< 18 September	20 September >

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunyadi[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL. This restaurant popped up in the news before failing, and it's looking for investors right now. There's quite a few news articles on this restaurant's opening, but nothing afterward. As such, it passes WP:GNG but fails to fulfill WP:SUSTAINED and therefore fails WP:NOTNEWS. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this got good press release coverage but there is no evidence of substance - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - We don't know whether this restaurant will ever successfully open in the future, and until it does, we shouldn't have an article for it here per WP:CRYSTALBALL. – numbermaniac 07:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It met WP:GNG initially, but fails WP:SUSTAINED. The possibility of it reopening is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL and is of no substance towards keeping the article. If it reopens and becomes notable again, then the article can be recreated. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLuna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only covered in a primary source. No updates since 2012, even on their web site (latest is a blog entry from July 2013). Did not attract enough attention from RS to pass GNG. — JFG ^talk 21:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, this should be speedy-deleted for violating several CSD provisions:

CSD G4: recreation of a previously-deleted article
CSD G5: created by a blocked user
CSD G12: blatant copyright violation of the primary source at http://openluna.org/missions

I will however keep the AfD page open instead of tagging the article, and let an admin decide what is the best course of action. — JFG ^talk 21:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article was created by a user blocked indefinitely for long-term abuse. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles only source is self-published and appears to be about a defunct organization. Material in the article is also a blatant copywrite violation of the primary source. The article was also recreated by a banned editor. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pooka Williams[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. Sources available are all routine for a D1 recruit and are not the kind of significant coverage that would suggest notability for a college athlete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure there are a lot of references in the "news" search above that come from obvious fan sites, but there's also news sources too: Washington Post, Fox Sports, Columbia Daily Tribune, Kansas City Star, KATC-Lafayette News, Great Bend Tribune, Chicago Tribune, The Detroit News, and a whole lot more. Some of those are big, some of those are small, and there's a lot of blog activity--exactly the kind of coverage we expect for notable college athletes. Passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd add to this: "True freshman Pooka Williams is Pro Football Focus' highest-graded running back in the nation through three weeks...:" Kansas City Star and "Yet finally, when a running back named “Pooka” who was in the fourth grade when the streak began in 2009 rushes for 125 yards and 8.9 per carry, well . . ." printed up in the Washington Post and "A week after not playing in a home loss to FCS Nicholls, touted Jayhawks freshman running back Pooka Williams rushed for 125 yards and two touchdowns on just 14 carries against Central Michigan." at Yahoo Sports and was also picked up by the Los Angeles Times. Exactly how does this not pass WP:GNG?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I also need to mention that both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GRIDIRON are inclusionary and not exclusionary, meaning that if the subject achieves notability through another means (such as WP:GNG) then notability is achieved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only one of those stories is significant coverage in a non-routine article (the Columbia Daily Tribune.) Many college players will get written about in routine game recaps, but that does not convey notability per WP:ROUTINE (participation in a routine event) - that's why WP:NCOLLATH/WP:NGRIDIRON exists at all instead of just WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:GRIDIRON. SportingFlyer talk 05:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most college football players are not notable, no exception here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. Routine sports coverage, local and non-independent coverage, and passing mentions do not combine to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:GNG because it lacks WP:SIGCOV that demonstrates that this individual is notable. Collage football players are not automaticly notable just because they are a step above high school level players. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Lorinz[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Mostly unnamed characters, extras. Nothing at all significant and no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does have some significant roles such as the lead in Frankenhooker and third billing in Street Trash which makes him worthy of an AFD rather than a prod, but not sure if he is notable yet so won't vote! yet, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP article lacking even one reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG because it lacks any sources and I could not find in a search any WP:SIGCOV of him as an actor, director, etc. He has had mostly small or unnamed roles, which clearly do not make him notable. The article has also been without any sources for 13 years. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhomeo[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable as a college fraternity, cleaned up the page, but still peacocky and only self-sourced. JesseRafe (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at the page's history and their usernames have a high incidence of named non-notables listed on the article, seemingly all COI or NNPOV additions made to aggrandize this fraternity. Confusingly the very long list of schools/chapters (since deleted) was originally "current as of 2001" when the page went up in 2012, so there really must not be that much info available. JesseRafe (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:GNG because the only source is self published and I could not find any WP:RS demonstrating WP:SIGCOV of this organization. The article is also clearly not written from a WP:NPOV and it seems to me that this article is nothing more then free webhosting of an advertisement for this frat. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:35, 26 September 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 Victor Hugo. Tone 10:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Vacquerie[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, not from his father-in-law nor from a poem with his name. » Shadowowl | talk 19:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victor Hugo. This person's only "claim" to notability was being married to Hugo's daughter, and notability is not inherited. Reyk _YO! 09:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested; "notable in his circle" means nothing. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Victor Hugo. This individuals only "claim" to notability is having married Hugo's daughter and as has been mentioned, notability is not inherited. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deon Lyle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple indepenent, reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NHOOPS by playing in LaVar Ball's fledgling Junior Basketball Association. The only articles I have found that are more than trivial mentions or routine game coverage are from https://www.expressnews.com (San Antonio Express-News) and https://www.mysanantonio.com, which are sister sites of Hearst Communications that are based in San Antonio, where Lyle's college University of Texas at San Antonio is located. However, GNG states: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" Thus, they only count as one combined source. —Bagumba (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other AfDs recently closed as "delete" from LaVar Ball's league include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrison Rieger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Kirkham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Morris (basketball), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Phillips (basketball), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleal Walker, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Hollis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isom Butler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niles Malone, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquis Johnson (basketball).—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I honestly don’t understand this effort to purge Wikipedia of JBA pages. Lyle is more notable than most as he was named Conference USA Sixth Man of the Year before joining the JBA, and I could provide a source for that. In addition to the several articles in the San Antonio Express-News, and it is important to keep in mind that San Antonio is one of the largest cities in the country and the Express News is not just a hometown paper, I was able to pull up an AP piece and this article based on a quick Google search. I could have found more if I looked harder. It is interesting the timing of this nomination since Lyle has been named to the JBA team touring Europe and will presumably get some coverage there. He will probably join a European team next year anyway, but there are enough sources right now to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with a question to ask regarding an article that was already deleted. I second that notion, especially if some of these players do have notability to their names like Lyle has right now. Someone like Deon Lyle could very well provide enough positive coverage for himself to where, yes, he can very well play for at least a proper international team sooner than later! Not to mention the fact that, since he's 22 years old and is under the notion of playing for a professional basketball team (even if you may question how professional it really is), he's also technically NBA Draft eligible as well. In fact, while on the topic of finding things under Google searches, I have to ask why exactly did Curtis Hollis warrant an article deletion himself? I mean, I checked the games out a bit, and it seemed to me he had some better overall playing abilities than Jordon Myers did during the one season they played together back in Houston. What exactly warranted his article being deleted without any warnings on my end? Anyways, Deon Lyle does have more notability than most JBA players would thanks to his previous college career, and he does look to at least have a genuine basketball career ahead of him moving forward, so I say keep his article up. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: None of what you said makes him notable. The notion that Lyle's pro prospects make him more notable falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Player performance in the JBA, experience in NCAA basketball, or NBA draft eligibility do not count towards notability whatsoever. Runningibis (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases aren't independent @Editorofthewiki: The source you referenced above by "this article" is a press release (or a promotional piece) from Cloud County Community College (CCCC), which Lyle attended. It is not "independent of the subject", as specified by GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is also this written by a veteran journalist if you are doubting reliability. Plus a solid paragraph here. Some coverage in this article. Some more here. If he was a G-League player with this kind of coverage no one would complain, but since he is a JBA player he is nominated for deletion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Analysis The "veteran journalist", Jerry Briggs, seems to be a former newspaper writer with his own personal blog, which you linked. I dont know enough about him or his current work to comment on his reliability per WP:SELFPUBLISH. The "solid paragraph" you linked is from Conference USA, where Lyle was playing, so is again not independent for GNG purposes. The other two are one sentence mentions.—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Earning Sixth Man of the Year in a mid-major conference isn't enough to warrant an article. Runningibis (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NHOOPS not met and no significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH. Lots of local and routine sports reporting is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to meet WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH because it lacks reliable WP:SIGCOV demonstrating he is a notable individual. Playing in a new mid-range basketball league just doesn't cut it nor do press releases do anything to prove notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:49, 26 September 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. Despite the reams of text, nobody actually expresses a "keep" opinion. Sandstein 19:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haviah Mighty[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, who has neither a strong claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC nor strong enough reliable source coverage to carry it. The strongest notability claim here is that "her song" was featured in an episode of a television series, but the reference for that claim reveals that it wasn't actually her song, she was just a guest musician on somebody else's. And of the seven references here, nothing's really helping to get her over WP:GNG: one is a Q&A interview in a university student magazine, five are unsubstantive blurbs, and the only one that even starts to count as a data point toward GNG is a piece of local coverage in her hometown community weekly. Which means that this is not enough coverage to get her over WP:NMUSIC #1, and she doesn't have a strong claim to passing any other NMUSIC criterion either. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the notability equation changes. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the nomination states, in part, "...And of the seven references here, nothing's really helping to get her over WP:GNG..."

I suggest the nomination is using the wrong yardstick. Surely anyone with experience here has come across articles, particularly new articles, that are weak, poorly written, or poorly referenced, or both -- which yet were written on highly notable topics.

It is for this reason that nominator are supposed to conduct their own web search, so that if they decide to bring the article to AFD, they are doing so after making their own independent analysis as to whether the underlying topic is itself notable. Weak articles on notable topics are supposed to be improved, not deleted.

In my opinion, after a nominator has conducted their own, independent, meaningful review of all the available references, their nomination should address all the available references. Some people who weigh in at AFD rely on the nominator, trust the nominator, and don't take even a minute to perform their own web search. For this reason, I think a nominator who did the work necessary to meaningfully comply with WP:BEFORE then has to mention the references that the article is not currently using.

Right now seven of the references the article currently uses includes one reference to Now magazine. Now is a serious publication, with a long history of serious investigative reporting. A couple of years ago I added material to an article on a municipal politician in Virginia, who opposed a Virginia streetcar route, who naively quoted the criticisms of streetcars of, wait for it, Rob Ford. The main reference I used was an article from Now, written by Ben Spurr. The other contributor then naively assumed that NOW was just a bunch of unresearched, non-journalistic fluff pieces, wrapped around entertainment ads. Now is a free weekly publication, largely supported by entertainment ads -- but one which published serious, reliable articles, drafted by writers who do real research. Spurr, who they mocked, was soon hired by the Toronto Star, specifically to cover transit issues. So, he did know what he was talking about.

I did my own web search, and I will list here references the article could use, which it isn't currently using. Preview, there are two more articles about Mighty from Now, several by Exclaim! and a bunch from Brampton publications.

I am going to repeat that, in my opinion, it is a mistake for any nomination to confine itself solely to the references articles are already using, and to ignore the existence of the references the article is not yet using. Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't about whether Now is a serious publication or not — the problem is that the citation to Now is not substantively about Haviah Mighty for the purposes of helping to get her over WP:GNG — it's a mere 100-word blurb about her in a "many blurbs about many people" listicle, which states nothing about her that would pass any NMUSIC criterion, and therefore contributes nothing toward helping to make her notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Not because it's Now, but because it's unsubstantive and verifies nothing notability-making about her.

You've had to have it explained to you more than once in the past that there's a distinction between "sources which verify that the topic exists" and "sources which actually help to make the topic notable" — and you clearly need to have that explained to you again, because none of your sources below are improving the case for inclusion at all. A person is not automatically notable just because her existence gets namechecked in articles that aren't substantively about her, and a person is not automatically notable just because her own hometown hyperlocals (In Brampton, Bramptonist) have covered her doing things of purely local interest — a musician becomes notable enough for a Wikipedia article only when substantive coverage about her qua her exists in the context of her accomplishing something that satisfies an NMUSIC criterion.

