< 20 September 22 September >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Vance (British politician)[edit]

David Vance (British politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable: never elected to office/. Trivial news items DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:41, 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. Consensus is that the sources do not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP, and the article cannot stand without sufficient sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Things Broadway[edit]

All Things Broadway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a facebook group does not satisfy GNG. As a theater company does not satisfy NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you Barkeep49 for providing your reasons. I also appreciate that you put it in AfD, rather than speedy deletion or proposed deletion. This is an opportunity for me to learn more about notability. I've read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
NCORP says, 'Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements
  1. these alternate criteria,
  2. the primary criteria for organizations, or
  3. the general notability guideline'
Thus, All Things Broadway has to satisfy either GNG or NCORP, not both GNG and NCORG.
GNG says, 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.'
I have found two sources:
  • Music News Desk (June 16, 2018), "All Things Broadway Presents Carner & Gregor's ISLAND SONG at the Davenport Theatre Loft", Broadway World, New York City, New York: Wisdom Digital Media, retrieved September 21, 2018
  • "Ten Questions with Eliyahu Kheel, founder of All Things Broadway", BroadwayWiz.com, Flushing, New York, July 25, 2017, retrieved September 21, 2018
GNG says '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.' In both sources, All Things Broadway is in the title, so it is more than a trivial mention.
GNG says '"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.' I am using Broadway World sources in another article after consulting Ian.thomson about suitability. Broadway World is used as a source in many Wikipedia articles. I have checked Broadway Wiz at the Reliable Sources Newsboard and found no objections.
GNG says '"Sources"[1] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[2] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.'
On the surface, both appear to be secondary sources. Broadway World lists the author of the article as "BWW News Desk." While the Broadway Wiz source is an interview with the founder of All Things Broadway, I am using the introductory material to support the statement Eliyahu Kheel is the founder. I believe the remaining statements fall within the guidelines for self-published sources.
The sources appear to be written from a neutral point of view, one as a news article and the other as an interview. There doesn't appear to be anything that impugns the credibility of either source.
I have found two sources, which are 'multiple' in standard English. There is no evidence that these sources almost a year apart are relying on the same source or are from the same author.
Unless someone can point me to a policy that specifies a particular number, I am loathe to invest more time until the notability issue has been resolved in favor of retention. There may be additional sources (including the official website) which can be used to fill out the article.
GNG says "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[3]' I found no evidence that either source is connected to All Things Broadway or its founder, Eliyahu Kheel.
GNG says, '"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[4]'
If All Things Broadway meets the requirements of significant coverage, reliable sources and independent sources, then there is a presumption that it merits an article. The burden is on the proponents for removal to provide reasons, e.g. what Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or that the reliable sources are directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, or minor news stories.
NCORP says, 'The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
  1. significant coverage in
  2. multiple
  3. independent,
  4. reliable,
  5. secondary sources.
NCORP says, 'Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.' Both sources provide a description of All Things Broadway.
NCORP says, 'Then, there must be multiple of such qualifying sources,' and 'The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product.' There are two sources. If 'multiple' has a meaning in this context different from 'two or more,' I'd appreciate a link to a WP policy or guideline.
NCORP says, 'A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article. There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources:
  • Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.
  • Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
I have found no evidence that the author of either source is connected to All Things Broadway nor evidence that the content was produced by interested parties, other than the standard practice of news organizations using a press release.
I've already discussed reliability for both sources.
NCORP says, 'A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.' Broadway World is a news article about the production of a show by All Things Broadway. Broadway Wiz is an edited interview with the founder of All Things Broadway.
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Considerations says 'Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.') Since the nominator of All Things Broadway AfD did not use the speedy or proposed deletion process, I assume this is not an obviously hopeless case.
The nominator chose to bring the article to AfD rather than sharing his/her reservations with me, mentioning his/her concerns on the article's talk page and/or adding a "cleanup" template, even though I mentioned a discussion on notability on the article's talk page. While I'm delighted to hear the views of the editors at AfD, the nominator's failure to first discuss his/her concerns with me would be a reason for resolving a borderline decision in favor of retaining All Things Broadway, as a way of discouraging nominations for AfD without making an effort to discuss concerns with the editor of a recently created article.
I've quoted extensively from GNG and NCORG because I am unable to determine how All Things Broadway fails notability. On the article's talk page, I said 'WP:WEBCRIT:

*The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations

I would appreciate information about any policy I overlooked.'
After examining GNG and NCORG, I don't see any additional requirements beyond WEBCRIT. I've spent more time writing about how All Things Broadway meet GNG and NCORG than I did creating All Things Broadway. The fact that I've had to address each requirement of GNG and NCORG demonstrates the value of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Considerations. If the nominator of All Things Broadway had followed those suggestions, I could focus my time on addressing specific objections rather than addressing everything.
This is the first time I've gone through AfD. I don't know the standards applied at AfD. To play it safe, I had to put in a considerable amount of time reading GNG, NCORG and the procedure for deletion. I would rather go through an AfD before I've put in more time, but I don't think the AfD editors are well served when someone cites "GNG" or "NCORG." There should be a requirement to be more specific.
Another consideration is the nominator's formulation, "As a .... As a ..." It fails to consider the notability of a Facebook group interested in Broadway theatre raising money through crowdfunding to produce a show (for a couple of weeks in a small space). That may be notable (in the standard English, not Wikipedian, sense), while being a FB group or being a small theatre company that has performed in some small venues may not be. However, the real fallacy is that NCORG says a group has the option of meeting one of three alternative requirements. At a minimum, the nominator should have specified NCORG primary, NCORG alternative for noncommercial or GNG, both for my convenience and the editors at AfD.
With all due respect for the nominator of All Things Broadway for AfD, I believe he/she has incorrectly applied both GNG and NCORG to All Things Broadway. Editors in this discussion should keep in mind that NCORG says an organization only needs to satisfy either GNG or NCORG and that the nominator of All Things Broadway failed to follow the procedure recommended by Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Considerations. Thank you for your time. Vyeh (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
  2. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
  3. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources for handling of such situations.
  4. ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
  • I don't normally respond to comments on articles I've nominated for deletion but I want to assure anyone reading this that I have read, multiple times, all of the documents Vyeh is quoting from. In essence the editor is suggesting that there are two sources a & b which prove notability. I suggest neither of these sources are independent (a is a rehashed press release and b is an interview) and further a's topic is not the production company but a play and lacks significance to boot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making an exception and responding, User:Barkeep49. I accept that you have read the documents multiple times. I will focus on the independence of the sources and on the significance of source "a."

