to anyone who has read through this material and isn't here on an ideological basis, but the shameful level of invective directed towards my intentions throughout this discussion has completely soured me to that project. If it matters so much to you, I hope you can at least appreciate your spoils. czar 19:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That you want to add to Josiah Warren is commendable. I would hope you do not let this spoil you effort. But your passion for that subject has apparently colored your viewpoint on the import of his creation.

I have had similar experiences. I had a grand plan to create/improve all of the Michigan and Great Lakes lighthouse articles, and I got shot down on a wonkian enforcement of template policy. I cut that effort off, so I empathize with your frustration.

We are all volunteers, after all.

i hope you reconsider taking home your marbles and going home. But in the end it's your call.

Your efforts will be missed. 19:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now it becomes clear what Czar's real problem is. Czar sees this page as interfering with his expansion of the Warren article. So why not write the Warren article and then reassess the need for this page? (but please, not with another AfD) SpinningSpark 10:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Czar's real problem" No need to talk like this. This subarticle has no direct impact on the content of Josiah Warren but just kicks the inevitable merge discussion down the road when it didn't warrant this drawn out discussion in the first place. "Why not write the Warren article?"—because AfD is not supposed to be cleanup, though based on the CTS article's modifications, it will be. czar 15:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we all need to take a deep breath and reread WP:Dead horse and apply it.

This is a Kenny Rogers The Gambler moment. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. I have no great personal investment in this, and getting this decided in the right way is simply out of my hands. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A good article on a subject that is clearly of historical interest, even if the body of sources is wider than it is deep. Time to leave the poor equid alone, Czar. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Considering the non-sourced or under-sourced junk proposed or added to Wikipedia, and with respect to "gatekeepers", I see this as part of a sourced fringe theory and an acceptable addition to the Libertarian socialism and Individualist anarchism series. While neither of the last two fall under any ideologies I espouse, they usually gain a following, because many "just want to be left alone". Tearing down Mount Rushmore would have been considered an insane fringe theory. With a move to remove all "offending evidence" (makes one feel uncomfortable) of a certain time in US history, including Civil War monuments, the idea seems no longer so insane. There is historical value to the article. Job Harriman had "fringe theories" when founding the Utopian society Llano Cooperative Colony and Stables, Louisiana. The community lasted twenty years, survived most of The Great Depression (some sources state lasted until WWII), the founder, but finally succumbed to the Recession of 1937–38 and a 1994 film “American Utopia was even made. Should these things be excluded from history or relegated to just the principle subject? Multiple sources, that may even be considered minor mentions, can establish notability and I feel this is established for a standalone article. I also think there may be more sources out there. Otr500 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New ID[edit]

New ID (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 DJ, fails WP:GNG and WP:DJ. There is a lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 15:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject not passing WP:MUSICBIO; not even #5. Lack of worthy sources only amplifies the ineptitude. -The Gnome (talk) 18:01, 4 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenic feminism[edit]