If she doesn't have nationalized coverage of a nationalized accomplishment, like a hit single on Billboard or a national tour or making it into rotation on CBC Music or getting a Juno Award nomination, then local coverage in her own hometown media paired with glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her is not enough coverage to hand her "notable just because media coverage exists". Every possible Google hit on her name is not automatically a notability-assisting source — only certain specific kinds of coverage actually help to build notability under WP:GNG, not every single web page that includes her name in it at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. Do you accept that policy require nominators to make a reasonable effort to consider all possible references, not just those that have already been included in the article?
Your initial nomination states: "The strongest notability claim here is that "her song" was featured in an episode of a television series, but the reference for that claim reveals that it wasn't actually her song, she was just a guest musician on somebody else's." Hmmm. Unfortunately, you didn't specify which reference said "...she was just a guest musician on somebody else's." Care to clarify which reference said that? I won't claim to be an expert on music, but I suspect you may not have given the references to an article on an artist you don't respect enough attention to really understand what they say. I found multiple references that talk about one of her songs being used in an episode of Insecure (TV series) Insecure. I didn't see any of them say she was merely a guest musician. They said the track was produced by someone named "Book". I won't claim to be an expert on music, but I do know there are some famous music producers, Daniel Lanois, Phil Spector, Mutt Lange. Music smarty-pants routinely said Shania Twain was a nobody, until she met, and was taken under the wing of her future husband, Lange<. Music smarty-pants said he took her songs, essentially keeping her lyrics, and her melody, but transforming her sound, by, I don't know, adding supplementary instruments, and studio tricks, like, I don't know, reverb. Music smarty-pants may recognize the style and significance of a music producer, but without stripping the song's authorship from the original song-writer. I think there are instances where music producers are listed as co-writer, and other instances where music producers who no one would begrudge a co-writing credit, forgo that credit -- knowing their peers will recognize their style, and the songwriter's fans couldn't care less about their role in the song's sound. I am not a music smarty-pants, but I am extremely skeptical that music producer try to supplant the intellectual property rights of song's songwriters. Is it possible you didn't read the references closely enough, and made the mistake of thinking that Mighty was merely the guest musician on a song she wrote, because her music producer was also mentioned?
You use the phrase "mere 100-word blurb". One hundred words is not a "passing mention". Meaningful detail can be packed into one hundred well-written words. And if multiple references each devote something one hundred well-written words, but each pack different details into their 100 words...
You refer to "glancing namechecks of her existence in Exclaim! articles that aren't about her". The third reference I offered below is from Exclaim!, and devotes over 200 words to her most recent release. The fourth reference devotes 171. The fifth reference devotes 268. So what do you mean by a "glancing namechecks"? How are these article not about her?
You wrote: "If she doesn't have nationalized coverage of a nationalized accomplishment..." I am going to include the first criteria from WP:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. I don't see it requiring "nationalized coverage of a nationalized accomplishment". I see it explicitly specifying publications, like student newspapers, that don't count. I don't see it explicitly discluding local newspapers. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said otherwise at all. However, that policy does not mean that we just count the number of Google hits a person's name gets, and keep anybody who meets or exceeds some arbitrary number of footnotes while paying no regard to notability factors like how substantive any given source is or isn't, how nationalized its geographic range is or isn't, and whether the context of what they're getting the coverage for verifies a valid notability claim or not. I did "consider all possible references, not just those that have already been included in the article" — and the other possible references just aren't cutting it.
You're clearly not a music smarty-pants. In electronic dance music, the producer is considered and credited as the primary artist on the track, with the vocalist either relegated to "feat." status or not named in the artist credit at all — for example, "Wake Me Up" is labelled as an Avicii song, not an Aloe Blacc song. The reference I checked was the reference that's being used to support the statement — and it makes quite clear that the primary artist credit on "Vamonos" is to Book. Please also note that NMUSIC does not actually extend notability on the basis of song placements at all — creating and recording the series theme song to Insecure would be a valid notability claim for a musician (but even then, NMUSIC explicitly states that a person who has that as their only notability claim fails WP:BLP1E and therefore gets a redirect to the series rather than an article). But placing one song in one episode is not an article clincher in and of itself, not even for Book as the primary artist.
Short blurbs do not count toward getting a person over WP:GNG. It's not a question of evaluating whether the blurb "packs" meaningful detail or not — anybody can simply claim that any blurb is "meaningful" — a blurb is inherently less substantive than a feature profile, and thus blurbs count for much less toward establishing GNG than coverage that expands beyond blurbness does.
The problem with the Exclaim! references is that they're covering her only in the context of playing shows in Toronto. But for a musician from Brampton, Toronto is still the local market, not evidence of passing NMUSIC's touring criterion. Literally every band or artist playing the Toronto bar scene at all can always eventually show reviews in Exclaim! or Now or the Toronto Star or Eye/The Grid before it went belly-up or Torontoist or BlogTO, so the existence of reviews of local shows in what's still the artist's own home market is not a magic GNG pass for an artist who can't show concert reviews outside her own home market as proof that she passes the touring criterion. That's completely separate from the "glancing namechecks" issue, which has more to do with the fact that she doesn't magically pass GNG just because her name gets briefly mentioned in a Billboard article about TIFF. If and when Billboard writes and publishes a whole article about her, that will count as evidence of notability — but simply having her name mentioned in a source about something else does not help her get over GNG.
Local coverage is not strictly banned from being used at all in articles — it's absolutely allowed to be used for verification of facts. But it does count for significantly less in terms of helping to establish that the topic is notable under GNG than nationalized or internationalized coverage does. As I've pointed out many times before, if GNG paid zero attention to the geographic range of coverage, and simply kept every article that technically surpassed an arbitrary number of media hits regardless of the "local vs. national" balance, then a lot of topics that we do not currently accept as notable would have to start getting kept: city or town councillors in every city or town that has a council, school board trustees, non-winning candidates for office, winners of high school poetry contests and battle of the bands competitions, owners of local businesses and food trucks, presidents of parent-teacher associations and community organizations and condo boards, organizers of local events, child actors who get human interest pieces in their local media as soon as they get cast in their first-ever bit part, my mother's neighbour who got into the local papers a few years back for finding a pig in her front yard, everybody who ever got profiled in the real estate section for their house-hunting process and/or their unique taste in interior design, and me, are among the topics that we would have to keep articles about if "the existence of purely local media coverage automatically gets them past GNG and therefore exempts them from having to actually have any real notability claim of enduring nationalized significance" were a thing. So no, a person from Brampton getting covered in the Brampton Guardian or Bramptonist or the Toronto Star or Now, in purely local contexts that don't pass any NMUSIC criterion in and of themselves, does not assist in helping her get over GNG in lieu of not passing any NMUSIC criterion — and even Exclaim! doesn't automatically reify into GNG-passing coverage, if the context of what it's covering her for is still localized and fails to satisfy an NMUSIC criterion. And also, incidentally, you acknowledge that NMUSIC explicitly specifies "publications, like student newspapers, that don't count", and yet you're listing the Algonquin Times, a student newspaper, as supporting notability below?

The bottom line is, we do not just hand an automatic GNG pass to every single person whose name happens to surpass a certain arbitrary number of media hits — we do evaluate factors like the geographic range that the sources do or don't represent, the depth of coverage that any given source does or doesn't offer, and whether the context of what the subject received coverage for passes the notability criteria for their field of endeavour or not, before we deem a person as passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

some references not yet used in the article...
Kevin Ritchie (2017-06-13). "Haviah Mighty cruises around Brampton in her Ignorant video". Now magazine. Retrieved 2018-09-19. In an email, she explained that Ignorant is about having strong opinions and essentially not caring about what others have to say about them: Kevin Ritchie (2018-04-11). "The Sorority are ready to shake up the world of hip-hop". Now magazine. Retrieved 2018-09-19. Keysha Freshh, Haviah Mighty, pHoenix Pagliacci and Lex Leosis cram around the end of a long table to talk about their debut album, Pledge, out Friday (April 13), and their first North American tour. A. Harmony (2017-03-16). "Haviah Mighty: Flower City". Exclaim magazine. Retrieved 2018-09-19. Although she's already proven her might (no pun intended) as one quarter of the Sorority, Mighty reinforces her reputation for lyrical prowess throughout this seven-track EP. Tom Beadham (2017-08-17). "Camp Wavelength, Toronto ON, August 19". Exclaim magazine. Retrieved 2018-09-19. Living up to her name, Mighty outlifted everyone on site. This was easily the most kinetic performance Wavelength saw all day (August 19), as she ducked and weaved through the pit like a boxer, switching from kinetically rapped bars to sung vocals on high kick cues, all while getting up in everyone's lens, only making short visits to the stage to stir up tracks. Calum Slingerland (2017-04-22). "Haviah Mighty: Revival, Toronto ON, April 21". Exclaim magazine. Retrieved 2018-09-19. In spinning a few tunes from a laptop before kicking off her set, Haviah Mighty played a snippet of Kendrick Lamar's "BLOOD." in which a voice asks, "Is it wickedness? Is it weakness?" It was more of the former on display for the Brampton-bred artist's 40-minute slot, in which she was a one-woman show playing the role of DJ, MC and vocalist. Erin Lowers (2018-05-09). "The Sorority: Kicking Down Doors". Exclaim magazine. Retrieved 2018-09-19. Made up of Keysha Freshh, Phoenix Pagliacci, Lex Leosis and Haviah Mighty, Toronto-based group the Sorority have carved out a space in hip-hop that's hardly explored — an all-women collective that, until the recording of their debut, Pledge, have worked exclusively with women in production, film and everything in-between. "Brampton Rapper Haviah Mighty Just Got Featured on the HBO Series 'Insecure'". Bramptonist. 2018-09-11. Retrieved 2018-09-19. Haviah's latest milestone is a feature on the popular HBO show Insecure. The singer's track which was produced by Book, is featured in Season 3 Epsiode 5 of the show. Karen Bliss (2018-09-06). "Toronto International Film Fest Preview: Lady Gaga's 'A Star Is Born,' Quincy Jones Doc, Drake-Produced Drama & More". Billboard magazine. Retrieved 2018-09-19. Presented by the Canadian Music Publishers Association (CMPA) and the Canadian Independent Music Association (CIMA), the invite-only event allows the music and film world to connect, hopefully leading to syncs in film, TV, video games and ads. On the Monday: Lost Cousins, The Jerry Cans, Kayo, Foxtrott and Neon Dreams showcase, and on Tuesday, Carmanah, Kayla Diamond, Soran, Haviah Mighty, and a l l i e. Christine Sharma (2018-09-10). "Unique Art and Live Music Event Set to Hit Brampton". In Brampton. Retrieved 2018-09-19. Popular Brampton rapper Haviah Mighty - who recently headlined for Snoop Dogg - will showcase a special DJ set. Vocalist, producer and DJ, Sikh Knowledge, and Diana Reyes aka. Fly Lady Di are also set to perform. Tyrell James (2018-04-08). "Nelly shows Algonquin why he's all work, no play". Algonquin Times. Retrieved 2018-09-19. The artists who opened up for Nelly were groups Diffnbreed and Broken Superheroes, as well as solo artists Justine Garamani and the Toronto-born Haviah Mighty, who is one of Canada's up and coming faces in the Hip Hop and R&B scene.