For source "a," I believe the issue of independence is whether anyone can put in a press release (a German example) or whether there is a person independent of the generator of the press release, who exercise independent judgment about the press release. Broadway World names 4 individuals as "BWW News Desk": Jessica Khan, Alexa Criscitiello, Julie Musbac, Danielle Ashley. Barkeep's word "rehashed" suggests that one of these individuals edited the press release. The requirement for independence is met if this individual has no personal nor financial relationship to All Things Broadway or Eliyahu Kheel. In the absence of any evidence, this is the proper assumption.

For the significance of source "a,"

For source "b," there is a 80 word, five sentence introduction before the Q and A, generated by the interviewer, not the subject. I used that introduction to support the assertion that Eliyahu Kheel is the founder of All Things Broadway. It could also be used to support the lede (except for the number of members; since source "b" is a year older than source "a," I used the number from source "a." I probably would have used source "b" in the lede, when I continued working on the article.) I submit there is no evidence that the introductory paragraph was written by Eliyahu Kheel or anyone with a personal or financial relationship to All Things Broadway.

I appreciate that Barkeep49 made an exception to respond to my comment. I had absolutely no intention of creating any doubt that he/she had read GNG and NCORP many times. He/she is correct that I am asserting the two sources support notability. I don't have the burden of showing that the two sources "prove" notability. Notablity is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article:

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

I had only begun to search for reliable sources. I wrote an initial draft of the article from the sources I found. The time I would have spent looking for additional sources for All Things Considered is being consumed defending the article in this AfD. Wikipedia, not me, "strongly" encourages editors to attempt to find sources before "nominating an article for deletion" or offering "an opinion based on notability." I'm assuming Wikipedia is addressing editors offering a negative opinion on notability. If anyone looks for sources, I would appreciate a report, here or on the article's talk page, so I don't have to repeat the searches.

Please note that I have done more than "merely asserting unspecified sources exist." I wasn't expecting an AfD, but I included a note in the edit summary to new page patrollers about a post in the article talk page citing WEBCRIT ("content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"), on which I was basing notability.

I've already quoted from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Considerations (mention reservations to article creator or on article talk page or add cleanup template instead of taking recently created article to AfD).