Eugenic feminism (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 a remarkable coatrack of WP:SYNTH designed to take the kernel of truth, that some early feminists were also eugenicists, to suggest a whole school of pro-Eugenic feminist thought. Should also get a healthy dose of WP:SALT for the WP:COATRACK it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am uncertain how this can be WP:SYNTH when the term was literally coined by Caleb Saleeby over 100 years ago, and there have been several books written about the topic (as well as journal articles). IntoThinAir (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of the term in published sources doesn't at all rule out the possibility of synthesizing those sources to make a claim that none of the sources themselves do. Indeed, Original Research by way of synthesis requires pre-existing sources. XOR'easter (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now I really don't like coatracks, but this doesn't appear to be one. Plenty of good sources are provided that specifically work with that term. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does seem to be some concerted external attempt at smearing the feminist movement by conflating these two terms, and overstating the sympathies for eugenics by a handful of early feminists. I'm suspicious of some of the sources (partisan sources?), and there are neutrality issues in many sections. However, I think if the article had more than one noteworthy contributor it may become more balanced in the future. AbrahamCat (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is well referenced with sources that indicate the term was used over 100 years ago, and that it has also been studied recently, so it does have a place in an encyclopaedia. If there are quality and balance issues with the article, they will no doubt be worked on by others contributing to it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't believe the effort that will be necessary to keep this as anything other than a misogynistic coatrack warrants retaining it on the encyclopedia. As it stands it certainly isn't a good article and I'm honestly still deeply disappointed that it was let out of drafts. Especially as so many of the keep comments in the MfD discussion of the draft were, "it's unlikely to get out of drafts anyway, so..." Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an often-used historical term, and although the article can use some improvement I think it's too important to delete. Skirts89 (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly treated as a topic - e.g. 1: Seitler, Dana. "Unnatural Selection: Mothers, Eugenic Feminism, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Regeneration Narratives." American Quarterly 55.1 (2003): 61-88., 2: Ziegler, Mary. "Eugenic feminism: Mental hygiene, the women's movement, and the campaign for eugenic legal reform, 1900-1935." Harv. JL & Gender 31 (2008): 211., 3: Nadkarni, Asha. Eugenic Feminism: Reproductive Nationalism in the United States and India. U of Minnesota Press, 2014., 4: Gibbons, Sheila. "“Our Power to Remodel Civilization”: The Development of Eugenic Feminism in Alberta, 1909–1921." Canadian Bulletin of Medical History 31.1 (2014): 123-142.. Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This page was one of the worse messes of copyvio that I've seen in a while. I tried to clean it up, but if that's the level of work that went into the draft, then it doesn't bode well for the quality of the research done. Even having worked on the page, I'm halfway inclined to WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter:When I ran the copy-vio check it was primarily because of quoting out of Eugenics in the United States, which was itself copy pasted into an external wiki that copyviobot thought looked fishy,even though it originated form wikipedia. If you exclude that, the automatic number goes down considerably(I put in a whitelist for the bot). I'm not really clear on what protocol is for that sort of thing, but I assume that's not a problem since it's GFDL'd and there's a backlink. I found the wording of the main article to be adequate, so I left it basically verbatim. I know the prose could use some work, but I've seen worse articles on the wiki, so I figured other users with better composition would fix the balance/wording. Perhaps even you might like to take a crack at it. Ethanpet113 (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you note anywhere that you'd copied from Eugenics in the United States? See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, I will provide a dummy edit.Ethanpet113 (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I removed was copied from the external sources, e.g., "A prominent early figure of the feminist movement was Marie Stopes" etc. from [5]; "a branch of the early feminist movement that made use of some of the core principles of eugenics" etc., and "McClung was one of the most prominent advocates of women’s rights in Canada in the early twentieth century" etc. from [6]. These passages did not occur in Eugenics in the United States. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or Merge (somewhere)) clearly a topic, with multiple sources. Bogger (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the sources show it to be a notable concept. PamD 12:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly is a notable topic, per everyone above.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per others in thread above. I would not support a merge or redirect. I think the subject has clearly demonstrated notability per guidelines and was clearly thought of by others as a "movement" in and of itself. Plus there are many books I can think of off the top of my head (The Secret History of Wonder Woman by Jill Lepore comes to mind) which cover this as a distinct social entity and strain of thought. I think it deserves coverage, especially for when someone googles "why were so many early feminists also eugenecists?" The article serves a public good. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
• Send to Draft. This article clearly fails WP:NPOV and its purpose seems to be for discrediting Margaret Sanger, if not other early feminists. It's unknown to me if a neutral version of this article can even exist, so it's a delete from me, even though the article appears to pass notability and sourcing standards. Other than that it's just poorly written and clearly lacking in content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the lead is almost all about Sanger, for no discernible reason. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am troubled that there has not been enough analysis of what is going on. Just because someone was vocally for Eugenics and also vocally for women's sufferage does not mean they combined the two concepts. That two opinions are held by the same person does not make them a notable overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Delete Just because an article could in principle be written about a topic doesn't mean that the article we have is the right way to go about it. Sure, you can find the term in books, but that's only the first step. There are real questions here about people applying a term to themselves versus others applying it to them in retrospect, about the distinction between an organized movement and a set of people espousing roughly similar ideas at roughly the same time, etc. This needs further work by specialists before it could have a chance at being encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there was even more copyvio than I thought. Different versions of eugenic feminism arose between 1890 and 1930, but each shared in the argument that the eugenic decline of the race could be prevented only if women were granted greater political, social, sexual, and economic equality is copied almost exactly from Ziegler (2008). Giving a footnote to the paper you copied from doesn't keep it from being plagiarism. Nor does changing "found commonality" to "shared". The phrase "women's moral superiority toward social space" is lifted from this website, and its setting is only lightly changed. I would flunk a student who handed in a paper like this. I now doubt that it is even a reasonable foundation on which an encyclopedia article could be built. WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. There is ample treatment of the topic in secondary sources. Srnec (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are more than enough good sources, and "not cleanup". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable and well referenced --DannyS712 (talk)
• Further comment: I have been removing details unrelated to eugenic feminism but this is causing much of the article to be diminished. It seems the article is entirely written to observe early feminists who supported eugenics, rather than eugenic feminism itself. While an article with that name could exist, it doesn't appear to be the article that exists there now. The main editor of the article is clearly biased. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unreliable article, partly based on falsehoods (see section about Sanger). The Banner talk 21:41, 4 December 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. Mifter (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Blau (New Jersey)[edit]

Yaakov Blau (New Jersey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Non-notable teacher. Appears to have written one book, and I found one review of that book, at jewishpress.com. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Certainly nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is a different, notable, Yaakov Blau who does have an article. Most search results, thin as they are, have to do with this previous Blau. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete secondary school teacher, at a guess, he is beloved of his students one of whom created this page. We do see beloved teacher pages craated. But, no matter who created it, I concur with nom that Blau is not notable by our WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing evidence that WP:GNG or any SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable teacher. Yoninah (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in the article supports a claim of notability and nothing could be found in a Google search for this Yaakov Blau that would support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 20:20, 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. – Joe (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icons8[edit]

Icons8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, certainly not WP:ORGCRITE. Provided coverage is a smattering of blog posts, interviews with the founder, lists, and mere-mentions. I wasn't able to find anything better online. Previously nominated for PROD, dePROD by initial editor who provided an additional source, but it's of the same level of quality as the rest of the provided sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with reasons given by nominator. SJK (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE due to lacking WP:SIGCOV of the company and its products. The sources in the article and in a WP:BEFORE search I did are junk, just as the nominator described. The article also seems highly promotional in nature. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:28, 4 December 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 the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men. Mifter (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadayoshi Tanabe[edit]

Sadayoshi Tanabe (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 independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age (the cited works are minor memoirs about his administrative job, fails WP:SCHOLAR). His entry on the List of the verified oldest men is sufficient. — JFG ^talk 10:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like his work history and helped create a college level student exchange program. His published works are minor and primarily autobiographical in nature, which fails WP:SCHOLAR. His name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the List of the verified oldest men where they already reside. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of the verified oldest men Working for the local government for 70 years doesn't meet any SNG that I'm aware of. His notability stems from his longevity, which is why I advocate a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men. --Garam (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Really, there's no point in trying to apply the usual practices for AfD of researching what sources are available, and whether the subject might meet WP:GNG. The fact that this person was thought interesting enough to record an oral history in 1971, suggests that he might very well be notable - there might indeed be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The "delete" voters seem to be assuming that there will not be, and just keep posting AfDs until all the supercentenarians get deleted - regardless of whether they might actually be notable or not! So dismissive - exactly how is "A Survey of the Movements and Work on Fair Elections" "autobiographical" or "memoir"? Where is the evidence about the impact of his work - or lack of impact? It seems to me that there are a lot of assumptions here, tantamount to "because he was a supercentenarian, therefore he cannot be notable" - followed by, "even if he is notable, he still doesn't merit more than an entry in a list". I will note again that this AfD is one of SIXTEEN AfDs for supercentenarians POSTED ON THE SAME DAY - it is quite impossible to do adequate research on all of them (given that there are others every other day of the week too). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there has been many years on most of these pages to add refs and prove notability. The lack of significant coverage is chronic and obvious. These non-notable supercen bios have been brgging for cleanup for years. Had he not failed to die at a more normal age no one would have noticed him. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect/merge Another classic NOPAGE. EEng 05:44, 4 December 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. Firm consensus that post work by Rebecca notability is clear established (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lockett[edit]