Delete This article fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG because the WP:ROUTINE sources in the article and provided in this AfD do not constitute WP:SIGCOV of notability. She is a run of the mill artist trying to make it big, but hasn't yet and per WP:CRYSTALBALL this article does not get to stay until we find out how her career turns out. It can be recreated in the future if she becomes notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Junker[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, who does not have any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC or any strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The strongest notability claim being made here is that his music exists, and the only sources being cited are a WordPress blog and a single piece of local coverage in the subject's own hometown — which means the sourcing here isn't solid enough to get him over NMUSIC #1, and nothing stated in the article gets him over any of NMUSIC #2 through #12 either. Obviously if he breaks out strongly enough in the future to change the notability equation, then the article can be recreated at that time — but nothing here is enough to already earn him an article as of today. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - opening acts are not normally notable; he has not toured North America nor done anything else that is notable. Everybody including my old roommate has a record out. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC because the poor sources in the article and the ones I found in a search fail to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of notability. Blogs (not a valid source) and local coverage do nothing to prove notability, nor does the fact that he is typically just part of opening acts for more well known groups. Notability doesn't automatically transfer from one group to another. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willis White[edit]

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

A self-promotion puffery piece of a mediocre actor/singer Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does indeed appear to be promotional in nature and the sources cited aren't exactly what we would use to show WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article itself is not of terribly high quality but I think the subject has established some notability given his mentions in the Examiner and Daily Northwestern. OTOH, much of his notability is given from IMDb and associated databases, which if I am not mistaken are of debated reliability on Wikipedia. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mentions" not enough. Notability requires "significant coverage". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case the Examiner article gives him main focus, but is highly subjective and promotional, with the Northwestern article mentioning him once in passing. A Google Search gives only this article and one page of social media links before bringing up irrelevant results. Delete --John M Wolfson (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn StarM 02:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daeyang Gallery and House[edit]

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

~~insignificant coverage and no source improvement has been done since 2012 Editor General of Wiki (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid rationale given for deletion, lack of improvement is not a valid reason, and the nominator should perform a check for sources before nominating. The building appears to have received some coverage - [1][2][3][4][5][6], and there are likely more sources in Korean. Should pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be an architecturally significant building and has received quite a bit of coverage, e.g. [7] in addition to the links above. Also agree with Hzh that it has likely received coverage in Korean-language media as well. Camerafiend (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominationwithdrawn- Per rationale given by the keep voters. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 10:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Naxalite and Maoist groups in India[edit]

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

Just a simple collection. I suggest adding year, area and so on to make a sheet.Fire and Ice 17:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly valid list, although the unsourced redlinks should be addressed. SpinningSpark 17:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Per nominator's rationale AfD is not a venue for suggesting improvements to articles. The list—although in a very bad condition—is perfectly valid and there is no reason to delete it.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 06:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC); edited 06:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per SshibumXZ.-- Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 12:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above Natasha Supratedja (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2018 (IWST)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Promo with non_WP:RS refs including sales sites, images are copyright infringing screen shots Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coin Stats[edit]

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

More crypto hoopla. I can't find any evidence this has receive significant coverage outside of a few crypto sites and press releases. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks highly promotional to me. Deb (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maesot City F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN as this club has not played in the country' national cup. Fails GNG this team was formed last year and the 3 sources are all routine coverage "Logo competition" brief "team bio" and brief "team to be formed" coverage. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only in-depth coverage I could identify was the FourFourTwo.com profile piece (3 paragraphs).[8] The other news sources cited in the article appear to be talking about Nakhon Mae Sot, a different team. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, no significant coverage or achievements. Giant Snowman 12:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:FOOTYN failure is obvious and I concur. They've apparently played 1 game. That said, there was certainly a possibility, if slim, that they are notable for some other reason than playing. I searched news and found nothing. Doing a general search, if you eliminate social media results, there's nothing about them out there. This is just an amateur club of no notability of any kind. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FOOTYN criteria failure doesn't matter, and isn't a valid deletion rationale. But failure to meet the GNG is. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I am sorry but I disagree with you as per WP:PERESSAY. FOOTYN is an essay and failure to meet project specific guidelines essays is a legitimate argument to use in deletion discussions as is meeting project specific guidelines. As per point A: #3 in WP:BEFORE "further related essays at Category:Wikipedia notability." are part of the reading list and FOOTYN is in that category. Meeting these guidelines is an almost surefire way of having an article kept so pointing out that the project specific guidelines are not met is a way of showing that a BEFORE search has been done and that that argument cannot be used. There are a very large number of deletion discussions that are kept on the basis of these kind of essays even if GNG is not shown to have been met. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: I said it isn't a valid reason for deleting. While FOOTYN might espouse some views on what the Football Wikiproject thinks is generally notable, it says nothing about what is not notable. Given your subsequent comment I see now that you weren't using it as a reason for deleting, but rather just pointing it out so that others didn't have to bother searching, which is fine I guess. GNG is what is important, and I am glad that you based most of your deletion rationale on that. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:42, 26 September 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. apparent consensus after improvements and 2 relists DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imee Marcos' Misuse of Tobacco Excise Tax Funds[edit]

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

This is ~basically~ an attack piece with sources; i would have nominated per WP:ATTACK but it has sources. There is also an WP:UNDUE/WP:NOTNEWS issue. The content is about an unfolding scandal, which may or may not turn out to have substance, and has intricate detail that is not encyclopedic - yet omits key details. Even the main independent source for this, notes that the investigation is being led by Rodolfo Fariñas, who leads the other political clan that has ruled the tobacco-growing province for decades, but this page somehow fails to mention this. In addition, this matter is already discussed in the the article about this person at Imee_Marcos#Misuse_of_tobacco_funds, which is sufficient detail for now. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Covered already at more than sufficient length in the BLP proper. No reason for this additional article, and Wikipedia is already too politicized about many people. This particular article has no strong reason to remain, and its title posits that she committed a crime as a matter of fact. Collect (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ajf773 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. Given existing sources, this belongs on her page, not a separate page. Ravensfire (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the work done to completely revamp this article - nice job! Ravensfire (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imee Marcos § Misuse of tobacco funds. This has had sustained focused coverage, so I would call it notable. If there were more discussion in the article about the tobacco tax or the whole ring of people who were involved in this, I might accept a separate article, but given the focus on Marcos, I agree that this is better kept in her biography. Daask (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imee Marcos § Misuse of tobacco fund per Daask. I think the subject does not need its own spinoff yet and can still be explained in the parent article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reorient - I'll second Daask's comment regarding sustained focused coverage, and also agree that there's more to the topic than Marcos. I've actually been thinking of ways to re-orient this article ever since I first became aware of it, but I haven't developed as close a familiarity with this specific case as I'd like, so I haven't managed to act on that impulse yet. - Alternativity (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since I see that the title of the article has so much to do with how focused it is on Marcos, I've taken the liberty of moving the page from "Imee Marcos' Misuse of Tobacco Excise Tax Funds" to "Ilocos Norte Tobacco Excise Tax funds controversy." I've also done minor revisions to the lede section and will try to make some changes further down in the text, as soon as I am able to do so. - Alternativity (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Update: I've made a number of changes to the article to clarify and further expand its scope, including a backgrounder on Tobacco in the Ilocos provinces and on the Tobacco fund law, and a section on previous controversies involving President Estrada and Ilocos Sur. I've also added a "missing information" hatnote in the section listing the individuals accused. I think that for the purposes of NPOV there needs to be a section on dynastic politics in the Ilocos region, and I think that the article chronology needs to be improved. But since this is not a historical era in which I have much expertise, I'll leave that all up to editors more up-to-date on current events. (Sorry, I'm mostly useful for providing historical backgrounds.) So I think that's it for me for now. Re-stating my vote as Keep but Reorient and Expand.- Alternativity (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had already regarded it as notable, and I am satisfied that Alternativity's efforts have substantially taken the focus away from Imee Marcos to such a degree that I doubt anyone would consider this an attack piece. The context of Prior Controversies on use of Tobacco Excise Tax funds is especially helpful, and is not suitable for merging in any other article. Daask (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been substantial changes to the article, and the only comment after those changes argues that it has been improved enough to keep. Relisting for another week to give people a chance to consider the new version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Daask and the changes made by Alternativity, et al. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if we're doing a second round of voting. Although I suppose my having been the one to make the needed changes to the article imply that my "keep" vote is a given. - Alternativity (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that there is no change in my !vote based on the recent edits. This is still all entirely UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS content, covered adequately in the page on the person. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my Filipino partner, whose ancestry is based in Ilocos Norte, assures me this is a big scandal. It's not just about Imee Marcos. I have seen the articles in the Fil-Am press. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Alternatvity has done a great job of changing the article to something more encyclopedic. It's a close one but the article now passes WP:NOTNEWS, imo. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Damn dumbass, I need to look for book sources more.(non-admin closure) 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 14:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antique Boat Museum[edit]

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

The museums only claim of notability is that it has "The largest collection of antique and classic boats in America", a claim that seemingly came from their own website and a COI account who edited the article 6 years ago. I couldn't find anything about this aside from it's own website, with the only real coverage being passing mentions and a paragraph long story about management switching hands. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a substantial write-up in this book and short, but more than trivial coverage, in these [9][10][11]. SpinningSpark 17:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ABM is not only the most prominent North American museum for Classic Boats, it is also from a European perspective probably the largest museum of its kind. In Europe, the Italian, Swedish, Dutch, English and German classic boat community often refers to the ABM's collection within its various chapters. Finally, some parts of its collection are simply unique, e.g. the Gar Wood Collection here Instead of deletion it should be wise to expand on its subject and uniqueness and add enough viable sources as Spinningspark already highlights. I'd be happy to add on this subject once time allows over the next couple of months. comment added by Printy4927 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM. --Doncram (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Doncram. I have also tried to rewrite the article in a way that's not a copyvio, but still leave some of the important information about it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deewanapan[edit]

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

Film does not meet notability requirements; no independent, in-depth coverage or reviews, provided sources are press releases and stock announcement blurbs. Possibly there is Hindi material I am not finding, but based on the presented selection I doubt it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~most of the sources out there are Hindi language which an English speaking reader whom goes to check the references wouldn't be able to understand~~. Most of the sources I've found on Google are by video and user edited sites which by themselves don't establish notability. —Mythdon 03:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept in mind that non-English sources are just fine - as long as they establish notability. I just think the ones unearthed so far don't. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:06, 24 September 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 Standard 52-card deck. Tone 10:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of clubs[edit]

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

Unlike the ace of spades and other card articles, there is nothing particularly significant about the queen of clubs. The card is described as having some meaning in cartomancy, but so does every other card. It has a given name in the Paris pattern, but so does every other face card. The "gambler's card" nickname appears to be limited to an Australian winery's backstory, and all the other facts about this card are that it sometimes appears by chance or inevitability in situations involving playing cards, and that you can use the phrase as a golf pun. Lord Belbury (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Standard 52-card deck; we may need a better approach to deal with all the hatnotes on that page though. I've started a discussion about that at Talk:Standard 52-card deck. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The Queen of Clubs is actually significant in a number of well known card games, but the article does not cover this; if it did, I'd be in favour of keeping it. My suggestion is the words relevant to card playing are moved to Standard 52-card deck as part of a more structured section on individual cards. Bermicourt (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dentacoin DCN[edit]

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

Non-notable blockchain and cryptocurrency Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Dentacoin is somewhat infamous as an example of a silly idea, this article is a load of promotional crap and likely WP:UPE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are promotional and mostly press release reprints. What little mention (not coverage) I've seen in RSes has been writers poking fun at the concept in passing - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 26 September 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. Clear consensus to not keep. No consensus whether to merge or not, so I'm going to just delete this. If anybody has good sources, no reason not to add appropriate, and well sourced, information to Husqvarna Group, but I'm not going to require a merge as part of this close. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zenoah[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by the creator, User:Maury Markowitz , with the following rationale "trivially easy to find articles on the company (mostly as Komatsu-Zenoah) and their products. Mentioned in Popular Mechanics, for instance, as an ultralight engine source, and in "major companies" guides)". Few months later I prodded it again, since this came up on my spam radar again, and was declined by Maury again - both times without bothering to ping me, despite my clear request to do so. Well, it's time for an AfD. This article is still a poorly referenced stub, and the fact that the company is mentioned a few times in other sources is not sufficient; as it stands, the article fails the notability requirements noted above. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I'm being accused of posting "company spam".
The OP has not followed the PROD guidelines by re-posting the PROD.
The only statement of reasoning for the D is "poorly referenced stub", which is, of course, what a stub is.
I see no evidence that the OP seriously considered any of the links I mentioned.