I am grateful that Barkeep49 has focused the AfD discussion on the independence and significance of source "a" and on the independence of source "b." On those three issues, I've stated my evidence. Note that the burden of proof is on the nominator and editors favoring removal to attempt to find sources and to "consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." I respect the work Barkeep49 does for Wikipedia. While I appreciate his/her opinion on independence and significance, my main work has been on two articles, where there was a lack of platinum grade sources. The challenge has been to make editorial judgments about sources. While there have been easy decisions, there have also been decisions requiring a lot of research and thought. As an editor who has had to find sources, my opinion is that the two sources I found are sufficient to "suggest" notability and that they are the tip of the iceberg. Digging deeper will show how big the iceberg is. I hope Barkeep49 respects my opinion. Although our opinions differ, we are each trying to improve Wikipedia. I believe that the evidence supports my opinion and the combination of the recently created status of All Things Broadway and the emphasis of "existence" rather than "presence" creates an almost overwhelming presumption for retaining All Things Broadway. Thank you for your attention. Vyeh (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: thank you! "... a lot of articles about it ..." Is it possible to post the URL's of the articles? I'm primarily interested in the ones not from the small blog sites (potential sources), but blogs might lead to sources. Thank you in advance! Vyeh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vyeh, sure! [1], [2], [3]. There's also a bit of forum posting and threads online about Island Song, which seems to be the main thing the community did that garnered attention. Vermont (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont, I've incorporated your first two URL's into the article. The first source, Show-Score, has a WP page. The second source is written by an expert in musical theatre. There is an exception in RS for blogs written by experts. (I'll spare you a paragraph quote!) Two of his books, including a two volume encyclopedia on musical theater, are used as sources in WP. Barkeep49 might want to apply his GNG and NCORP analysis to those sources. (I'm not being sarcastic. I never hoped to have collaboration on All Things Broadway)
The third URL happens to use the words "all things Broadway" in the lead post of a 250+ post thread. If you found the FB group in the thread, could you give me the post number?
Thank you so much! It was such a surprise and a joy to click on your first two URL's and realize that they are sources. Vyeh (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last night, I found out User:DGG works in the deletion area, either rescuing articles or helping them out the door. He informed me that FB groups are disfavored. He urged me to rewrite the article as a theatre company. I've done so. Vyeh (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: Both GNG and NCORG apply "significant" to coverage, not to a source. They exclude "trivial" coverage. WEBCRIT says, "... non-trivial published works whose source ...", which clearly shows the significant/trivial criteria does not apply to the source. I'm confused about "mild." Could you clarify what you mean?
As a theatre company, it has performed three times in 6 months. I think that demonstrates they are for real.
As for crowd-funding from FB members, one of the sources you provided (an expert who has written a two volume encyclopedia of musical theatre) high-lighted the crowd-funding as the wave of the future. I think the crowd-funding makes the theatre company more, not less, notable.
The sources that talk about performances did not focus on the connection to the FB group. Source "a" (BW World): 1st paragraph: "Island Song." 2nd para.: cast and crew. 3rd para.: place, time and ticket price. Last para.: FB group. Source "b" (BW Wiz) was written six months before the first performance, so it is not covered by your assertion. The two sources you provided: SS ("c") mentions ATB as a FB group in the first sentence. The remaining three sentences in the intro talk about the show. Of the five questions, two are about the show, one is about Julian's background, one is about Julian's Broadway show plans and only on is about the FB group. The expert blog ("d"): 1st para.: funding a new musical is daunting. 2nd para.:possibility of crowd-funding as solution. 3rd para.: description of people involved in "Island Song." 4th para.: description of "Island Song." 5th para.: Time, place and ticket prices. The FB group is mentioned in only the first two paragraphs, as the source of funding and as the origin of the theatre company. The additional source: CG ("e"): 1st para.: time, place and ticket prices. 2nd para. 1st sentence: describes FB group. 2nd sentence: describes show.
Vermont, I've appreciated your and Barkeep49 comments during this AfD. The article has improved.
As a FB group, All Things Broadway wasn't very interesting. The only reason there were multiple sources was because of its activities outside chat space. As the wave of the future, it is more interesting. Hence, there are sources which meet GNG and NCORG.
So far, Barkeep49 has only expressed an opinion about "a" and "b". According to the welcome box above the edit area, "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." My argument to the nominator's assertion is that "a" is not independent is that there is no evidence of a financial or personal connection between Eliyahu Kheel, the founder of the theatre company and the individuals of the "BWW News Desk." The nominator says "further a's topic is not the production company but a play." The title of the source is "All Things Broadway Presents Carner & Gregor's ISLAND SONG at the Davenport Theatre Loft." All Things Broadway is the first three words. I'd say "a's" topic is both the production company and the play. To the nominator's argument that "a" lacks significance, "a" is clearly more than a trivial mention. My argument to the nominator's assertion that "b" is not independent is that there is no evidence of a financial nor personal relationship between Broadway Wiz and Eliyahu Kheel. The nominator has not yet commented on "c," "d" and "e."
If the nominator or anyone else comments on the last day, I ask that I be given 24 hours from the last comment advocating deletion to respond.
Regarding Vermont (whom I've found very helpful in writing the article), I believe that the guidelines base notability on sources. If there are no sources meeting the criteria of the guidelines, then a subject is not notable, regardless of an editor's personal feelings. If there are sources meeting the guidelines, that indicates notability.
I have tried to ally Vermont concerns by pointing out the frequency and reach of the theatre company's productions.
Finally, I've mentioned some procedural issues. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations lists some steps the nominator should have taken in the case of a newly created article before submitting it to AfD. I've spent a lot of my wiki time responding to this AfD. Seven days is not much time. WP:NEXIST requires editors considering deletion to search for sources (which Vermont did) and to consider the possibility of sources not present in the article. I submit it is possible there are online print reviews (particularly "Island Song") that a diligent editor can find. For another article I've been working on, I've purchased books and CD's and ordered a DVD from the library.
For the substantive and procedural reasons I've mentioned, the only proper action at this time is to Keep the article. Barkeep49 or Vermont can renominate the article for deletion in 3 months. Vyeh (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Vyeh (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Your reasons are not substantive. Nor can you close an AfD, as you imply by saying, "Barkeep49 or Vermont can renominate the article for deletion in 3 months." Your arguments are, in my opinion, not supported or well-founded; they're just extremely long.
Anyways, to why I think it should be deleted:
The sources, although they may be reliable, are not nearly considered significant coverage. Since being rebranded from a Facebook group to a theater company by the means of it's Wikipedia article, I've been even more convinced in this subject being not notable. There really aren't any reliable references that push this entity over the line of WP:42/GNG. I'll now proceed to go over each source, which is all that has been found in terms of researching All Things Broadway.
1. From the BWW News Desk. The article is clearly an advertisement for Island Song, and does little more than confirm it's existence, ticket prices, and that it's being hosted by All Things Broadway, which it describes by saying "All Things Broadway is a Facebook group with over 62,000 members..." Notice there is no mention of it being a theater company, as it isn't primarily a theater company. This source is used to support the lead sentence, which refers to All Things Broadway as a theater company, which is not mentioned in this reference.
2. Show-score.com interview with Julian Mendoza. Starts out by saying "The Facebook group All Things Broadway..." (again, not referred to as a theater company). After this, it's simply a personal interview about Mendoza's experiences in theater and with the Facebook group. Doesn't confer notability.
3. Listing for their "Miscast" event, again referring to All Things Broadway as a Facebook group, and does little more than advertise a bit and give a link to their website. Doesn't confer notability.
4. markrobinsonwrites.com article. This article hints at possible future notability, referring to All Things Broadway as,"a momentum-building producing organization and theatre company that has produced and performed concerts..." I see this not as evidence of notability but evidence of growing numbers and popularity which will perhaps someday mean notability. It focuses on the crowdfunding which allowed two performances of Island Song. This is not notability; crowdfunding may be "the wave of the future" (Vyeh, above) but it does not mean anyone who engages in crowdfunding is notable. If All Things Broadway perhaps had an original idea in this sense that made them notable, I would expect more than a few non-significant blog posts. Reading this post, it definitely does not seem like an independent, secondary source. It's full of puffery and ends the article with an advertisement of how to buy tickets, when the shows are, and ticket prices.