Jack Lockett (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 independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. "Oldest man in Australia" is not a title that confers automatic right to an individual article. His entry on the List of the verified oldest men is sufficient. — JFG ^talk 10:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOPAGE. Mostly minor things, and no meaningful, substantive coverage of him. The part about his role carrying the Olympic torch does belong somewhere, presumably in one of the articles about the 2000 Summer Olympics (those pages are such a maze I don't pretend to know exactly where), but that alone is nowhere near sufficient for a standalone article. All else is easily handled in lists. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I have added more references and some more information. I am not sure that the nominator has done a WP:BEFORE for this AfD. Lockett is regarded as a hero and a legend in Australia - the prime minister was at the ceremony at which he was awarded the Chevalier of the Légion d'honneur award, and he received a state funeral. More could certainly be added to this article - it is definitely not WP:NOPAGE. What I have added - the quotes, as well as the references - is intended to show that he was indeed notable. He meets WP:BASIC, and also WP:ANYBIO, having received two well-known and significant awards or honors. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite keep after work by RebeccaGreen. Easily meets GNG and BIO. WP:BEFORE seems to have been lacking. Aoziwe (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Rebecca Green's references. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOPAGE and The Blade of the Northern Lights. The coverage of him is all either trivial mentions or WP:ROUTINE, not WP:SIGCOV of him. He lived. He avoided the Reaper longer then most. He died. He and his age are best handled on a list. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Well referenced piece that supports the individual for being include here at Wikipedia. Anyone giving the privilege of a “State” funnel has gained enough nobility to have a standalone article here. Though it may be short it is well deserved. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per RebeccaGreen, I think he received enough recognition to be notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This one is well referenced.--JAMillerKC (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep National heroes are notable, and state funerals are an uncommon honor. He died in 2002, and unfortunately the Australian has not done a good job of keeping articles visible for that length of time. Nonetheless, there are sufficient sources to identify him as a national hero, and the first one I looked at was WP:SIGCOV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd usually say delete because only living a long time is not notable but getting the Order of Australia, like the Order of Canada is enough to pass WP:ANYBIO for me. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article (unlike many of these supercentenarian articles) easily passes WP:GNG with extensive coverage in sources. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect/merge per NOPAGE. travelled to Mildura to enlist in the Australian Imperial Force. He served in France ... returned ... to make his living as a farmer makes a nice minibio on a list. EEng 05:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind a merge in this case, yes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RebeccaGreen's reasoning & forensics. Subject possesses independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 18:09, 4 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ely and Lynn Harris[edit]

Sam Ely and Lynn Harris (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 created nine years ago by an apparently involved user, has only one reference, and has had no substantive edits since then. A Google search did not turn up anything recognizable as substantive coverage by a reliable source.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ma^t_chups 04:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ma^t_chups 04:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with, or redirect to, Unrealised Projects (which also needs additional references - and some dates!). I can find coverage of Unrealised Projects exhibitions, books, etc, but not in depth coverage of Sam Ely and Lynn Harris. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added the para and reference in this article to the Unrealised Projects article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have seen comments on other AfD discussions that indicated that copying info from an AfD to another article should not be done. I wasn't aware of that when I copied one para and reference, so I apologise. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• apology accepted (although i dont see any problems here).Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject failing the criteria of verifiable, independent notability. Text that is lacking in sources we do not transfer over onto other articles; we delete it altogether. The fact that the text was created by a single-purpose account amplifies the weakness of the case. -The Gnome (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot find WP:SIGCOV for them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I searched Proquest newspaper archive using "Sam Ely" + "Lynn Harris", and found only a single listing for a 2006 gallery exhibit in Ireland. search of gBbooks turned up 3 mentions, names in lists. I'm just not finding them. Except in Unrealised Projects, of course. Which is primary because they run it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that an SPA created both this page and the related Unrealised Projects.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 5 December 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 Leeroy Wilfred Kabs-Kanu. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COCORIOKO Newspaper[edit]

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

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

Non-notable local newspaper with no reliable third party sources found. Tinton5 (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Searching in Google Books,[7][8] and Google News,[9][10] it appears that there are enough reliable sources that have cited this agency. That makes it notable. desmay (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Leeroy Wilfred Kabs-Kanu, as the newspaper fails the general notability guideline, and Kabs-Kanu is the sole owner, financier, publisher and Chief Executive Officer, and appears to be the primary writer (also a person of questionable notability himself, as most coverage of the newspaper and Mr. Kabs-Kanu seems to come from Cocoriokoko itself or The Patriotic Vanguard, of which Kabs-Kanu is (or at least was) affiliated). Very scant coverage of the newspaper or its owner in reliable sources. And @Desmay: FYI, having a handful of articles cited does not make a publication notable, it merely indicates existence. Per the general notability guideline We generally need need significant independent coverage about a subject, not trivial tangential references indicating that a subject exists. Notability is not inherited by association with other more notable entities. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per --Animalparty! norm.