But whatever, if the OP feels this article is damaging the Wiki, by all means, argue away. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What links have you mentioned, and where, pray tell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Husqvarna Group, which will improve that article (WP:ATD-M). Cursory source searches have indicated that this company may not qualify for a standalone article, relative to the depth of coverage it has received. Also, this article does not have a promotional tone, which is complementary toward merging. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I would support a merge, if I could find even *one* secondary article mentioning that Zenoah is part of Husqvarna Group. Yes, it is unquestionably part of it based on WP:PRIMARY sources from the company (e.g. company webpages, product pages and press releases). I also agree the tone of the current article is fine. But I'm seeing zilch on WP:SECONDARY sources, so I have trouble even justifying a merge. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an unremarkable brand; does not meet WP:NCORP. Nothing of value to merge, so a "delete" is the appropriate outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly merge with Husqvarna Group) Although it seems clear Zenoah has a significant product line from the many places the products are advertised, I'm just not seeing *any* secondary coverage of Zenoah (or secondary sources that it is part of Husqvarna Group). Only press releases like this: [12]. I didn't see much for the parents companies either: Husqvarna Group and Komatsu Limited. But I wasn't looking for them. If anyone can find at least two secondary sources, I'd change my vote. Ping me. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Bonpounou[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about an internet radio station. As always, internet radio streams are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because their directory page on TuneIn provides technical verification that they exist -- the inclusion test is the degree to which the station can or cannot be shown as the subject of reliable source coverage about it in media other than itself. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:A7. No assertion of notability; no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jacksonville Transportation Authority. Sandstein 19:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Coast Commuter Rail[edit]

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

This was a suggested commuter rail project that never happened, is unlikely to happen anytime soon, and which has never been widely covered by third-party sources outside the agencies suggesting it. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:26, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Delete~~ Fails GNG ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CHanegd to merge per arguments below. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment:~~ I'm seeing a lot of references by doing a Google search for "First Coast Commuter Rail" where some even reference SunRail. (I wonder if it's a precursor to Brightline as well)[13] FDOT Study Just because it didn't become a reality that it should be deleted as seen with Florida High Speed Corridor and Heartland Expressway. Wouldn't the news articles listed be third-party sources? – TheGridExe (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheGridExeThe project did attract some attention from the local press, but nothing substantive, as nothing substantive ever happened with the project. They largely just directly reported what the Jacksonville Transportation Authority said about studies and reports they did. For instance this just reported on JTA's comment that on a feasibility study, and this dead link said the project would be costly and was unlikely to ever come together. This just said that one of the towns would support the project if it came together, which it didn't. Not only did it not get off the drawing board, it never got onto the drawing board after some initial studies. It can't even be said that JTA cancelled the project at some point, as it wasn't even to that stage, they just stopped talking about it.

It's also not connected to SunRail (a similar, real project in Central Florida) or Brightline (which isn't a commuter rail project, and doesn't operate in Jacksonville).--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain: The Rail Feasibility Analysis Summary Report study I linked above from FDOT provides a detailed summary with the project:

First Coast Commuter Rail In 2009, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) along with First Coast MPO and Northeast Florida Regional Council conducted a study on the feasibility of commuter rail throughout the JTA service area. The study found three feasible preferred alternatives, which included routes from downtown Jacksonville to St. Augustine, downtown to Green Cove Springs, and downtown to Yulee. Preliminary planning efforts were completed in 2014 and included travel demand modeling. The downtown-to-St. Augustine corridor (Southeast Corridor) would run parallel to Florida East Coast Railway’s tracks along Philips Highway. It would extend 38 miles and would feature 13 stations. The downtown-to-Green Cove Springs corridor (Southwest Corridor) would run along tracks owned by CSX and Norfolk Southern and would span 29 miles with 12 stations. The North Corridor from downtown to Yulee would be the shortest at 23 miles long but would have 15 stations. As of December 2017, funding is not programmed for further project development and evaluation of the corridors.

I'm unsure if this got molded into something else as there's a bus service with the same name. However, to say it didn't get anything beyond "local coverage" is kind of a misnomer when we're talking about Jacksonville (largest city in size minus Alaska) and St. Augustine. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local to the Jacksonville metropolitan area, which includes St. Augustine. What you're quoting is just an announcement that the study was done. It never proceeded beyond that point, it hasn't merged into anything else, and there are no sources that say anything beyond the fact that JTA once commissioned feasibility studies for commuter rail. As the summary says, JTA has not committed any further money to get any such project on the drawing board, let alone off the drawing board.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I quoted was from a Rail Feasibility Analysis Summary Report that FDOT did for Interstate 75 (not 95) Relief. A feasibility study is definitely more than a planning board adding something to a LRTP. It's still a study by FDOT that verifies the project regardless of its progress. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Jacksonville Transportation Authority-- sufficient secondary sources for notability. I agree with TheGridExe that a current failure to ever have funding does not undermine its notability as a project. The Cincinnati subway project failed to get enough funding to be finished despite numerous attempts, and it is very historically significant. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 08:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]

David Tornheim: This isn't remotely as significant as the Cincinnati subway, which at least got to the stage that some infrastructure was built, and has a lot of sources about it. This is an idea that was floated and then abandoned by a transit agency before getting anything but cursory attention in local press at the time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that it was "abandoned"? I don't remember seeing it in the WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote this, JTA called me and told me they'd dropped the commuter rail plans years ago and don't have any current ones (I added a comment to that effect after their call). It's not surprising that that hasn't been covered in many reliable sources, because it just sort of quietly fizzled out before any real planning and work was done. There are occasionally still comments about commuter rail being desirable at some unspecified future point, and there are more likely possibilities for things like Brightline, but nothing more than that as far as "First Coast Commuter Rail" goes. Frankly, given that this never moved past the initial studies, the article shouldn't have been created in the first place.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, this info could have been presented from the start before having to dig for information. Saying the article shouldn't have been made at the time (2008-2009) just really is the nature of urban planning. The article could have expanded as such but a merge can benefit just as well. For instance, there's a lot of railroads that are forever stubs (which is fine with Wikipedia) due to the Florida population boom of the 1920s. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Even though we can't use that in the article, I trust your accurate reporting of that phone call. I'm still in agreement with TheGridExe that something that is planned and not executed does not make it un-notable. Plans can be notable. I certainly agree about stub railroads, which can be like feeder canals (Glens Falls Feeder Canal) (or abandoned segments of canals) that had "bigger and better" plans. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I may suggest merging into the Jacksonville Transportation Authority article. While there are local press sources, they don't say anything beyond "JTA is exploring commuter rail".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 19 September 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. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Judge (writer)[edit]