5. Simply a link to the Island Song project which does little more than confirm its existence.
6. Interview with the founder of the All Things Broadway Facebook group, Eliyahu Kheel. It does not, by any means, confer notability. It simply asks Kheel a few questions, and gives a link to his website. (which is currently a blank HTML document)
Overall:
There are 6 references, two of which are interviews (not RS's/good for encyclopedic entries), two are listings for shows (merely confirms existence), one is a link to the Island Song project which, again, only confirms existence, and the last is a blog post that hints at possible notability in the future.
I'll note that All Things Broadway is primarily a Facebook group, although is also (and less importantly, as it's small and definitely not-notable) a theater company, per their website.
After doing this research, I see no reason to keep this article in mainspace. Perhaps it could be draftified or userfied until a date when it may be notable in the future, or outright deleted. I support any option that removes it from the mainspace, as it is currently not a notable entity. I've struck my comments above as I am now in favor of strong delete or otherwise removal from mainspace. Vermont (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: Vermont, I wasn't closing the AfD. I was proposing (see the box above the edit area) "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion." Give me and other editors interested in the article 3 months to find additional sources. As I've already quoted, there is a guideline against putting a recently created article that can survive speedy deletion (a "hopeless" case) into AfD. For another article I'm working on, I've bought books and CD's. There is another Wikipedia guideline, which I've quoted, that says that initially, you and other editors interested in deletion should consider that good sources exist, even if they aren't present in an article. After awhile, I and other editors interested in retention have to find the sources if notability is challenged. I wasn't casting another vote. I was just high-lighting the word "keep". Anyway, the guidelines for AfD says the decision isn't based on counting votes. The box above the edit area says, "Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." The red triangle on the summation of my long arguments is improper because it is commenting on me rather than on the merits of the discussion.
WP:42 says, This is NOT a Wikipedia policy or guideline; please defer to such in cases of inconsistency with this page. (their bold). Every link and quote I have made is to a Wikipedia policy or guideline.
I value your opinion. While we can disagree on whether All Things Broadway is notable, I believe you go too far in asserting that my arguments are not "supported." I have cited Wikipedia policy and guidelines, providing links and quotes, following the guideline in the box above the edit area, "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." The links and quotes, along with my asserted facts, are the foundation of my arguments. I suggest that my arguments are "well-founded." I've never asserted that either your arguments nor the arguments of Barkeep49 were not well-founded. I've only suggested that my arguments should be given more weight.
I am puzzled at how emphasizing one aspect rather than another can affect your evaluation of notability. l added an additional source. That should not reduce notability.
Addressing your comments:
1. BWW News Desk says in the fourth paragraph, fifth sentence, "Now expanded into a theatre company based in Manhattan, ..." That is a mention of a theatre company. The lead sentence of the article is "All Things Broadway is a theatre company based in New York City, New York."
2. Show-Score.com. Both NCORP and GNG have the essentially the same requirements for a source used to support notability: (1) significant coverage, (2) reliable and (3) independent of the subject. I assert that Show-Score.com meets these requirements. I used the source for (1) the songs that Julian Mendoza was singing, (2) that the FB group included theatre fans and (3) that Eliyahu Kheel founded the FB group.
3. Listing for Miscast. I think you are questioning "significance." The requirement is sometimes stated as "non-trivial," which I think it meets. I used it for "On April 3, 2018, it performed "Miscast" at the Laurie Beechman Theatre." I also used it for "Currently it is the largest Facebook group."
4. markrobinsonwrites.com. You mentioned that it doesn't seem "independent, secondary." There is no evidence of a financial nor personal relationship between Mark Robinson and Eliyahu Kheel. The source is clearly not primary nor tertiary. You also mention "non-significant." With five long paragraphs devoted to Island Song, and All Things Broadway, the coverage is significant.
5. Island Song project. I used it to support that the musical was "about five New Yorkers." The source starts a summary of the musical with "Five New Yorkers." I haven't used it in this discussion to support notability.
6. Interview with Eliyahu Kheel. I am asserting that it is significant coverage, reliable and independent. I use the introductory material (which negates "simply") to support "Eliyahu Kheel founded the group" and Eliyahu Kheel's answers to support "He formed the group because his friends were annoyed with his up to ten daily Broadway postings, never expected it to grow beyond a hundred members and is currently reaching out to the professional Broadway community."
Interviews are usable in Wikipedia for quotes and for non-contentious facts, e.g. the songs Julian Mendoza sang. Reliability is a function of the publisher. E.g. if the New York Times publishes an interview, it can be used to support a quote by the interviewee.
On listings, BWW News Desk is not a listing. Its four paragraphs describe the show, the cast, time, place, ticket price, the FB group and the theatre company. I used the listing for Miscast to confirm existence and to support that All Things Broadway is the largest FB group. I use the link to the Island Source project for a summary of Island Song. The blog post is permitted under the expert exception and meets the requirements for a source supporting notability: significant coverage, reliable and independent of the subject. The All Things Broadway website says "All Things Broadway has also recently expanded into a theatre company performing at the 54 Below, the Laurie Beechman Theatre and the musical Island Song at the Davenport Theatre Loft." It has produced three shows in 6 months, which is prolific for a theatre company. Notability is based on sources, not on an editor's assessment of a subject's importance.
We have discussed five sources. Wikipedia policy says that we should consider additional sources that may exist. Proponents for retention of an article are given a reasonable time to locate those sources. I've previously quoted those policies. The article was was erroneously referred to AfD. I've quoted the relevant policy governing newly created articles and AfD. While Vermont is entitled to change his opinion after a more thorough examination of the evidence (and I applaud that he searched for sources), I am puzzled at how starting with the theatre company aspect rather than the group aspect would affect his opinion of the entity's notability. In both versions, it is the same entity.
I really (and sincerely) thank Vermont for the attention he has put into All Things Broadway. I'm trying to get another article peer reviewed and there is a backlog. What a luxury to get a review for All Things Broadway at the beginning.
Thank you, Bradv, ThatMontrealIP and Operator873 for your comments. Bradv, I've already exhaustively analyzed [[WP:GNG] and gone through the six sources. I disagree with the characterization of four sources as "ads.' Vermont characterize those sources as two listings (I have argued one is much more), a link and a blog post. Thank you for searching for additional sources.
ThatMontrealIP I've already addressed independence. And I think five sources do not constitute "extremely poor" sourcing. As to the amount of text, Barkeep49 originally only cited NGN and NCORG, forcing me if I wanted the article to remain to address each and every point.
Operator873 The box above the edit area says, "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." Vyeh (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vyeh, your comments in this AfD total over 5,000 words thus far. (Yes I ran them through a word counter.) Please read WP:BLUDGEON, and consider not writing anything more. Destroying an AFD with huge blocks of text is disruptive editing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(2)More important, the article seems to have now been completely rewritten to make it about the theatre company, not the facebook group (this was at my suggestion--I was asked for advice at a WM-NYC meeting). This means that all judgements based on its initial state need to be reconsidered.. Barkeep49 .TimTempleton, ThatMontrealIP, Bradv.
I am for the time being not giving an opinion about keeping or deleting. But, Vyeh, please be concise. Most of us discussing here know the rules--your job is to show that the article meets them by explaining why the sources are reliable for notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the rewrite it is still lacks independent reliable sourcing to establish notability. The current sources are personal web sites, event announcements , interviews and the like. Not notable. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll note that ThatMontrealIP, TimTempleton, and Bradv !voted delete after the article was rewritten to focus on the theater company aspect. Vermont (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm that my nomination and defacto !vote of delete stands. When I nominated this article Special:Diff/860622454 a claim for it being a theater company was already present and something I examined in my WP:BEFORE and included in my nomination statement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A further note that I don't think there's any basis in policy, guideline, or well respected essay to suggest that any of the users noted above need to reconsider their !votes in order to be considered when someone (hopefully an admin) judges consensus here, regardless of when they !voted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:45, 29 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. Learned more about notability requirements for schools since nominating. Withdrawing to save everyone time. (non-admin closure) ((u|zchrykng)) {T|C} 14:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gray-New Gloucester High[edit]