Is Nutin (talk) 14:46, 30 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. Good secondary coverage & uptake demonstrated. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real utopian sociology[edit]

Real utopian sociology (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-one who is not connected to the project (or is, actually the originator of the term...) seems to have written about this. Out of 12 sources provided, 4 are not independent and 8 are entirely unconnected. My search can't find anything else of use. Appears to fail WP:GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Elmidae.

Regarding the sources in the article, the 8 you're saying are entirely unconnected are all examples of works that emerged from real utopia conferences and are all examples of real utopian sociology in practice. And the sources from the originator of the term seemed to make sense since it's an emerging field of sociology, but given the guidelines I can see how they might not meet Wikipedia standards. Last, below are notable articles/media coverage of real utopian sociology from other sources.

Notable Coverage of Real Utopias Media: ^[1] Media: ^[2]

This article utilizes a real utopian framework: ^[3] More coverage: ^[4]

Media: ^[5]

Another article that uses a real utopian framework: h^[6]

Utilizes a real utopian framework: ^[7]

Critical engagement with the framework: ^[8]

Critical engagement: ^[9]

Supportive engagement: ^[10]

Supportive engagement: ^[11]

Engagement: ^[12]

More engagement: ^[13]

Practical engagement: ^[14]

Engagement: ^[15]

Engagement: ^[16]

Supportive engagement/application: ^[17]

More engagement: ^[18]

JesseBenn (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JesseBenn, that's some good stuff there. I think the secondary journal/newspaper coverage might do it. Let me look over the sources and I'll get back to it tomorrow. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, went through the sources and they demonstrate good uptake. I'll withdraw and put this list on the talk so people can use it for future expansion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:08, 3 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Redaelli[edit]

Maria Redaelli (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 a procedural nomination following my closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 20#Redaelli. feminist (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No independent notability besides reaching an advanced age; WP:NOPAGE applies. Her stats are documented on the List of Italian supercentenarians and this lady is "too young" to be featured on our List of the verified oldest people. I recommend a redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians in case readers search for her name. — JFG ^talk 09:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her reading and television habits, a description of her 113th birthday party, and her family tree. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the two lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:38, 5 December 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. Mifter (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Cotton IV[edit]

William Cotton IV (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've actually never speedied an article as a blatant hoax, but this might qualify. There is a second article which is more of the same. Another editor tagged this as a possible hoax, and I can find zero support for either of these articles. The final straw was the 1978 Democratic House primary, shown in this article. According to the state of Florida, Hutto ran against 3 other opponents in the primary, none of them named Cotton, see HERE]. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it also appears to be a hoax:

George McHugh (Rhode Island politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Things are smelling fishy with these articles. A cursory Google Search for both William Cotton IV and William C. Cotton IV show no mention of time in the Florida House, nor do they show any notability. It's frustrating that the Florida elections bureau only goes back to 1978, as there is no way for me to effectively confirm whether Cotton was elected to the State House of Representatives. Thanks for the catch Onel5969. Bkissin (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really me, Bkissin, but KH-1 who alerted me to the possible hoax. But thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete elaborate hoax, quite real sounding. Sole incoming link from disambig William Cotton. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that article creator linked: [11], George McHuegh as an alumnus of the Belmont Hill School.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unable to verify any of the content. The user falsified the image, and likely did the same with the rest of the article. -KH-1 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX. The creator of these articles tried blanking them. Why would he do that if they were legit?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see anything in either of these articles that's as transparently bullcrap as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Snipplet, the ultimate political wikihoax of all time just for the sheer length of time it flew under the radar before its painfully obvious hoaxery actually got caught out, but that's precisely why WP:NPOL requires proper verification in reliable sources before the presumption of notability for a legislator is actually locked in. If the articles aren't properly verified by legitimate sources, and don't seem to verify anywhere else either, then they aren't handed an inclusion freebie just because of what the article claims. If somebody can actually show some valid sourcing that we're missing which verifies that either of these people really existed as state legislators, then no prejudice against recreation at that time — but NPOL does not hand them an inclusion freebie just because of offices they're claimed to have held, in the absence of any sources which properly verify the truth of the claim.
  I also see that nobody had nominated the photos for deletion on Commons yet, even though they're both renamed and reuploaded copies of images that we already have of other people, so I just wanted to note that I've taken care of that here for "Cotton" (really Lamar Jeffers) and here for "McHugh" (really William J. Driver). Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probable hoax, completely unverifiable. SportingFlyer talk 18:01, 3 December 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. There are a number of decent rationales here, and whilst the Keeps outnumber the Deletes, a number of the former are brand new or fairly new accounts that have never been near AfD before. When you discard the obviously invalid !votes, we have it at 6-6. Obviously, this means the article can be re-nominated at any point. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Knauss[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)).