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

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

Not notable outside of single event so WP:BLP1E. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His role in the Supreme Court nomination controversy is minor. - Mr X 🖋 14:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I think this discussion would be more appropriate in a month or so. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Do you think he would become notable outside of this event in a month or so? He has not been for the past 20 years. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, possibly, if he continues to receive coverage. His face is all over news outlets currently. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is basically WP:RECENTISM and all tied to one event, with no sign of lasting notability. Leading to WP:BLP1E. PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your specious argument is specifically why I am focusing on research into sources BEFORE any particular event. Sagecandor (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after a week of his name in the news there is barley anything to support a page just for him. His name an history can be a small piece at the pages for Kavanaugh ‎and Ford. ContentEditman (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. KalHolmann (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, commentator and published author of minor note prior to this incident. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination#Sexual assault allegation. The subject does not appear to meet WP:Author and appears notable for only one event WP:BLP1E. --Enos733 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: I clicked the link you provided. There is no mention of Mark Judge. How would this help a Wikipedia visitor? KalHolmann (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is truly a WP:BLP1E, then a mention of his alleged involvement (participation?) in the controversy would be appropriate there. However, I am beginning to think there might be enough book reviews to meet WP:Author, but I note that the reliable book reviews did not immediately pop up in my initial searches. --Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and the comments of E.M.Gregory. --Enos733 (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Enos733, for having the strength of character to reevaluate your prior position based on subsequent improvements to the article. Sagecandor (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of multiple published books. Books are each subject of multiple published book reviews. Notable author. Independent notability. Notability prior to, during, and after any one individual particular event. Sagecandor (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing books doesn't necessarily mean notable. See WP:AUTHOR, where the guidelines are "widely cited," "originating a new concept," "well-known work," or "significant critical attention." I don't think Judge can demonstrate any of these. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Before recent events brought him more noteriety, he was already the author of multiple books related to Georgetown Prep life and Washington D.C. area culture, and served as a contributing writer at prominent outlets such as The Daily Caller and The American Spectator. The recent events magnify these existing themes even more, so his bio should not be seen as a WP:BLP1E violation for "only for one event." The third criteria of BLP1E is not met. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzheado: The third criterion reads, "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." There is no question that Ford's allegations are significant. However, Mark Judge's role in the underlying event was at most unsubstantial. As Ford tells it, his active participation consisted solely of jumping on top of the grappling couple, sending all three tumbling. Even accepting her version as true, we are left to ponder why he did so. Was it drunken horseplay or was he trying to prevent a rape? And in any case, Mark Judge himself denies the whole incident. KalHolmann (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Fuzheado: They do not meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. From what I see it meets all three criteria for WP:BLP1E. Certainly only received the vast majority of his coverage in relation to this one event. After this event they are unlikely to be notable for anything besides this event. Finally their roll in this event is rather insignificant. If they need to be covered in relation to this even they can be covered in any of the three other articles that talk about it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a misinterpretation of the first criterion of BLP1E, which doesn't talk about a "majority". Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for independent notability and enhanced notability. The fact that Mr. Judge's name is now in the news is not somehow a strike against notability, it is a point for it. Robert K S (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I was going to nominate this one myself. A few minor books about very minor topics do not convey notability as required by WP:AUTHOR. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AUTHOR more than satisfied. Author of not one, but multiple notable books. Books that are themselves independently notable and the subject of multiple independent book reviews themselves. Sagecandor (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS say otherwise, with little to no coverage of the books before this event. Even then they meet no criteria of WP:AUTHOR. So no coverage and no impact from his writing means they are not notable for their writing. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Multiple book reviews for multiple books. Sagecandor (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my friend you are very mistaken. Also he fails to meet the other criteria of WP:AUTHOR as others have pointed out. Point one, heck no. Point two, again nope. Point three, don't think so. Point four, not happening. Having books does not make one a notable author. PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR as author of multiple books that satisfy WP:NBOOK, does make one a notable author. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK is for the books themselves, not the author. Which these books do not meet either btw. Also WP:AUTHOR has nothing to do with the number of books. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: From WP:AUTHOR, In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. That's basically WP:NBOOK. wumbolo ^^^ 21:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You kind of skipped over the first part, which must be met before the "in addition" section you quoted. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." That sure and heck has not happened. PackMecEng (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he created a book which has an article and seems significant (review in the NYT and a couple of other reviews). wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter how many books he wrote. None of them are widely reviewed, impactful, or well known. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter how many times you complain, but it won't stop the fact that the books satisfy WP:NBOOK. Sagecandor (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable author. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to the Kavanaugh confirmation battle) on WP:BLP1E grounds, with no prejudice towards recreation should he gain more WP:RS coverage for his work as an author. 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR - coverage (e.g. NYT) of his books on drunkeness culture. Involvement in the nomination schedule (the 1E) only adds to notability and doea not subtract.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Did you mean WP:AUTHOR? PackMecEng (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, fixed above.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTNEWS. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Note that WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTNEWS do NOT apply because the books were reviewed and cited (checked titles in gBooks) years before his high school drinking buddy was nominated to the Supreme Court, and those reviews carry him pas WP:NAUTHOR. The fact that Judge's life, career and books - several of which are about his drunk, high school partying, have been the subject extensive coverage since the nomination battle. Between the book reviews, the discussions of his books in secondary sources (some of which pre-date the nomination battle,) and the coverage sparked by the nomination he has WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Sagecandor (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "have been the subject extensive coverage since the nomination battle" Which is a perfect example of why WP:NOTNEWS exists, E.M.Gregory. If he had not been connected with Kavanaugh, an article on him would have been put up here at AfD and delete would have been the consensus for not meeting WP:GNG, even in light of WP:NAUTHOR (as PackMecEng points out below). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. When he came into this week's news cycle, he was being described as a as a high school drinking/partying buddy of Kavenaugh' who had published a memoir about his youthful alcoholism. Turns out he published several. I started this article only after looking and ascertaining that his books had gotten enough coverage back when they were published to support notability. It looked like this [14]. WP:HEYMANN, many more pre-2018 sources have since been added, a couple by me, most by other editors. What I want to point out is that it is routine and legitimate for an editor like me who creates pages often, to notice a topic because it is in the news cycle, run some searches, and decide that the subject in the news had pre-existing notability, as happened with Judge who can pass AUTHOR on pre-2018 material. Of course, a lot of WP:BLP1Es are kept, because the person has become too notable to delete (you might want to re-read that policy). But to me, and despite the fact that I had never heard of him until this week, Judge is not in the [[WP:BLP1E] category because of the many years of coverage in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable putative eyewitness and participant of a critical event. Mksword (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is he though? PackMecEng (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he would be borderline as an author, but the coverage of Judge as an author plus the Kavanaugh-related coverage brings this over the significant-coverage threshold, in my eye. Neutrality^talk 01:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: If there was not recent coverage, would he be notable enough? Looking at the sources listed for reviews there is nothing continuing and certainly nothing impactful, at least to me. Yes some of his work at the time of release was covered by secondary sources but they come off as mostly passing mention and nothing sustained or particularly notable. PackMecEng (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it hadn't been for this, he'd never be noticed and no one would have ever accused him of being a notable author--which he isn't anyway (he doesn't have the coverage for it). So delete per NOTNEWS, though I have no doubt this will be kept because...well, NEWS. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage regarding Kavanaugh, along with his previous books and journalistic work, are plenty for GNG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP-1E and NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS as he doesn't otherwise appear to be notable - article would be deleted if not for the recent controversy. SportingFlyer talk 05:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly suggest that editors look at the pre-2018 sourcing, which include multiple reviews of his books in WP:RS, such as this deep dive into Judge's argument Tales of a Gen X Swinger; A music critic's juvenile cultural politics by Jesse Walker. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arguments based on either 1) he wouldn't be notable if there was only this one event, or 2) he wouldn't be notable with only prior coverage without this one event, don't actually have anything to do with the subject's actual notability. All the above are added to the ledger when accounting for GNG. There is apparently enough to write a well sourced article with, because we have written what is apparently a fairly well sourced article. Therefore GNG. GMG^talk 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they do--if he hadn't done anything noteworthy before, it's a case where either NOTNEWS or BLP1E can apply. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage prior to the one event doesn't have to itself meet GNG in a vacuum; it has to be sufficient to exclude If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. That is not the same as saying The person would still be notable if this event had never occurred. The one event, along with the prior coverage both factor into to GNG, and it's not necessary that either of those alone would meet GNG to say that both of them together do. BLP1E is not leave to arbitrarily ignore extant sources when considering the entire body of sources available for a subject. It is leave to disregard a short burst of sources when that's all there is. GMG ^talk 15:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough for an article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a game of adding. He may not make it as an author. He also may not make it for this one event. However, when one looks at the whole picture, he meets WP:N. Plus, there is the point of about being useful. In 100 years, if someone wanted to look at this nomination fight, would they want to know about Mark Judge or not?Casprings (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how notability works. Also if in 100 years they want to know what they hubbub is they can look at the other articles either about the hearing or Ford. Both have all the info they would need on this minor part of the controversy.PackMecEng (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am pretty sure that is how it works. You get in the news for one thing, then another... and eventually you are WP:N. Recent news and his previous work’s coverage clearly total enough coverage that he is WP:N.Casprings (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable author, coverage is enough for GNG. Not a BLP1E in my view. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ignore for now the flood of coverage in the last 96 hours and evaluate only the previous coverage, such as this in-depth critical analysis of one of his several books. The New York Times also reviewed another of his books. There are several other such reviews. That coverage disposes of the BLP1E concerns. The flood of recent coverage, which is about 99.99% sure to continue for some time to come, seals the deal. He is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is significant critical analysis of Judge's writing that was published by The Atlantic back in 2013. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball close keep w/o prejudice to renom in 6 months: These AFDs waste our time, we never reach consensus during a news blizzard.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisifed NAUTHOR before this incident so BLP1E does not apply.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory and Cullen. Some of the above references to BLP1E seem to either misinterpret that policy or to not take into account the sourcing situation fully. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline, but I don't think he's writing is sufficient for notability and his connection to Kavanaugh can be appropriately treated in that article. Volunteer Marek 16:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Ummm, more stuff might be coming out - gonna wait to !vote here. Volunteer Marek 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and NOTNEWS. Lepricavark (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems okay to me, wp:GNG met. Of course many new bio articles are created when an event happens bringing the person into the news, e.g. when a person dies and there are obituaries. It is okay for us to remedy the previous omission of coverage. --Doncram (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets WP:NAUTHOR. Even if he didn't, it's dubious he'd meet all three required prongs of the WP:BLP1E exclusion criteria. (For the record, this is not the ivote I expected to cast, but, reviewing policy and available references, here I am.) Innisfree987 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Innisfree987:Thank you for your due diligence and your review of policy and available references. Your honest statement about your initial expectations versus your Keep assessment after your review, shows the strength of your character. Sagecandor (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the role in the recent controversy has produced in-depth profiles of his writings, such as Meet Mark Judge; What We Know About Mark Judge; What Mark Judge Wrote About Women; Mark Judge ... has opined about rowdy-young-male behavior for years, etc. BIO1E no longer applies. Also, meets (or almost meets) WP:NAUTHOR with reviews of his books. Everything combined meets WP:N. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: BLP1E very much applies to your in-depth profiles, since they are written in the context of one BLP-sensitive event. wumbolo ^^^ 16:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that WP:BLP1E does not say being known only for one event excludes all bios on living subjects: it only recommends against bios that meet all three of its exclusion criteria, and these sources specific to this one event strongly suggest this bio would not meet the last prong. (The book coverage shows the bio doesn't meet the second prong either.) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last one: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. There is no evidence that his role is greater than zero. wumbolo ^^^ 22:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are, I imagine, speaking of his role in the 1982 alleged event. Wikipedia recognizes that making allegations can be a significant event in its own right (as it clearly is here), with guidance on handling allegations at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It's widely documented that he's been accused as an accomplice in allegations affecting a nomination to the US Supreme Court, and RS are treating him as relevant to that very significant event. (Not relevant to deletion, but the above also misstates the evidence on the prior event. Testimony from the alleged victim and outcry witnesses is evidence.) Innisfree987 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there's overwhelming evidence, BLP1E applies until convicted per WP:BLPCRIME. wumbolo ^^^ 22:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author, coverage is enough for GNG. Djflem (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3. Random accusations by random classmates ought to be nuked (especially from the lead) until third-party analysis is published by reliable sources. But that's not a reason to delete. wumbolo ^^^ 16:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A long article about Mark Judge appeared in a local newspaper. The news article discussed Judge's history, including his father. Comfr (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even before this scandal, he had a claim to notability as a writer. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. He is the author of multiple notable books. See Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk and God and Man at Georgetown Prep. Thsmi002 (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree with nom. Subject passes WP:AUTHOR. GenuineArt (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neoteric evolutionary theory[edit]

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

[From comments by Evolution and evolvability on the July 2018 PROD, now contested:] "can't find mention of this in the literature and the term is not used in the references cited. It currently seems to be wp:original research." Opening AfD for further investigation and discussion. General Ization ^Talk 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Not seeing any sources directly discussing this. The closest I could find was two books, firstly this book, which has a chapter on "The rise of neoteric positivism". This doesn't really discuss evolution, it seems to be a defence, or reinvention, of logical positivism. However, our essay article may be looking at evolution from the POV of this philosophical school. The philosophy itself is barely notable, let alone its view (if it actually has one) on evolution. The second book is differential evolution with a chapter on "Neoteric differential evolution". The book is about the algorithms of evolution. It is highly mathematical and does not seem to relate to our article at all. I suspect that the word neoteric is being used here merely in a generic sense of its meaning. It does however, have a passing mention to Darwin in a student question "Does differential evolution obey the natural selection theory of Darwin?" (sorry, I don't know the answer – I make a poor student). SpinningSpark 15:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as appears to be original research. The articles' references are not germane, and I could not find other literature in support. David notMD (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've read as much of the article as I can manage, but it's almost all waffle. I still have no idea what "Neoteric evolutionary theory" is, why the N should be capitalised, or how it differs from any other theory. I guess "original research" is the most polite way to describe it. Maproom (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were serious, it would have lots of links from and to other articles on human evolution. -- Nsda (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's simply no real substance under all the fluff. "Neoteric" is just a fancy-shmancy highfalutin way to spell "new". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is (poor) original research from start to finish. None of the cited sources discuss this supposed theory, and I can't find a single instance of the word "Neoteric" being applied to human evolution. The substance of it—apparently an attempt to revive human exceptionalism as a scientific theory—is also extremely fringey. I'm really surprised that Graeme Bartlett accepted it at AfC. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research and no evidence of notability as crackpot theory/fringery. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per strong consensus - even if it is not technically original research, it is certainly a synthesis of disparate sources, none of which can be verified easily, thus it is psuedo-science and not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, as original research and possibly also as bollocks. The Google Books and Scholar links make it clear that this "theory" has never been published under this name. None of the references have "Neoteric" in their names. It is clear that there is no such thing as "Neoteric evolutionary theory", at least not under that name, outside of the mind of the author of this borderline nonsense. Clearly, "Neoteric" is just a way to say "new" with an implied subtext of "I am very clever and I know big words". This embellishment of language with knobs, doodads and ornamental finials continues throughout the "article" and successfully (if that is its intent) defeated my attempts to parse any sense into it. If there is anything here at all, and I'm certainly not saying that there is, then I suspect that it could be condensed down to one or two sentences that actually made sense. It is nice that people have their own theories about evolution and stuff but I feel that Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses has priority here, both in style and in (lack of) substance. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you happen to be in the mood for more of the same, an IP (who I suspect to be the author of the article, logged out) left a defense of the article on my Talk page, probably in response to my suggestion on the author's Talk page to participate here. General Ization ^Talk 18:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope that it is the same person. I'd hate to think that there were two of them. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General Ization ^Talk 15:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And the author has just now left comments at Talk:Neoteric evolutionary theory rather than here. I have moved those comments here so they will remain for future reference after the article is deleted. General Ization ^Talk 15:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move for close Since even the author has now, according to the aforementioned comments at Talk:Neoteric evolutionary theory, agreed that the article should be deleted, move for snow close. Thanks to all. General Ization ^Talk 15:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Neoteric evolutionary theory

There seems to be a problem - I have failed to communicate the nature of the Neoteric approach to Evolutionary Theory. a) It's a theory b) It's in a Neoteric 'state' - unmentioned, unexplored by evolutionary scientists, paleoanthropologists, etc. c) The 'theory' is a set of conclusions derived directly from their findings however, supported by Darwin's own writings. d) The notion of recall is first mentioned by him (Darwin)as being the prime mover of 'consciousness'. You can look it up. I gave the reference. e) Consciousness underpinned by recall is not found in other species. f) What I call the 'Recall Paradigm' drives human behaviour. g) Human behaviour is characterised by an ability to shape the environment directly. h) So unlike all other species, we don't rely on slow mutational changes to evolve as 'better fitted' to a particular niche. i) Instead of evolving physically, mental evolution ( the Recall Paradigm ) enabled us to leapfrog the entire process. j) The evidence is all around us. Key advances like flint tools (3.3 mya) are the date stamps for the evolution of mind. k) So we can inhabit fabricated niches - like towns, a submarine, space vehicles, New York, a farm, Wikipedia. l) There is nothing new here; the evidence is all around and stretches back millions of years. m) It just needs a little insight to connect all the dots. n) Sorry I've caused you all so much grief. Obviously, you're not ready for all this. 0) The 'mental niche' is uniquely human and expanding exponentially. Pity Wikipedians want to vote the other way. p) In the light of this I think an entry in Wikipedia not relevant any more. q) I too vote delete DeQuinceyMalden (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deven R. Choksey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Promotional LinkedIn-style article which does not show how the individual is notable – the references are to reliable sources, but all they show are Mr. Choksey appearing as a talking head in financial videos or transcripts of interviews giving his financial advice, which are primary sources and give no biographical detail about Mr. Choksey himself. Richard3120 (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why would this need discussion? -- Nsda (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsda Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:04, 21 September 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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eman Sharobeem[edit]