Gray-New Gloucester High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements for schools. ((u|zchrykng)) {T|C} 21:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 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 Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Pegasus (1944)[edit]

HMS Pegasus (1944) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Ship never built, no real claims of notability. wikipedia not a repository of all knowledge. Rogermx (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 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 Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delma Kollar[edit]

Delma Kollar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not significant. WP:BIO1E. Sources include a dead link and a duplicate article, which leaves 2 articles on the same website, which is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. » Shadowowl | talk 21:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 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 Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lantronix, Inc.[edit]

Lantronix, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No indication the subject meets WP:ORGCRITE standards. Article is sourced entirely to press releases, no better sources found in Google. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects[edit]

Artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too narrow subject for an article. Content can be covered elsewhere - content on the uses of AI for different purposes like vandalism detection, harassment prevention and content creation can be covered at the dedicated articles (or sections of Wikipedia article) about them.

AI is used on a large variety of websites but we don't have separate articles for them. Plus, this article also feels like a WP:CHIMERA, as it covers the use of AI on WP, as well as the use of WP for AI datasets - which in my opinion are entirely different topics. SD0001 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone needs further persuasion see
  • Mehdi, Mohamad; Okoli, Chitu; Mesgari, Mostafa; Nielsen, Finn Årup; Lanamäki, Arto (March 2017). "Excavating the mother lode of human-generated text: A systematic review of research that uses the wikipedia corpus". Information Processing & Management. 53 (2): 505–529. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2016.07.003. ISSN 0306-4573.
which reviews 130 papers on Wikipedia + AI. Anyone could summarize and cite those papers in this article to build it out, so lots of coverage on this topic exists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not suggesting that the content be merged wholesale to Wikipedia article, but rather a more elaborate affair:
Content about use of AI for Merge into article
Vandalism detection Vandalism on Wikipedia
Harassment prevention Wikipedia community
Content creation Wikipedia# Automated editing
WP for AI datasets Wikipedia# Research use
This arrangement is designed to ward off any WP:UNDUE-related concerns. SD0001 (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001: Each one of these topics meets GNG. We could have an entire category of separate Wiki + AI articles. Why not keep this, and put content in those articles, and open the possibility of making other articles? Having separate articles for "AI in Wiki" versus "Wiki applied to AI" is a good first choice, even though so far as I know all the "AI in Wiki" research has also been used to advance "Wiki applied to AI". This is an expanding subject which seems like it will be a topic in academic papers every month for the foreseeable future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 19:27, 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. Because of the massive COI and sourcing concerns. A recreation by somebody who is not the subject using reliable sources is conceivable. Sandstein 12:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Kurbatov[edit]

Nikolay Kurbatov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Kurbatov Stats)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new sources. Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not convince. They are not about Nikolay Kurbatov, just a mention.--RTY9099 (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It meet basic criteria (there is a lot of sources) and "Entertainers" (3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment). Please, don't delete article! Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notice, that nominator RTY9099 was blocked in Russian Wikipedia: https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Участник:RTY9099&action=edit&redlink=1 Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has no connection to the article Nikolay Kurbatov.--RTY9099 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page about discussion of an article about YOU, not a page to discuss the behavior of some editors on an irrelevant site, so please stay on topic.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 18:10, 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 02:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for comment! Yeah, commandos-rus it's me, i'm guilty. But try to understand me: bipolar disorder has brought me a lot of troubles, I can say, I have been depressed for several years, every day for several hours I have no a desire to live. Therefore, in order to partially compensate for my condition, I decided to create an article about myself. I really like your site and I'm glad that I can create useful articles about movies and localities. I hope for your understanding... Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but guidelines like WP:COI apply to everyone, regardless of your disability and how severe it is. If you really wanted an article about yourself and your achievements - you should've asked other people, preferably outside of Wikipedia, to write it, with plenty of reliable sources (here is a useful guideline about reliable sources: WP:RS) and you should definitely AVOID voting in AfD nominations involving articles about yourself.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought, there is no difference between writing about myself and asking other people... Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 19:26, 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 Nomination withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misbakus Solikin[edit]

Misbakus Solikin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet BLP notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soccerway confirms it, which is listed as an external link on the article. R96Skinner (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 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. Discounting the "keep" by the SPA Albert1756. Sandstein 13:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian_Schoyen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christian_Schoyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotional article, reads like a PR firm wrote it. Is there a standard for notability? Skirts89 (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Skirts89, as the nominator, your nomination is already considered as "delete" vote, therefore you cant vote for the second time. However, you can add comments by putting "Comment" instead of "Delete". Thanks --Jay (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, thank you I did not know that! Appreciate the heads up. Skirts89 (talk) 18:25, 29 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 Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Menime[edit]

Menime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio of a High School rapper with no notable song/album releases, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:TOOSOON as well. DBigXrayᗙ 18:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ShelbyMarion, thanks for sharing your kind opinion, I mostly agree with you. regarding the USA today, that is the only major coverage she had and I would say that article also uses the Kashmir conflict as a Major topic in the article other than introducing the subject.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:36, 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 Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Insurance Group, LLC[edit]

Falcon Insurance Group, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:NCorp, hardly any multiple, reliable, independent sources to show that it is notable. JC7V-constructive zone 18:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Insurance Group, LLC is a growing company and there were reliable news sources used in the article. The company is continuing to grow and will continue to have more articles written about them, therefore the Wikipedia should not be deleted. This article was written because they have no Wikipedia page, and people should be able to easily read about the company from one article, and that is Wikipedia.