Sarah Knauss (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 person's only claim to notability was her advanced age. Her name and age are properly recorded in various tables, such as List of American supercentenarians and List of the verified oldest people. Available sources do not cover her life and deeds in any noteworthy detail, and the article offers nothing more than trivia, hence WP:NOPAGE applies. — JFG ^talk 13:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her husband was a local Republican leader, how many wars she lived through, how many presidential administrations she lived through, etc. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. In her own words, "So what?" Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the five lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"She avoided the Reaper longer than most" is an extreme understatement. Specifically, she avoided the Reaper longer than every other American whose age can be verified. Futurist110 (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and she has five separate list entries informing readers about her unusual age. Nothing more is needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a revision of Wikipedia policy to explicitly admit that being verified as living an absolutely amazing amount of time makes one much more notable than Patrick Bouvier Kennedy is desperately needed. LE (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX. Go nominate that article for deletion. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep Per the two previous AFD nominations that were both withdrawn. Passes WP:GNG. Are you even serious with this nomination ? Did you look through the first two ? You should withdraw your nomination. Into the Rift (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Rift has been blocked as a sockpuppet. EEng 04:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should he withdraw? The last nomination was 3 years ago and the first one 11(!) years ago. People are asked not to renominate within 6 months, and this is clearly longer than 6 months. » Shadowowl | talk 15:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Oldest something is not autonotable and the person is not significant. A perfect candidate for a list, not an full article. » Shadowowl | talk 15:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is the 2nd verified oldest person EVER. She is certainly notable. RightGot (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC) — RightGot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Beyound she is the second oldest person, at that time her age received news coverage and since then nobody lived that age once more. If she is not relevant so Jeanne Calment is neither. --IacobusBr (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC) — IacobusBr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Where to start... point me to this overwhelming news coverage. There's certainly no evidence of it in the article. And WP:WAX is relevant, especially as Calment was notable for more than being super old. Maybe a mini up at most, but certainly not enough for a standalone article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX CommanderLinx (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss (2nd nomination) participants: EEng (talk · contribs), 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs), Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs), Alansohn (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), Ollie231213 (talk · contribs), Nathan (talk · contribs), Valoem (talk · contribs), JaconaFrere (talk · contribs), Masem (talk · contribs), Bodgey5 (talk · contribs), Ravenswing (talk · contribs), Legacypac (talk · contribs), and 930310 (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I said at AfD2, , We have very reasonably gotten much more limited in our coverage of supercentenarians over the years, but deleting the article on someone who actually has been the verifiable world's oldest person is carrying things to the level of utter absurdity. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is per WP:NTEMP, we have had two AfD discussions so far that have proven her notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the question; it's NOPAGE. EEng 04:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect to appropriate list. As usual in these cases, the issue isn't notability but NOPAGE. There are literally two sentences about her life in the entire article, other than when she died: Sarah DeRemer Clark was born on September 24, 1880, in Hollywood, Pennsylvania, a small coal mining village. She married Abraham Lincoln Knauss in 1901. The absurdity of the remaining strained fancruft is almost painful:

At age 116, she was recognized as being the new United States national longevity record holder, then thought to have been held by Carrie C. White (reportedly 1874–1991). In 1998, she became the world's oldest person when 117-year-old Canadian Marie-Louise Meilleur of Quebec died. When her family members told her of her newfound fame, her response was a smile and "So what?" ... Knauss lived through seven wars involving the U.S. (including both World Wars) and the administrations of 23 presidents (from Rutherford B. Hayes to Bill Clinton). At her death, she was one of seven living generations of her family. She died just thirty-three hours before the 2000 year celebrations began, which were sometimes reported as having just missed living into a third century, although the 21st century and the 3rd millennium actually began on January 1, 2001 ... died of natural causes in Allentown, Pennsylvania on December 30, 1999 at Phoebe Home (now known as Phoebe Allentown, a subsidiary of Phoebe-Devitt Homes, Inc.)