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

This is a prime case of WP:ONEEVENT: a figure who would at best have greatly struggled to pass WP:GNG is the subject of a high-profile corruption investigation, and gets an article that is really only about the investigation. ICAC inquiries often lead to this sort of publicity even though the targets are frequently themselves non-notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No, it's not a one event person. The subject was previously added to the Project Women in Red where the main focus of the sources provided is her activism against abuse against women, as she has been featured in national Australian press (ABC, SBS) and received awards for her work. See: Women in Red. Rather than rush to delete, it's clear that there is plenty to add regarding her activism. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources (pre-ICAC). It is clearly not a single event bio page. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She received substantial coverage relating to her activism, and the recognition she received for it, prior to the ICAC investigation. AusLondonder (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep NOM has a point, subject is almost a single event, but I suggest there is just enough now with before and after ICAC to support GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough about her activism for me to say that WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Phú Hoàng[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Playing in fledgling Vietnam Basketball Association does not meet WP:NHOOPS. Like a recent AfD and a recent PROD, seems to be part of a spate of creations of VBA players. Sources are either affiliated with the league, from state-sponsored agencies Việt Nam News or Vietnam Television, or from sites like bongro24h.vn, with disclaimer sounding like the site is related to the state also: "Toàn bộ nội dung bài viết, ý kiến thành viên được kiểm duyệt, cung cấp và bảo trợ thông tin bởi Báo Thể Thao Việt Nam – Cơ quan thuộc Tổng Cục Thể Dục Thể Thao. (All content, comments, comments are moderated, provided and sponsored information by the Sports Newspaper Vietnam - Agency under the General Department of Physical Education)" —Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No question about it. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as National television and national newspapers, that they are state owned is irrelevant for non-political subjects - the BBC is a state corporation but it is still a reliable source, passes WP:GNG regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC is not in a Communist country.—Bagumba (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Playing in the Southeast Asian Games is not enough to show notability and most of the coverage is about him being on that team with the rest being routine coverage of the VBA. Papaursa (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DZUP[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

A University campus radio station . No evidence of any notability, Only refs are its own web-site and an Alumni year-book. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - previous AfD made this a redirect. Now changed back to that redirect. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And changed back to an article. Do you still want to withdraw.?PRehse (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although this article has a "lack of notability", I have added proper citations on the context, including articles from UP Diliman's official website (but not on the station's official website) and from Rappler. Zzrocket (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The university is still directly affiliated with the station, so content on the university's website does not aid in demonstrating notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:ORG is not an appropriate guideline for this nom. Meets WP:BROADCAST and WP:STUDENTMEDIA easily. AkoyIanS (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article had been improved its notability with additional cite references. I have no other additional comments but that's it. Aztegdude (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A message advertising this deletion discussion was posted on a Facebook group. Please take this into account when interpreting consensus. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized for that. I'll be careful the next time around. Zzrocket (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The message advertising about this deletion discussion posted on a Facebook group page was deleted by one of the group page's administrators. AkoyIanS (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete THAT STATION IS A HOAX! IT MUST BE ELIMINATED! HoaxKiller401 (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did something wrong. Please do not blank pages and add inappropriate speedy deletion templates to articles, suggesting they are hoaxes when they are clearly not. This suggests you are intentionally trying to remove articles you do not like. Neither course of action is appropriate. Zzrocket (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to University of the Philippines Diliman. The notability test for a radio station is not passed just because the article says it's passed — it's passed only when its claims to passage are supported by reliable source coverage about the station in media other than itself. But of the seven footnotes here, five are to the university's own web page (which is still a directly affiliated primary source, and not support for notability), and the Rappler source is still a press release from the station itself (so still not support for notability). And the last one, PeriodismoHumano, is a citizen journalism project that allows anybody to submit their own personal journalism about anything, and thus still not valid support for notability because that type of publication can be (and often is) misused by people and organizations to game our rules by creating their own "media coverage" about themselves. The notability test for a radio station is not passed by what an article says, it's passed by how well the article can reference what it says to media coverage it didn't create itself — and the sources here simply aren't cutting it at all. So this can certainly be mentioned in the article on the university, as is standard for student radio stations, but these sources aren't adequate to earn it a standalone article separately from being mentioned in the university's article. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done removing unreliable sources but replaced with some verified information from Philippine Information Agency (and one from another yet source unrelated to the station). Hope this works well. Zzrocket (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about your research, Zzrocket? Prove it. AkoyIanS (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do believe on the article about a college radio station does have a historical timeline from its beginning in 1958. They'll be celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. JayBustamante (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A radio station's "historical timeline" is not a notability freebie that exempts it from the entirely non-negotiable "has reliable source coverage to support the article" criterion. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the history section. This article needs improvement. Better ask anyone from legitimate newspapers or agencies first before you do so. AkoyIanS (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect back to University of the Philippines Diliman (disclosure: I'm a UPD alumni) I've looked at online local major newspaper articles and it seems that at best sources that I could find are only passing mentions of the station and people who are working or has worked in said station. I don't think any of these mentions are enough to make an article out of the station. The strongest claim for the article's notability are the The KBP Golden Dove Awards nominations and the Golden Dove Award for a program but those mentions can be easily added to the main UP Diliman article. Personally speaking, the station is there to improve the skills of the College of Mass Communications students and help UP researchers promote their projects which is cool and all but that does not necessarily makes the it notable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: That's 4 more references than you normally see with Philippine radio (or TV) stations. Personally I would like to see more, perhaps @Lenticel: would like to take a crack at it since he is from the Philippines and would know where to look for more references (ie: the Philippine version of the FCC to start). Outside of that, 4 references is still enough for me to !vote keep on this AfD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:06 on September 23, 2018 (UTC)

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 Covariance matrix. Content may be merged from history. Sandstein 11:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Covariance mapping[edit]

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

A few sentences of mathematical triviality (generalizes the notion of covariance from random variables to random functions) are followed by an unencyclopedically detailed account of a free-electron-laser experiment. This is nothing but advertisement for a few papers by a small group of scientists. Relevance of their work is not demonstrated. Nsda (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per explanation by nominator: mathematical title, but no notable mathematics; extreme detail on physics experiment is unencyclopedic. Also, content seems to have been written by same person who is author or co-author of all six cited works, hence WP:COI. Loraof (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't this just the covariance matrix? Their definition is $\mathbf {cov} (\mathbf {Y} ,\mathbf {X} )=\langle \mathbf {YX} \rangle -\langle \mathbf {Y} \rangle \langle \mathbf {X} \rangle ,$ with $\mathbf {Y}$ the transpose of the row vector $\mathbf {X}$ . So the $(i,j)$ -th entry in their matrix is $\langle x_{i}x_{j}\rangle -\langle x_{i}\rangle \langle x_{j}\rangle$ . In addition, chunks of the content were copied from this article, which is Open Access but uses a different license than Wikipedia does. I think this is technically disallowed under our copyright policy (the attribution is lost, for one thing), and it certainly intensifies the WP:COI concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's published under CC-BY-3.0, which is compatible with Wikipedia's licence (Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?), given suitable attribution (Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Attributing text). Qwfp (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective page merge to 'Covariance matrix'. As XOR'easter points out, this appears to be just an application of the covariance matrix to a discretised function. A Google Scholar search for "Covariance mapping" -wikipedia -"Frasinski" brings up enough articles by other authors to suggest the term is sufficiently used to be worth at least a mention at 'Covariance matrix', but i agree with the nominator that the nominated article is too detailed and too focussed on one specific application and one group's papers for very much of it to be useful. Qwfp (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with that, but who will carry it out? Waiting for a volunteer should not delay the deletion of the present, inappropriate article. Nsda (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could make the page into a redirect first and worry about merging bits of it later. (I'm not seeing much that compels merging, but if there aren't copyright issues then we don't have to expunge the page history from public view.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MV Murre[edit]

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

Well-researched article which sadly lacks independent sources showing notability for this small vessel. I couldn't find good other sources about this online, so without such sources it looks like it fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her sister ship, MV Auklet, is also nominated for the same reason. Fram (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, no damage done by this kind of article, no maintenance problem either. -- Nsda (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Leaving aside the presentism of assuming that an online presence is the most important indicator on notability, it was trivial to find other online mentions relating to the NOAA/BoF website, as well as a good many mentions on Google books.

These boats, much like some of the Canadian fisheries patrol boats, punched far above their weight in influence on boat design, and were, like the Healy, often the only real representation of their federal governments in remote waters and outports. IMS, these boats also directly inspired some of Weston Farmer’s work well inland. Qwirkle (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- The NOAA site is not an independent source, it is the government talking about a government ship. The Google books results, could you perhaps indicate which ones you consider significant and independent? Most seem like passing mentions (something like the Pacific Motor Boat, Volume 14 source) and routine announcements, or again not independent, like the "Fisheries Service Bulletin". Which ones of "Pacific Marine Review - Volume 14 - Page 71", and "Pacific Motor Boat - Volume 14 - Page 37" are the "good many mentions" you refer to, and which of those is actually a significant, non routine, independent source? Because after these four I have now mentioned, there is nothing as far as I can see in those results which is even about these boats at all. Oh, and "the presentism of assuming that an online presence is the most important indicator on notability", no, but it's all we can base us on, certainly when the article creator doesn't add any sources (online or not) showing notability initially or after the article was prodded. Simply assuming that old things will be notable somehow is not really helpful.
- For the rest of your comments, do you have any independent evidence that these boats had such an "influence on boat design" and so on? Just making that claim is not really sufficient. Fram (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is in-depth coverage by the NOAA and WP:GNG makes it explicitly clear that "reports by government agencies" are acceptable sources. Claiming a 2018 NOAA article is not a secondary source to a boat which has no evidence of existing after 1942 is a huge stretch.--Oakshade (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course government sources are acceptable sources, if they are independent, as the GNG makes perfectly clear in the bullet point after the one you reference. A government agency reporting on the history of that agency (or a very closely related one) is not an independent source. In this case, the sources from NOAA are perfectly acceptable with regards to verifiability, but have zero value for notability. And all the sources in the article are from NOAA... Fram (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the originating author of the article and am working on a project to captrue the maritime history of current and previous U.S. government agencies, including coverage of U.S. federal fleets other than that of the U.S. Navy. These include the NOAA fleet, the fleet of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (an ancestor of NOAA), etc. Right now I am working on the historic fleets that were ancestors of the National Marine Fisheries Service side of NOAA, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, theU.S. Bureau of Fisheries, and the U.S. Fish Commission. Pending the outcome of this discussion, I have suspended my project until I find out if my efforts will be wasted by deletions of the some of the articles I am creating in order to capture this otherwise poorly covered maritime history. I note the following:
- For ships in U.S. federal fleets, mere association with a U.S. federal fleet seems to be enough to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Fore example, cargo ships, tankers, patrol boats, etc. with otherwise unremarkable histories are extensively covered in Wikipedia if they served in the U.S. Navy. The maritime history of other U.S. agencies ought to be considered just as important and – unless we want to start wholesale deltions of Navy shipos based on some other notion of notability criteria – should merit similar treatment to the Navy, i.e., their ships get included.
- The development of a fisheries patrol capability in the Territory of Alaska was important to the Bureau of Fisheries, and this ship and her sister were the first two fisheries patrol ships ever constructed for that service. There is some significance in that alone,both for NOAA and Alaskan history, as well as ship history.
- I do not understand the idea that a NOAA site reporting on its own history makes it somehow self-serving or suspect. NOAA gains no monetary benefit from posting the information for public use. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is a U.S. Navy source and forms the basis for most U.S. Navy ship articles on Wikipedia, often without other sources in the case of many obscure or older ships that did not benefit from the existence of the Internet in their lifetimes. Is there anything in the AFSC History Corner series of articles that suggests that NOAA is making up the history, or reporting it in a self-serving way? I rather think that NOAA is one of the best sources for its own history, because if it doesn't care about its history, who does? And, as always, I have edited out any signs of hyperbole or romantic description that NOAA may have indulged in (as I do with sources like DANFS for Navy ships).
- The NOAA site cites sources used for each article. (DANFS does not, but is accepted.) The NOAA site also clearly describes what is known and unknown, attributes its photos, and so on, and even solicits addiitonal research anyone can provide, so it clearly is trying to achieve and maintain the best possible historical information. Why would it not be viewed as meeting a high standard?
- I continue to research this vessel, but most online information appears to come from this one source. I think we should keep the article and keep researching it. Rather than deletion, a "this article relies too much on a singel source" note would be a better and less destructive approach than deletion, which simply sets Wikipedia back without gaining Wikipedia anything. I understand that Wikipedia is against "do no harm" arguments, but surelyd eletion for notability or single-source is a misapplication of those concepts in this case.
- Does the nomination for deletion come out of true, universally agreed upom lack of notability, or out of the nominator′s personal lack of interest in the topic? If the latter, keep.