Allines (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:Toosoon. Article can be recreated when and if this happens. JC7V-constructive zone 19:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this discussion? Allines (talk) 16:27, 28 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 Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Joseph (journalist)[edit]

Anthony Joseph (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for journalists or the general notability guideline. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Simpson (writer)[edit]

Dave Simpson (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NBIO, WP:GNG, not notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Araghi[edit]

Mehdi Araghi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources and after research, much of the article is false. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 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 Procedural close. This is already being discussed at DRV. That's got two days left to run. It's silly to be running parallel discussions. If the DRV results in this being kept, no prejudice against renomination, but let's do them one at a time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closure note: The deletion review concluded with decision "relist", i.e. to re-open the original AFD, which is ongoing now. So for any future discussion, the most recently concluded AFD will be the first AFD, not the second AFD. --Doncram (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Cutler[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eliot Cutler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines. WP:NPOLITICIAN.This was at AfD before with consensus to delete, but it was recreated despite my effort to point that out. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'd rather not discuss notability here, because it is being discussed elsewhere, but I believe this person obviously meets NPOLITICIAN, which accepts "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". --Doncram (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate that coverage. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is partly the topic of the deletion review, where i have provided some links going to notability from having clicked on Google books search link. Or you could push on Google news search link and find this profile amidst dozens of articles in Maine newspapers and CNN and on and on. Again, process-wise, I think this 2nd AFD should be closed as an administrative matter. --Doncram (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I listed six sources at the deletion review. Either way, this AFD should be closed until the deletion review is finished.--TM 23:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I can't unpack what you are saying. The main reason given for this AFD ("This was at AfD before with consensus to delete, but it was recreated despite my effort to point that out") is that there was a previous AFD, which is not valid. Maybe there is an implication about GNG, which is nonsense, there is tons available. There is no mention of performing wp:BEFORE. And there is an ongoing discussion, the deletion review, which touches on notability, so this 2nd AFD is not helpful IMO. --Doncram (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: Yeah, and the article shouldn't have been recreated since there was already a discussion to recreate what was already AfD'd. What do you mean the previous AfD wasn't valid? All AfD's are valid, and Wikipedia doesn't count polls for votes, it counts the points made. I say Speedy Delete because the 1st AfD was so recent and no more info was added so notability wasn't established still. The deletion review discussion determines recreation, not some user who created a crappy article. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I said is that just because there was a previous article and AFD, is not a valid reason why a new, different article cannot be created.
Okay, now there is a claim that the new article has "no more info added". That claim was not made in the deletion nomination. Hey, at this point I simply don't believe you. There is an outstanding request at the deletion review for someone to please temporarily restore a copy of the original article. Also the deleting administrator and another administrator have been individually asked to provide a copy, and have not. Are you an administrator? If not, how do you know whether the new article is different or not. If you are an administrator, would you please provide a copy? Either way, this is stuff that may be resolved in the deletion review. So this new AFD is not helpful and should be immediately closed as an administrative matter by anyone. --Doncram (talk) 14:04, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen María Montiel[edit]

Carmen María Montiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Being the runner-up in a Miss Universe pageant and being the losing candidate in a district-level election do not make for notability, and much of the other coverage of her that's available relates to criminal issues for which - as far as I can tell - she hasn't been formally charged, meaning that under WP:BLPCRIME we probably shouldn't have an article about her. That's leaving aside the fact that the page in its current form is blatantly promotional (and appears to be the subject of a spat between the subject's representatives and those of her ex-husband, all eager to twist it as far away from NPOV as possible). Yunshui 雲水 12:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outing removed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She also fails WP:POLITICIAN as she has never held office and she isn't a major local political figure who has has received significant press coverage. She probably also fails WP:BASIC by the type and amount of references in her article. I assume that with all these Single-purpose accounts spamming keep, if any real coverage was available, it would have been included already. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— QueenXi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC−7). sock !vote struck. Yunshui 雲水 10:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— 19yn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. sock !vote struck. Yunshui 雲水 10:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:30, 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 Cobb_County_School_District#Middle_schools. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer Middle School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Palmer Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for schools. Should probably be merged or redirected to a higher level organization. ((u|zchrykng)) {T|C} 16:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 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. Sandstein 12:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of X Window System desktop environments[edit]