The lessons on calendars, wars, and presidents, and the bit about the parent company of the nursing home, are just delicious. A perfect NOPAGE case. EEng 04:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOPAGE applies. I think EEng is being charitable saying there are two sentences about her. The town description "a small coal mining villiage" is not about her and knowing the name of her non-notable husband "Abraham Lincoln Knauss" does little to help us understand her life. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I wrote the following in AfD2: "20-Mule-Team Keep: Oh for pity's sake. Passes the GNG with flying colors, and that's all she wrote. I understand that Xxxxx is waving around NOPAGE with all the force and furor that your average American Republican politician screams "Liberal! Liberal! Liberaaaaalll!!" -- as if the mere word is a trump card that automatically supersedes all other considerations or arguments -- but sooner or later the fact must be faced that it's not that the Keep proponents don't understand his argument, we don't agree with it. The Knauss article is, I freely concede, poorly written and longer on irrelevant blather than on encyclopedic fact, but that's a content dispute, not an appropriate issue for AfD." My feelings have not changed in the three years since, except to add that the So She Was The Oldest Living Human Being, So What? premise being pushed by some of the Delete proponents could be just as readily pushed on damn near every biographical article on Wikipedia. We do not keep or reject articles based on "So What?" We do so using well-established guidelines on notability. The subject meets the fundamental one. Ravenswing 07:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's apparent that you really don't understand the NOPAGE argument, since you're still talking about notability, and NOPAGE has nothing to do with notability. EEng 08:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly enough, I get to repeat another quote from AfD2, this one to you: "@EEng, let's see if I can phrase this in terms unlikely to mistake. Yes, I have read NOPAGE. Yes, I have read your arguments. I do not agree with you. What about that is so hard to understand? I'm sorry ... if you find the consensus against you bewildering, but it is obvious that more editors reject your curious interpretation of that section as meaning "Any article that any one editor argues can be redirected into a broader topic must be redirected into a broader topic" than otherwise. I am among them." Indeed, NOPAGE does not talk about notability (however much it's part of WP:N). What you did not understand three years ago and do not seem to understand now is that there is nothing about NOPAGE that supersedes or overrules the GNG. Ravenswing 17:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Those who refer to WP:NOPAGE ignore that being the second oldest human is something that is researched by many people. Wikipedia should provide the necessary facts for journalists and scholars. For scientists judging about a longevity claim, the personal dates of the person (not just birthday and age) are extremely important for judging about the reliability of a claim. Jansan (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasons I cited in the two prior AFD discussions and the rationale proffered by User:Knowledgekid87 and User:Jansan. WP:No page is a subpart of WP:Notability. Easily meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And after all the sources above... where's the article? Living and dying certainly isn't enough for a page, and the sources in question go into no detail beyond this. Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs about who did and didn't receive enough coverage for an actual standalone page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is complete, referenced and obviously WP:Notable. You are merely rehashing arguments that were heard (and better argued at the time) and rejected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss (2nd nomination). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that this article is complete is more evidence that it doesn't need a standalone page. When only a couple sentences are about her, and the rest is borderline ridiculous cruft about what happened by virtue of her not dying; this is not a competition with milestones. Once stripped of that, we're left with a paragraph that neatly fits as a minibio. The puffery EEng details above is just filler. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This woman was well known for her last two years, covered in multiple media. That she is a poster child for the extraordinary notability of attaining extraordinary longevity puts her in the crosshairs of those determined to deny that notability but this deletion pogrom needs to be stopped cold. LE (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — LE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Because I vote against multiple attempts to delete supercentenarian biographies, those who start multiple attempts to delete supercentenarian biographies hang that tag on my votes in an attempt to discredit me. But my contrib history clearly shows that it's far from the only subject on which I make contributions. LE (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pogroms and crosshairs... just like old times. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You'd be better entitled to wax indignant over LE's language if you hadn't tried to discredit an editor with 670 live edits on many different subjects as a fly-by-night SPA. Ravenswing 18:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think LE's "arguments" did a rather fine job of discrediting themselves without my help... besides, come back to me when you've dealt with this for 8 years. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're playing "mine is bigger than yours" games, come back to me when you've dealt with this for thirteen years. Eeeeesh, seriously?? Ravenswing 18:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is only 2nd out of ca. 7 billion (actually it would be more if you count ongoing and additive world population since recorded history began). Her achievement is far above the norm as of the date she expired. As the BBC writes: "There are currently seven billion people alive today and the Population Reference Bureau estimates that about 107 billion people have ever lived. This means that we are nowhere near close to having more alive than dead." Stephenson, Wesley (February 4, 2012). "Do the dead outnumber the living?". BBC News. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her achievement, as you say, is fully recorded at List of the verified oldest people, where her #2 status is even more visible, and her age is easily compared to other supercentenarians. The rest of the article has nothing to say about her life and deeds. — JFG ^talk 12:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The second-oldest fully documented supercentenarian in history is notable. --Davidcpearce (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to what policy or guideline? CommanderLinx (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The several "keep" !votes saying that being very old is notable are not based in any policy (and are therefore likely to be ignored by the closing admin). In addition, in a sense the question of notability is moot, as WP:NOPAGE obviously applies. The little that's worth mentioning about this person can be included in the appropriate list article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by OP – If the article is deleted, the name "Sarah Knauss" should be redirected to our List of the verified oldest people, in order to facilitate search. — JFG ^talk 12:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per DGG and Mr Thirteen. Old people like this typically get the coverage needed to at least make a start class article worthwhile, this does.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DGG and Mr. Thirteen. Julia Kinsley (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Julia Kinsley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE and another brand new account that figured out how to vote in AFD's. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One more vote to keep. Sarah Knauss is the second ever oldest person validated, she is notable enough to have an article of her own, and just to point out the inconsistency, for example: there are many articles for minor sport figures that are not that famous and are kept. It is very lopsided and unjust to just delete the article of the second oldest validated person ever. --Garlicolive (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Garlicolive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please provide some policy based reasons for keeping instead of WP:WAX and WP:NOTAVOTE. Because no notability guideline or policy says "Oldest X is notable". Note that this edit is the above accounts first edit to Wikipedia. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am adding the NOTAVOTE tag due to the presence of at least three brand new accounts that somehow figured out how to vote in AFD's as some of their first edits. I suspect some canvassing has been going on somewhere again. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've lost interest in these supercentenarian AFDs, but FWIW editors who came here because they received a notification from a mysterious IP should probably disclose that fact. Into the Rift (talk · contribs) was blocked for sockpuppetry shortly after this. I also wouldn't be surprised if it turns out there was off-wiki canvassing going on, given the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just found this discussion by chance as I was researching around longevity. So the necessity of keeping this page kind of speaks for itself. Also, there are currently some discussion around the longest living person ever, Jeanne Calment, and if she actually lived as long as claimed. [[12]]. That could lead to more interest in the no 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V95micfa (talk • contribs) 09:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Do tell, how did you come across this after 6 years of total inactivity? It seems like such an amazing coincidence... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG, and per NOPAGE there is plenty of context to provide information about this topic as a standalone, there is enough information in this article that to combine several articles of this length and depth would make the result unweildly, and sourcing is more than sufficient, passing GNG and all. Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia and a specialist encyclopedia. Yes, she is notable only because of her age, but that is notability nonetheless. Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopedic information about topics of general and specialist interest. This particular article is of general interest, there are many, many people beyond those who obsess over every supercentenarians who are interested in encyclopedic information about the oldest person ever from the United States. The article violates nothing in WP:NOT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:44, 5 December 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 Japanese supercentenarians. As per a lot of AfDs on this subject, we have a number of SPAs. There are a couple of good-faith Keeps from good contributors, but that's about it. The consensus of good-faith comments is to delete. However, I don't see an issue with redirecting after deletion to the list article, so that's what I've done. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Tajima[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)).