How do we make Wikipedia a better source for non-U.S. Navy fleets if we delete ship articles because only the U.S. Government parent agency has written about them or because other information on the ships is hard to find? And why would we apply a different standard than we do for DANFS and U.S. Navy ships? How about continuing research in the years to come instead of deleting articles? Mdnavman (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

- - US navy ships (or any other nave for that matter) with the same type of problems should be deleted as well, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a good argument. You seem to be making some strawman arguments as well. I never suggested that anything in the article was made up or false (by you, NOAA, anyone). The only concern is that all we have is an organisation writing (in great detail) about their own organisation, and that no one else has bothered to pay significant attention to this. Blaming this on "but it's a pre-internet object" is not really convincing, I often write about things which are much older but get solid attention (in articles, books, ...) in recent years anyway. That's what notability means: that independent sources have paid attention to it, preferably over a long period of time. Fram (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I came across as trying to provide strawman arguments. What I was trying to do is explain my rationale for thinking that articles like these have merit. I have noted over time that fans of article deletion tend to always be able to find something in Wikipedia policy that seems to justify deletion (notability, which usually is a matter of opinion based on reader interest, not something formulaic as deleters present it to be; "do no harm," which deleters use to counter the argument that the article seems to do some good and should remain unless there is some compelling reason to delete it; and now you have added "other stuff exists," which takes away the argument that common practice should be applied across Wikipedia, and that established norms someone might cite in defense of retaining an article are themselves wrong). I find these uses of these policies unconvincing; I thought they were there to delete, say, a high school student writing about himself or herself, or someone writing about the gas station down on the corner where nothing has ever happened except for people buying gas. I remain surprised and disappointed that these policies are being used as a way of justifying the deletion of the coverage otherwise interesting topics that are under-covered on Wikipedia (or even elsewhere on the Internet). My point merely is that NOAA, like DANFS, is an authoritative source; it clearly is providing well-researched, fact-based information about its history with citations; it is not credible that there is not interest in the topic outside of NOAA; as we can see from the smattering of "keep" responses above, there is interest in the topic; and it's not as clear as you make it out to be that a lack of Internet presence can be construed as a lack of notability. In fact, the lack of Internet attention may reflect a lack of attention rather than notability, and any judgment of notability needs to be based on something more intrinsic to the topic that Internet popularity. I suspect that if you launched an initiative for the deletion of a lot of U.S. Navy ships you deem not notable - which I think you are confusing with not being interesting to you - that you would encounter much resistance, because I think you are not taking into account that association of a vessel with a federal fleet is itself a notability factor than you must honor before engaging in deletion of an article. As for NOAA writing about itself and its history, I can't think of a better place to start building an article on a NOAA ship than with information NOAA itself holds on its own history. Who would know better than NOAA? I would agree with this article being classified as a "start" article and receiving a "single source" note at the top of the page, but deletion strikes me as unmerited and a destructive act that makes Wikipedia a lesser place, at least when it comes to the maritime history of the U.S. Government and without benefiting Wikipedia or its users. To me, it's harder to argue that we DON'T want articles like these than that we DO want them. Mdnavman (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

You seem to be confusing notability, a concept restricted to Wikipedia in this form, and "noteworthiness". "it is not credible that there is not interest in the topic outside of NOAA": that you and other editors may be interested in this topic has no actual relevance here, as long as no reliable independent sources have shown said interest in it. "you are not taking into account that association of a vessel with a federal fleet is itself a notability factor" Again, you don't seem to be talking about our actual guidelines (WP:NOTINHERITED) but about what you consider noteworthy. "the lack of Internet attention may reflect a lack of attention rather than notability": this is the crux of your mistake here, attention is notability on Wikipedia. Said attention does't have to be online, a good book which hasn't been made available online is equally valid; but a lack of attention is a lack of notability. "As for NOAA writing about itself and its history, I can't think of a better place to start building an article on a NOAA ship than with information NOAA itself holds on its own history. Who would know better than NOAA?" Now you are arguing verifiability, which is not under dispute here: the NOAA source is perfectly acceptable for the contents of the article, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the facts. But this is not what is (or should be) discussed here.

I didn't use "other stuff exists" as a reason to delete this one (that would be some weird "we already have enough ship articles, no need to have one more" argument which I wouldn't support), I indicated (through a link which reflects a long-standing rather generally held opinion, not something I just made up) that arguing to keep article X because article Y, Z, and Q exist, is rarely accepted here: X needs to be able to justify its retention on its own. We don't have a "an article needs to be on a notable subject, unless we already have at least 5 articles on similar subjects" exception. Fram (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see above there is a lot of debate trying to explain why the article should be kept even though it largely relies on a single primary source. It's a nice article, but in the end substantially similar to NOAA's own archive report on the vessel. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons covered by User:Qwirkle. Dimadick (talk) 20:19, 21 September 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical practice[edit]

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

No sources or non-opinion content. After reading the discussion on WT:MATH#Mathematical practice, I think it needs to be fixed (converted to something (at least theoretically) sourceable), changed to a Wikipedia essay, or deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination makes no clear proposal; it just lists some issues and wants the article discussing in a general way. But we already have an appropriate discussion in progress, as the nomination notes, and so this is forum shopping. As for the topic, it might be difficult as it is rather broad in nature, as it will tend to have at least three strands:

the way in which mathematics is performed at the cutting edge, from the geometry of Euclid to modern techniques such as computer-assisted proof
pedagogy – the way in which mathematics is studied and taught, from rote learning of multiplication tables to mastery
philosophy – the way in which the practice of mathematics affects its nature. For example, did you know that Italian mathematicians used to hold votes to determine whether a proof was correct or not? See The Changing Nature of Mathematical Proof.

These aspects are covered in numerous substantial sources and so the topic is highly notable. A selection follows. Andrew D. (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existing article is certainly not good, but it can be improved with the work of a few minutes. I have found one reference. I dislike nominations here that make no attempt to follow the guideline at WP:BEFORE. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A couple more sources (I read them in fall 2016, actually, and quite liked them): MJ Barany and D MacKenzie, Chalk: Materials and concepts in mathematics research; A Warwick, Masters of theory: Cambridge and the rise of mathematical physics. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep for reasons cited by Andrew D.. No compliance with WP:Before. This attempt to delete was a waste of a lot of valuable editors' time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable subject and cleanup by deletion is not the way forward except in the most egregious cases. SpinningSpark 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs additional citations but is a notable topic. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Rank Outsider[edit]

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

Fails the WP:GNG guideline. Sheldybett (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit borderline, but I'm inclined to keep. Besides The History of British Film source in the article, it has a short entry in Silent Mystery and Detective Movies. It seems to make it as a mention in most relevant film encyclopaedias and listing in indexes such as the British Film Institute. SpinningSpark 16:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable book sources identified above such as The History of British Film and others, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has recieved coverage in Silent Mystery and Detective Movies: A Comprehensive Filmography ([15]) which I've added to the article. —Mythdon 03:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 10:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coopers Edge[edit]

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

No sources and is written like an advertisement. Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON due to the fact it's an unfinished project. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, looking at Coopers Edge via gmaps there are plenty of occupied houses, and facilities, including a school, so to state that it "is as yet unfinished" is a bit misleading (of course there may be new houses being built there but it may just be out-of-date information), i have been bold and removed those words. having a quick look at google for sources (there aren't any apart from the usual local and community type announcements) it appears to be a part of Brockworth, Gloucestershire so, in line with WP:NPLACE, a redirect/merge there with a couple of sentences may be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. It's large enough to have a school, the building of which had some local news reporting in 2010 [16]. There was also a news story about a big cat taking down deer in the area in 2012 [17][18]. SpinningSpark 16:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 10:57, 22 September 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. Consensus is for article retention. Content matters can continue to be discussed on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical technology[edit]

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

Seems to be original research, and is written like an essay. If deletion is not valid, it should perhaps be made into a list. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is a topic with many notable subtopics. There are many articles on notable hypothetical technologies. Besides being a class of notable things, it is the focus of analysis by scholars, who look at various aspects of it, including risk assessment, technology strategies, factors in planning research and development, etc. [19] [20] — The Transhumanist 04:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I'm listing it here as it's not encyclopedic in it's current state. If you can revert to a state where the original research is not present, I will willingly withdraw the nomination. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't pointed out any OR. And the term "encyclopedic" is too general for anyone to know for sure what is being referred to. See WP:Encyclopedic. That's why it is included in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

What specific statements in the current article do you believe are OR? Not knowing what you were referring to specifically, I stripped out everything in the lead without a citation, and have added a neutral statement explaining the contents of the article. If there are any statements that were removed that you were not referring to, please feel free to put those back in. — The Transhumanist 20:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a perfectly reasonable set index article, although I would challenge the inclusion of vaccines as I stated on the talk page. SpinningSpark 15:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. The other problems are WP:SOFIXIT. James500 (talk) 07:00, 23 September 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. Clear consensus here for the article to be retained, with various rationales presented for its retention, some of which are stronger than others. The alternative to deletion of merging has also been presented in some commentary. Furthermore, nobody is opining for deletion except the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Framework version history[edit]