Comparison of X Window System desktop environments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable i.e. fails WP:LISTN. Also fails WP:NOT e.g. WP:IINFO and WP:NOTSPAM as this seems like an advertisement of one company's products which is in no way notable. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 10:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reason - which tests and how, and why strong? There's sources on the comparison, and it's free software so it's not some commercial spam listing. Widefox; talk 23:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:FenixFeather there's sources (below). Sources don't have to be in the article, they just have to exist per WP:BEFORE the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination, so this is a failure of BEFORE by the nom (see my comment below for other issues with it). Widefox; talk 11:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: Why do you insist on stalking my AFD votes and making a broad claim about "sources" where none exist? Please point out these so called sources that discuss the comparison of X Window desktop environments. Because right now this page is just a violation of WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you to point your attention to the multiple RS listed by another editor below, which directly refutes the reasoning for your !vote. (this disruption is offtopic here and should be discussed at WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo). Widefox; talk 11:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:XOR'easter there's sources (above), and see my comment (below). Widefox; talk 11:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's discussion at WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo over this disruption. Widefox; talk 00:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv: @Widefox: Shame on both of you for characterizing as malice what can easily be ignorance. Have you ever considered that people might have different perspectives from you? Not everyone knows what X is, you know. To someone unfamiliar with this stuff, it could easily come off as promotional. And who says free software can't have promoters? You are worsening WP:Systemic bias by accusing those who don't have the same knowledge and perspective as you to be acting in "bad faith". – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FenixFeather, Excuse me? Are you doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing? Bradv 20:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? Accusing you of acting in bad faith? No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying you shouldn't assume bad faith when someone could simply be mistaken about the topic. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FenixFeather, Shame on both of you for characterizing as malice what can easily be ignorance. That's an accusation of bad faith. I explained that this is a valid summary-style article, that it's a list of open source articles and therefore not the products of one company, and that the nominator should have been able to gather that just from reading the article. Bradv 20:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't? That's just me expressing my disapproval of how you accused Wumbolo of acting in bad faith. Accusing you of bad faith would be something like "Bradv is clearly here to promote X window desktop managers, and their opinion should be disregarded". I'm allowed to say that you overstepped when you accused Wumbolo of acting in bad faith. "No you" isn't going to save you, here, and is just a form of whataboutism. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FenixFeather, if you're not accusing me of voting in bad faith, then I don't understand the point of this thread. I stand by my !vote. Bradv 20:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this thread was to call you out for not following WP:AGF and perpetuating WP:Systemic bias. Was that not obvious? Why would I accuse you of acting in bad faith? I'm so confused. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FenixFeather your WP:BATTLEGROUND is similar to Wumbolo and not conducive here, and obvious to all an AGF violation, plus WP:OFFTOPIC. Both you and Wumbolo should take up some systemic bias correction elsewhere, done properly with consensus. There's no consensus here for these deletions, despite all this heat, which is why others have taken Wumbolo to ANI (clue not me). It's a time waster. Widefox; talk 20:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how trying to reduce systemic bias is a violation of AGF. I believe that it's a serious issue that's limiting the quality of the project. Are you denying the reality and importance of systemic bias? I'm not even using systemic bias as a justification for deletion here; I just think it's a dick move to accuse someone of acting in bad faith for mistakenly assuming all X window desktop managers come from the same company. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FenixFeather, dick move that's not AGF. Bradv 21:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, why do you insist on believing that I don't think you're acting in good faith? Look, I believe that you're here to help the project, or you wouldn't have more than 20k edits. I'm just trying to get you to understand that it's uncalled for to say someone's acting in bad faith just because they got something wrong. Does that make sense? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FenixFeather: (ec) That's a straw man. See WP:AFDEQ, and WP:FANATIC / WP:BRINK. Does Wumbolo share this systemic bias viewpoint? I see both of you have been at similar AfDs, and articles. Widefox; talk 21:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, I'm the only one who's been actively pointing out systemic bias in tech articles. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And to reply to ...mistakenly assuming all X window desktop managers come from the same company - he AfDed it! WP:BEFORE is way beyond reading the article. Widefox; talk 21:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not readily apparent to someone unfamiliar to the topic area. You could conceivably read the whole article and think that "X Window system" is a product, and that the article is promoting various desktop environments for it. It's not enough evidence to immediately jump to the conclusion that the user is trying to sabotage Wikipedia. All I'm trying to do is point out that you're privileged with technical knowledge but aren't willing to see this issue from the perspective of someone who doesn't have that same knowledge. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mass deleting without even reading? Continuing after being asked to stop? See WP:COMPETENCE editors who are unintentionally and often unknowingly disruptive while trying to help and WP:LISTEN. You are labelling others and making AGF violations, in a self-righteous way against the consensus at these AfDs. All this is offtopic here - continue at ANI please. Widefox; talk 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Relisting since it has been eight days since the discussion was opened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StrikerforceTalk 15:52, 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. (non-admin closure) Flooded with them hundreds 14:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda C. Sobell[edit]

Linda C. Sobell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and self-promotional. DefeatFraud (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC) P.S. I'm new, so I hope I followed the instructions properly. Forgive me if I broke etiquette or protocol, I'm still learning. DefeatFraud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Magnolia677 (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mau5trap discography[edit]