Nabi Tajima (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 person's only claim to notability was her advanced age. Her name and age are properly recorded in various tables, such as List of Japanese supercentenarians and List of the verified oldest people. Available sources do not cover her life and deeds in any noteworthy detail, and the article offers nothing more than trivia about other "recordholders", hence WP:NOPAGE applies. — JFG ^talk 13:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she was the last known person born in the 19th century, her family tree, record information about other people and her secret to longevity, all to pad the article. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. I would also point out that Guinness World Records never named her as the worlds oldest person and even the GRG lists her age claim as suspect 1 (that's why they italicized her entry here). The reason for her so called notability may very well be false. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reaching a certain age is an lifetime accomplishment not 1 event. It is an achievement that takes over 110 years and because it is notable, reliable sources begin covering these people. This is how we determine notability here. In fact there are more billionaires than supercentenarians because to reach such age is more difficult and more notable than earning a billion in net worth. Rarely does NOPAGE apply because most sources do not just state their age, they question their lifestyle to research how such longevity is achieved. It is only common sense to cover supercentenarians in fact we should have even more articles about them, but this history of deleting supercentenarians has been very destructive to Wikipedia. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your WP:ILIKEIT speech, which added nothing to this discussion. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This person has been covered by reliable sources therefore passes GNG. This is a rationale based on policy not WP:ILIKEIT. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Per the first AFD nomination she's the Oldest Verified Person Ever from the continent of Asia and the Third Oldest Person in history also she has received a lot of press coverage so that makes her notable. Into the Rift (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Rift has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Please point me to the policy that says that the oldest something is notable. » Shadowowl | talk 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is the 3rd verified oldest person EVER. She is certainly notable. RightGot (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Guinness World Records, the authority on these pages on this issue, also never named her as the worlds oldest person and the GRG lists her age claim as suspect. Why does she have an article again? Newshunter12 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabi Tajima participants: Legacypac (talk · contribs), EEng (talk · contribs), Ayuta Tonomura (talk · contribs), Athomeinkobe (talk · contribs), Alansohn (talk · contribs), Vivexdino (talk · contribs), Canadian Paul (talk · contribs), Esquivalience (talk · contribs), WilliamThweatt (talk · contribs), David in DC (talk · contribs), and CNMall41 (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the nom is quite correct here. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources provided in the article clearly shows WP:NOPAGE does not apply the source also establish clear notability. It is more difficult to be a supercentenarian than it is to be a celebrity. Reaching 117 years of age and being covered by reliable sources is notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Guinness World Records, the authority on these pages on this issue, also never named her as the worlds oldest person and the GRG lists her age claim as suspect. Claiming age 117 doesn't mean a whole lot when the reliable sources don't seem to believe it. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Minibio on the Japanese list and redirect, in her case there's a little bit here mixed in with the longevity trivia, enough for a paragraph on the Japanese supercentenarian list, but nowhere near enough for a full page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights I think your mistaken on this one. Guinness never named Tajima the worlds oldest person for a reason and the GRG lists her claim as suspect. The following is a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL, but she appears to be another Kamato Hongo in the making. Quite old, but not as old as she claimed to be. All things considered, deletion makes more sense. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. After I look this over again, delete; suspect claims of marginal notability are better off left out. For some reason I got her and Miyako mixed up, Miyako's was the more solid one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like a person only known for one thing; being really old. It's a soft news story, the "and finally tonight, Jane Doe is 101 years young" human interest piece at the end of the local news. MarkAQuinn (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC) • MarkAQuinn (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• That rationale is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not a valid reason for deletion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No: this rationale is based on WP:BIO1E, being notable for only one event. In this case the event is "reached an advanced age", which is perfectly recorded in our list of the verified oldest people. There is nothing else about this person's life that deserves an article. — JFG ^talk 13:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This has been discussed before. Plenty of sources to cover notability. Vivexdino (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivexdino Not sure if you are aware, but since the last AfD, Tajima was touted by the media as the worlds oldest person, but Guinness World Records, the authority on these pages on this issue, never named her as the worlds oldest person for a reason and the GRG lists her age claim as suspect. The following is a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL to say, but she appears to be another Kamato Hongo in the making. Quite old, but not as old as she claimed to be. We disagree on her notability, but all things considered, deletion makes more sense then standing by her likely falsely gained notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found reliable sources saying that she might not have been born in 1900. Here is a Guinness World Records source published in 2017 saying she was born 4 August 1900 and a second source explaining why she was never officially named the oldest person in the world:

1. Glenday, Craig, ed. (2017). Guinness World Records 2018: Meet our Real-Life Superheroes. Guinness World Records. ISBN 978-1-912286-18-8. Retrieved 2018-12-05.

   The book notes:

   Oldest living people (as of 26 Apr 2017):

   ...

   2. Nabi Tajima (JPN) 4 Aug 1900, 116 years 265 days

2. "Sad news as world's oldest woman misses out on Guiness World Record title". news.com.au. Associated Press. 2018-04-22. Archived from the original on 2018-12-05. Retrieved 2018-12-05.

   The article notes:

   Guinness World Records certified 112-year-old Masazo Nonaka of northern Japan as the world's oldest man earlier this month, and was planning to recognise Tajima as the world’s oldest person. She died before she was officially recognised by them.

Cunard (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Valoem. Julia Kinsley (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Julia Kinsley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment I've lost interest in these supercentenarian AFDs, but FWIW editors who came here because they received a notification from a mysterious IP should probably disclose that fact. Into the Rift (talk · contribs) was blocked for sockpuppetry shortly after this. I also wouldn't be surprised if it turns out there was off-wiki canvassing going on, given the presence of one or more brand new accounts on this page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "子孫１４０人…発酵飲料好み、よく食べ　国内最高齢１１７歳の田島ナビさん". Sankei Shimbun (in Japanese). 2017-09-15. Archived from the original on 2018-12-05. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  2. "La japonesa Nabi Tajima, de 117 años, es la persona más anciana del mundo". Diario de Navarra (in Spanish). 2017-09-18. Archived from the original on 2018-12-05. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  3. Horton, Alex (2018-04-22). "The world's oldest person died at 117. She was the last known person born in the 19th century". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-08-16. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  4. Bacon, John (2018-04-21). "World's oldest person, last survivor of 19th century, dies in Japan at 117". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2018-12-05. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  5. "Sad news as world's oldest woman misses out on Guiness World Record title". news.com.au. Associated Press. 2018-04-22. Archived from the original on 2018-12-05. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  6. "Japanese woman becomes 3rd oldest person in history". BNO News. 2018-04-09. Archived from the original on 2018-12-05. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  7. 王佩翊 (2018-04-22). "世界最高齡人瑞逝世　日本田島鍋奶奶享壽117歲" (in Chinese). Eastern Broadcasting Company. Archived from the original on 2018-12-05. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nabi Tajima to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nabi Tajimas has received international coverage in reliable sources:
  1. Japan: Sankei Shimbun
  2. Netherlands: BNO News
  3. Spain: Diario de Navarra
  4. Taiwan: Eastern Broadcasting Company
  5. United States: Associated Press, USA Today, and The Washington Post
  Cunard (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is absolutely nothing in the article (or the sources) that is of any encyclopedic interest, apart from birthdate/deathdate/place and some ranking. WP:NOPAGE applies, what little info is useful can very easily be accomodated in an appropriate list article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 5 December 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. czar 22:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kamato Hongo[edit]