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

WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Fails WP:LISTN. A very tiny part of the sources are independent, and those verify only one or two versions. wumbolo ^^^ 10:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't see a good enough reason to delete this, it's a decent resource article on wiki. I think the nominator would need to explain further his thoughts for this AfD. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While each AfD stands on its own merits given the comment per Govvy and therefore high risk of WP:BEFORE and given other AfD's, prods, and speedys raised by nom at a similar time with insufficient thought to merges this risks more chance of good faith (albeit a mix of good, bad and ugly) simply being binned. If there is a run of good 'delete' or 'merge' suggestions I'm open to review this comment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to merge something covered by WP:NOT if it is not notable. wumbolo ^^^ 10:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is standard for Wikipedia articles on major software components to have information on version histories. Sometimes these are in the articles themselves such as at Linux kernel. Since articles can become large they are more often done in Wikipedia:Summary style with major subtopics in their own articles. Version histories can be such child articles as seen at Category:Software version histories. These child articles do have to meet notability requirements in their own right. Though this article currently relies on Microsoft sources, .Net Framework releases are covered in independent software publications as a quick google search shows: Microsoft Releases .NET Framework 4.7.2. Not to mention the negative magazine coverage that comes up when Microsoft breaks something and has to retract an update. There is a lot of independent coverage of these versions due to issues raised in the business community that could be added to the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:SPINOUT, and per other comments. Widefox; talk 14:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPINOUT doesn't apply as the parent article has only twenty thousand characters of prose. wumbolo ^^^ 17:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, it's already been split. I don't think our counting methodologies are the same - see List of .NET libraries and frameworks, this, the main one and any others hanging around. My point being the topic is notable (rated high and top), so merge rather than deletion would be prudent (not that I see any consensus or reason for that). Widefox; talk 18:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTCHANGELOG actually says Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included. The nom fails to make any case per WP:DISCUSSAFD When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. Widefox; talk 11:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCHANGELOG actually says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Since no one has provided these independent sources, I wonder what your arguments are based on. wumbolo ^^^ 13:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That answer didn't address the question that the nom fails DISCUSSAFD as quoted. It's not clear from the nom why it should be deleted, but presumably the notability of the topic .NET Framework isn't questioned? No? In which case see WP:Viability of lists While it is best to re-establish notability within the list, it is not always necessary. Some lists are notable because the topic itself is notable. If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable... . The nom doesn't address that this is a notable topic, rated high and top. Widefox; talk 17:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I have to address some random essay?! wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't ask about the nom failing DISCUSSAFD again. Widefox; talk 14:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to WP:Viability of lists; I didn't notice that DISCUSSAFD is an essay. wumbolo ^^^ 19:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to closer Look again at the comments of several editors here questioning the basis of the nom, which has not been addressed despite explicitly asking and quoting why it fails per DISCUSSAFD. Separately, other participants and the closer can come to their own decision based on the basis of !votes in essays, guidelines, policies. Widefox; talk 22:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. All keep votes are almost worthless, and almost all keep votes aren't based in anything at all. wumbolo ^^^ 09:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your nom isn't convincing folk, and despite being asked to reason it to bring it up to a reasonable standard but don't, then it may be worth reflecting on that. Widefox; talk 11:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful article. Better lean toward keeping good info rather than bureaucratic sticklerness. Sadly all too often the latter is chosen. If List of Pokémon and the articles it links to are okay, surely .NET history is fine too. ¤ ehudshapira 16:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is useful content and it elaborates on .NET Framework#History in appropriate detail. An alternative would be to merge it back in to .NET Framework but that would make its history section way too detailed. --Frank Geerlings (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just a sub-article of .NET Framework. The parent article is notable, so I'd say sub-articles inherit the notability of the parent. SJK (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SJK: sub-articles don't inherit the notability of the parent, see WP:NOTINHERITED. wumbolo ^^^ 10:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: WP:NOTINHERITED is says that a person being notable doesn't make their child or spouse or parents automatically notable. i.e. one person/thing being notable doesn't automatically make a separate but related person/thing notable. But that is not what I mean by "sub-article". I mean an inseparable aspect of the article topic, which might be treated in more detail in a sub-article, but which is not something which can have an independent but related existence. (The version history of a software has no separate or independent existence from the software itself; unlike relatives, who have independent lifespans, and can do very different things in their respective lives; for that reason, relatives have a need for separate evidence of notability which a software version history sub-article doesn't.) So I don't believe WP:NOTINHERITED is applicable to this case. SJK (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @SJK: so List of Google Search logos is a valid article topic just because it is a sub-topic of Google Search? Furthermore, changelogs are explicitly excluded from your logic because they are listed on WP:NOTCHANGELOG. wumbolo ^^^ 11:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: As far as your hypothetical "List of Google Search logos" article goes, I don't see the problem with such an article, if someone feels motivated to create it. Changes in the Google Search logo not infrequently get some media attention, so I think there would likely be sufficient WP:RS to sustain such an article. Also, "WP:NOTCHANGELOG" is not an absolute prohibition on software version history, it is a prohibition on excessive detail. I think the appropriate level of detail is that found in reliable sources that are independent of the vendor. For a very popular software product like .NET, there are going to be many independent reliable sources talking about its new releases and the new features they introduce, so the level of detail this article represents is justifiable. Less popular software products, there is unlikely to be any reliable independent coverage of the version history, so it is going to be harder to justify such an article. Now, the article as it currently stands relies almost entirely on non-independent sources, but a cursory search of Google News and Books will establish there are lots of independent sources for this kind of information for .NET which can be used – and all that counts for WP:AFD is that usable sources exist, even if the article in its current state doesn't cite any of them. SJK (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airy (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRITE, WP:PRODUCT, and WP:NSOFTWARE. Breakdown of sources:

Softpedia: brief and routine review
Extremely short review
How to article
How to article
Blog
Decent review that passes the review criteria, but fails WP:AUD. Is also a blog
1 paragraph review
1 paragraph about the app. The rest is incoherent rambling
Self published blog
Review by "download.com staff". Short and not in depth
Softpedia again
Self published
List, promotional, brief
Top 10 blog
Top 10 self published
Top 5 self published

None of these sources establish notability, only existence. Youtube downloaders are WP:MILL stuff that should have a very high standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the massive research done by the nom. I would say he could be right about many of his points but there are points that ultimately subjective in nature and should be instead handled on talk page of the article not AfD. desmay (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is the only article I found that could be used to demonstrate notability. wumbolo ^^^ 12:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or week keep, there's at least two reviews that count as RS + Macworld, passing WP:GNG, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Widefox; talk 19:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which reviews would those be? None of the reviews I looked at passed WP:ORGCRITE requirements for product reviews. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said Macworld [21]. i.e. that passes WP:ORG#Product reviews 1.,2.,3. I count at least two or three (Softpedia, cnet.com is borderline, savedelete is OK), we just disagree on the bar for counting them, and the premise of the nom Youtube downloaders are WP:MILL stuff that should have a very high standard for inclusion in Wikipedia has no basis in policy. I.e. there's no basis for raising the bar in policy. The standard for inclusion is WP:GNG and these types of sources are commonly used. I agree there's weaknesses in sourcing, but on balance we disagree on what counts as RS and the bar for normal standards here. I think the article needs cleanup/reduce promo but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP.Widefox; talk 11:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Konqueror. Tone 10:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KGet[edit]

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

Previously PRODded with concern: "Non-notable software; no claim to notability offered, no links to third-party sources to establish notability." That's still true, as the sources are only primary sources, promotional sources, unreliable sources, and the download manager only receives passing mentions in reliable sources and literature. wumbolo ^^^ 13:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and I can't find any sources online that would change that. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge to Konqueror. While it can be used outside Konqueror that would seem to be a good merge candidate, though it can be used outside of Konqueror that works. Time resource willing I'd be prepared to do that merge.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging more than a brief mention would be WP:COATRACK as it is not strictly related to the browser. wumbolo ^^^ 19:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ... one section with a short paragraph should do the job nicely without WP:UNDUE weight .. possibly called Download Manager with a Kget anchor but I'm not committing precisely to that.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Konqueror as best option based on lack of RS. Widefox; talk 12:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge +1. Nsda (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Worth noting this article has previously been deleted twice. Nothing about it seems notable at this time and as the article currently sits, it really doesn't convey any useful information. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons given in the last AfD. This is a competition among local amateur clubs in a very small Irish county that in no way meets WP:GNG and would get little or no coverage beyond a few local newspapers. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sundale Country Club[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable found. Some articles in June/July about it fighting for financial survival.. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlashGet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article contains unreliable sources, and the subject gains only passing mentions in reliable sources and literature. Previously PRODded but declined. wumbolo ^^^ 13:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 13:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are several sources:
The Chinese sources have interview content, but also provide enough in-depth coverage aside from the interviewee's responses to have significant independent coverage. — Newslinger talk 13:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any non-interview coverage of the product at Sohu, and the tech.sina article (for which I'm not sure if it's reliable) does have content outside the interview, but based on press releases. The Softpedia review does not convince me. wumbolo ^^^ 14:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Newslinger. SJK (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 of those sources are non-independent, but there's at least one here and one in the article meeting GNG. Widefox; talk 14:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which one in the article? wumbolo ^^^ 17:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't agree. That's OK. Let others give their opinions at these AfDs please, per WP:BLUDGEON. Widefox; talk 10:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. You are not only bludgeoning, but also failing to WP:LISTEN. If you don't want to answer my question, you don't have to say anything. wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This mass AfDs disruption is offtopic here - should be discussed at WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo Widefox; talk 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discussing your AfD disruption; it's YOU constantly bringing up my "disruption". You are continuously avoiding my question, which is 100% relevant here. wumbolo ^^^ 12:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REHASH and WP:DEADHORSE. Widefox; talk 13:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck. Asking one simple question is tendentious editing?! wumbolo ^^^ 19:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on everyone else's !vote is bludgeoning and it isn't convincing anyone (here and at 30 AfDs), yes. Widefox; talk 21:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment despite the AfD title, there's two previous AfDs closed Keep. Widefox; talk 17:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The PC World article satisfies the Notability requirement. Michael Powerhouse (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Powerhouse: notice that it is a blog. wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rashidah Ali[edit]

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

75% of these 6 sources are of her employer, VH1; she doesn’t have reliable sources outside of that. This article is a stub. She lacks her own notability at this time and I highly suggest redirecting it to the Love and Hip Hop article until she accrues enough notability. Trillfendi (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Goodreads link is broken, notability as a writer cannot be confirmed. -- Nsda (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable TV personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 24 September 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) gidonb (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trudy Hellier[edit]

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

Delete: on grounds of insufficient notability overall. Quis separabit? 19:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds of sufficient notability overall. Multiple significant roles in notable productions. AFI winner. Writer of multiple notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 13:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep My quick look indicates that there is sufficient WP:NEXIST to support GNG. Certainly there are much better references than the current IMDb one readily available, but they are a bit scratchy. Aoziwe (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAJ animation studio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. fawiki article got deleted [22] after a discussion which only had delete votes. » Shadowowl | talk 10:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, [[WP:NOTINHERIT|notability if not inherited], fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bardia Rahim[edit]

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

Only real claim to notability seems to be some dispute with Kim Kardashian. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Edwardx (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. [23] seems like in-depth, but is a niche publication. Other than that it's all either KK controversy or in passing mentions. Doesn't seem like enough for WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one event BLP rule violation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Rescue Kit[edit]

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

Sources are not substantial or not intellectually independent (namechecks and press releases don't establish notability). Guy (Help!) 08:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another piece of software that exists but doesn't pass WP:NSOFTWARE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Per Consensus : While currently has no current visibility profile and probably at the end of its lifecycle I am unclear if it achieved notability and the dead link to an article in the Guardian doesn't help. But all said it doesn't spring to mind in my memory.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC) The Guardian article was in the Wayback archive (dunno how I missed it) and was a blog so I can see no reason to keep unless someone brings a revelation to the table. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not nearly enough independent coverage. -- Nsda (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Serrano[edit]

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

badly sourced PROMO page for an actress; press releases and blogs. Has been speedied and prodded; this is the only route left. This is a BLP violation for the unsourced/badly sourced content about a living person. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, undesirable promo Nsda (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stoker[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, no in depth coverage at reliable sources. If, as the article says, he is best known for being friends with imam Omar Suleiman then it seems that this article makes no claim to the subject's notability. _signed,Rosguill^talk 05:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial coverage outside of his association with Omar Suleiman. I see a few other news articles in local coverage and passing mentions, but they don't add up to anything to suggest the world at large has taken notice of the person for him to qualify under any notability criterion per WP:N. It is possible he may qualify in the future as he appears to be active in various issues, but at the moment not quite notable enough yet. Hzh (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajabboy Norkallayev[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP. The claim of notability is not verifiable, which is reflected in the text itself. Can not find any additional sources. Brad v 05:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete. Why not go for speedy deletion? -- Nsda (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Nom is incorrect -- claim of notability is in fact verified in referenced article, but I can't find anything more about this person and can't say that the position is so important that Nokallayev is presumed notable because he held the position. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 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 Catholic Media Network#Radyo Totoo/Ang Radyo ng Simbahan. Sandstein 11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DXMM[edit]

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

Article about a radio station, completely unreferenced and tagged as such since 2010 without improvement. While I don't doubt that this exists, as it's listed in and linked from Catholic Media Network, one of the base conditions that a radio station has to meet to qualify for its own article is that it originates at least some of its own programming in its own standalone studios, rather than serving strictly as a pure rebroadcaster of a parent service -- but neither this article nor Catholic Media Network's adequately answers whether that condition is met here or not. And another condition that a radio station has to meet to be deemed notable is that it is properly referenced so that the content is verifiably accurate -- a condition which quite clearly isn't met here. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Catholic Media Network#Radyo Totoo/Ang Radyo ng Simbahan; originates little to no local content. Nate • (chatter) 05:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Catholic Media Network#Radyo Totoo/Ang Radyo ng Simbahan. Main Google and Google Books show that this station exist but that's it. I think it's best to retarget it to an article with context --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:00, 20 September 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.