Kamato Hongo (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 person's only claim to notability was her advanced age, which itself has been disputed. She no longer appears on our List of Japanese supercentenarians, and if she was re-instated with her 1891 date of birth, she would only rank 99th of the oldest Japanese people ever. WP:NOPAGE applies. — JFG ^talk 13:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The 1891 date of birth is unsourced so there isn't a suitable redirect. Fails WP:GNG, two obituaries and a GRG table does not make someone notable. Even if "notable" there is nothing to say about her other than she was born, her age is disputed and then she died. I can't find any source about her being a local celebrity and having merchandise either... CommanderLinx (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that a former claimant to be an "oldest x" is notable and even if she was notable, there is nothing to say about her. I explicitly oppose redirecting this page, since it would not be about building the encyclopedia, but as a fancruft shrine to a long ago age claim debunking. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete evidently her own family did not believe her claimed birthday. Why do we have this page? Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 3 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will Franken[edit]

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

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

Created in 2006, didn't meet WP:GNG then or now. Note: This article was originally created as Will franken (lower-case 'f') and moved diff. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed that the references provided on the page don't sustain notability. FOARP (talk)
• Delete nothing to show Franken is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per WP:NEXIST and because the subject meets WP:BASIC, having received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Below are some of those available sources from WP:BEFORE searches. Some have interview content, but also contain independent writing from their respective authors. Overall, meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re: the sources above:

• Anyone can contribute to The Federalist (see bottom of page), and their bios are written by themselves.
• Out is a re-reporting of other articles / essays by Franken.
• As for the rest they look to be self-publicity saying / doing outrageous things as bait for broadsheets. If this article is going to be kept then it would need a total re-write so that his notability comes from his right-wing views and the time he spent as Sarah Franken. That's where these sources take the reader, he is not notable for his comedy or acting. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is enough coverage in reliable sources as identified above to pass WP:BASIC and he has received a number of notable awards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Keep as what though? A notable actor? A notable satirist? A notable right-winger? Notable for transitioning and then transitioning back? The only notable award mentioned is "Best Comedian of 2005" by San Francisco Weekly but there is no citation for that. The other awards mentioned are non-notable and they do not have citations either. The article's content should be reflected in the sources and it really isn't. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject failing WP:ENTERTAINER. Subject has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, nor a large fan base or a significant cult following and had not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. There are no sources that would support any of that. Most notability concerns one item, i.e. the process of the subject's change of gender and the change back. -The Gnome (talk) 17:54, 4 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Industry and Defence Network[edit]

Australian Industry and Defence Network (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)

Most of the article has been hidden due to copyright violations from its subject's web page. There is little evidence that the organisation is independently notable and I can't see any links that should be made to remove its orphan status. Scott Davis ^Talk 12:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis ^Talk 02:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sure simply being an orphan page is enough to support deletion but notability does not appear to be supported by sources, I did a search and found nothing that showed it as being independently notable. Could also go with merging this into the Australian defence industry page if someone can suggest an appropriate home for it. FOARP (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I agree with FOARP's observation in so far as I too could not find any indepth/core IRS to readily generate content for the subject. However, there are a very large number of very reliable mentions across a wide range of aspects which would allow more than a stub article to be written. Yes it means a bit of work to pull it all together, but there is I believe sifficient WP:NEXIST to support GNG and develop a sufficient article. They are recognised in multiple IRS as the peak defence industry body for small to medium enterprises in Australia. Aoziwe (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The subject could easily support a few due weight paragraphs in Defence industry of Australia, so if not kept then a redirect to such. Aoziwe (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: No longer an orphan. Aoziwe (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article doesnt amount to much but the organisation is widely reported in independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It does have some (not that many) news item mentions as one of the groups advocating this or that. It is lacking in the article and in my BEFORE in-depth sources required per WP:NORG.Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Advocating this or that is precisely the point of these industry groups. That is evidence of notability. Nobody ever writes about their internal processes, which are generally secret anyway.Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If all we have is random quotes of X from Australian Industry and Defence Network saying Y - and nothing on the history or org makeup - it is not notable. If they were really widely quoted (I don't see it - I see around 20 odd quotes) - it would be an indication they are possibly notable (and us having trouble finding sources in the quote weed) - but this subject ia not there. Icewhiz (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just being quoted doesn't make them notable as the quotes aren't significant coverage of them. What's needed are references about them, and we don't have those. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole point of these industry groups is to lobby on behalf of the members. If they get quoted that is evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Aoziwe. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:35, 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. Although there has been no additional discussion since the last relist, I'm seeing a rough consensus that the available sources are not enough to establish notability, and nobody has been able to produce additional ones. – Joe (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf K. Poecker[edit]

Rudolf K. Poecker (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 subject that does not meet WP:BASIC, as per several assorted WP:BEFORE source searches. Reliable source coverage is limited to name checks and faint passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a good nomination, but a pretty interesting story to lose. I'm going to search around for another place to save this info, but will circle back in the next three days. LikeMeercats (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, me thinking this is interesting is not a reason to keep it. I maintain my above comment, but the article is poorly sourced, and I couldn't adequately defend a keep. LikeMeercats (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]