Mau5trap discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is not a stand-alone list (eg. List of McDonald's products), nor is it is a discography of one artist or group. This is an article about the recordings listed at Discogs for a small record production company, and most of the musicians and recordings listed are not notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 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 no consensus. In closing an AFD, administrators are expected to assess consensus, and to do that they are expected to take into account the policy-compliant opinions that have been put forth by those who commented. They can discount the opinions that are clearly incompatible with policy; however, they are not expected to substitute their interpretation of policy to that of those who have commented in the AFD, as long as that interpretation is reasonable. In this case, I see two different interpretations of the notability policy and both appear reasonable to me. I have also considered the opinion voiced by DGG, Joefromrandb, and scope_creep, who rely on common sense, in addition to GNG, to shore up the case for keeping the article. All in all, in my opinion, the only way for a closing admin to avoid a supervote is to acknowledge that no consensus has emerged from this discussion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xmonad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Xmonad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable (only passing mentions in sources and literature). I have no idea how this article was kept after two AfDs yet it still, after more than a decade, doesn't have a single secondary source. wumbolo ^^^ 12:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Generally - there's may be a tactical problem here with these mass noms - more the other AfDs than this one, specifically with the aim of countering systemic bias. While I agree that WP:Systemic bias discusses underrepresentation, of course the flip side is a harder topic of overrepresentation. Being as systemic bias is about not being balanced, I question the logic of countering systemic bias by fixing the overrepresented areas rather than the underrepresented. I have myself advocated for countering systemic bias of commercial/COI systemic bias WP:BOGOF, and know from that experience that it's controversial (largely from editors who feel obliged to save the topics, which has the counterproductive consequence of furthering the systemic bias by spending more volunteer time on them, subsidising commercial paid editing, and reducing the finite editor time for the underrepresented areas (due to the Streisand effect). If there's no consensus for this hard topic of countering overrepresentation with COI/paid editing there sure ain't one for computer science topics!). Unless done fairly, it will delete notable topics, and in a systemic way. There's nothing wrong with putting more deletion scrutiny on overrepresented areas, but BEFORE must be done and there must be fairness and scrutiny.
Neither "gut feeling" nor countering "systemic bias" are arguments backed by policy per se, and must rest on IAR. IAR does allow us to do either (anything) for the benefit of the project, but consensus must be the deciding factor, rather than "objectivity" (which I've seen at these AfDs as being ruthless enforcement of an arguably strict interpretation of sourcing) or subjectivity ("gut feeling") per se, as they may be both POV pushing, which risks prejudging the consensus about deletion specifically/improving WP generally. Generally these mass noms of computer science topics with editors wishing to counter systemic bias can not hold articles to different standards of strictness of sourcing. With this article it is a clash of those two extremes, IAR seems to have been used in previous AfDs. Over the years for this topic, sources are now available so I don't think either argument is now required. The participants of the previous AfDs may be worth pinging for input here, in particular User:DGG had a comment 11 years ago about consistency, to ensure standards, and he has experience and longer view. TLDR - let editors reason their arguments and be mindful that WP:systemic bias is an essay, IAR policy. (Also be mindful that WP:systemic bias includes "Availability of sources may cause bias", so an argument could be made that an academic, small but important topic like xmonad is notable, but underrepresented in sources.) Widefox; talk 15:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: You are misunderstanding why I'm talking about systemic bias. First of all, I doubt Wumbolo is deleting articles to correct for systemic bias; I'm the only one bringing up systemic bias. Second, systemic bias is not a justification for deletion. It's something I'm using to argue against keep votes that are simply "people in this topic area believe it's notable". My bringing up the topic of systemic bias is to ensure that technical topics like this one receive no special treatment from those evaluating it, simply because they're more familiar with the topic at hand. This is what you're fundamentally misunderstanding. You can never get an article deleted for systemic bias. You can only use systemic bias as a defensive argument against those !voting keep. Does that make sense? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As someone else said above - systemic bias is an essay about underrepresentation, so using for overrepresentation at AfD is already a stretch (details above). That's not the point, it still has an assumption about other editors, that's been taken so far that it's an AGF one (based on the comments I've seen). One that you're still repeating - what does "people in this topic area" mean? It comes across as a veiled COI accusation. We mark WP:SPAs at AfD, that's about it, all are still welcome and any accusation should go to the right place, like WP:COIN etc. Once you've mentioned it as motivation, the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. It either is, or isn't a factor. This focus on editors is entirely misplaced per WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. At AfD it is far from WP:AFDEQ and not policy based, is it? (I'm aware this discussion is offtopic here too). It has made it BATTLEGROUND and taken the focus on the editors and their assumed biases or assumptions about who they are, and away from their arguments. For instance, you assumed Haskell enthusiasts here, which is an assumption about me that even goes against your previous assumption that I'm just following Wumbolo. They are mutually exclusive assumptions! Is it at all wise for one editor to try to enforce something that isn't policy, especially when it is based on an assumption about other editors? Also pertinent is If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. Editors have complained about overload due to the scale. There's at least two deleted articles which have or are being restored. Widefox; talk 23:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Underrepresentation and overrepresentation are all relative. My only condition here is that we base decisions on policy rather than on vague arguments about this software's perceived importance in the field, because that's vulnerable to bias. Systemic bias is similar to implicit bias in that we ALL have biases. I'm not impugning the character or the motiviations of people who are biased; being biased is a completely normal part of being a human being! My concern is that we're not being introspective about our biases here, and handwaving notability rather than actually looking at the sourcing. Being a biased person is fine, but I'm trying to encourage editors to be more aware of their own biases. For example, I'm heavily biased in favor of Emacs because I love that software and if you look at the history of my user page, I've had an Emacs userbox since the addition of userboxes to my user page. But if I went over to Emacs right now and found equally bad sourcing, and if I were unable to find better sources on the internet? I would nominate it for deletion in a heartbeat. This is the point of my talking about systemic bias, and I'm not sure if you've completely grasped it yet, because you still seem to think that I'm attacking other editors. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Underrepresentation and overrepresentation are all relative is rubbish - that's called conflation. deleting != creating. black != white. More deaths aren't the same as less births. You're confirming there's no basis in policy, guideline, or even essay for that argument, its logically flawed and two editors have questioned its use. See WP:CONSENSUS. Here at AfD please instead of inverting an essay, follow policy WP:AFDEQ.
BTW - the argument is also logically flawed favoring of technical articles over non-technical because of "gut feeling" will cause an underrepresentation, simply because we'll delete articles whose topics we're not familiar with (no gut feeling) while keeping non-notable articles for products - no, that's inverted logic and conflation of separate AfD events (and assuming the same participants), it should read "favoring of a technical article at AfD over non-technical (AfDs are not comparisons) because of "gut feeling" will cause an underrepresentation overrepresentation" , and for a statistically separate AfD with potentially different participants (note participants may be self-selecting for their topic area, so actually biased towards that subject, who knows - I just point out logical fallacies and assumptions) and "not favoring of a non-technical article at AfD because of "gut feeling" will cause an underrepresentation". Of course, this is the broken stick you've been beating other editors with at AfD, but you're assuming about their bias, assuming they can't counter it, and in practice breaking WP:AGF. Please stop now. Widefox; talk 15:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox, I'm still wondering why you're at my throat accusing me of violating all kinds of Wikipedia guidelines. I'm going to explain this one last time. An editor made an argument that this topic is "obviously notable to the Linux community". I objected to this rationale because "obviously notable to the Linux community" is from the perspective of the Linux community, which tends to be overrepresented on Wikipedia, and that if we were to use this standard across Wikipedia, it would result in worsening the underrepresentation of certain articles. Notice that I'm just objecting to the Keep rationale, and not saying in any way that Erik.Bjareholt is an irreparably biased person and unworthy of editing on Wikipedia, as you think I'm doing. In fact, looking at Erik's edit stats, Erik seems like a very productive and consistent editor, much more consistent than myself. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 01:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That reply doesn't address any of the serious concerns [25] (please see above for things still not replied to). (it may help to maintain focus on the higher levels of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement per WP:TPNO). Widefox; talk 02:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also this – Stefania Loredana Nita; Marius Mihailescu (14 September 2017). Practical Concurrent Haskell: With Big Data Applications. Apress. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-4842-2781-7. – it is only a brief section on it, but slightly more than just a passing reference. SJK (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Jan Vitek (31 March 2015). Programming Languages and Systems: 24th European Symposium on Programming, ESOP 2015, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2015, London, UK, April 11-18, 2015, Proceedings. Springer. p. 830. ISBN 978-3-662-46669-8. is more than just passing too. SJK (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think, in terms of notability, there is a difference between (1) the author/creator of something publishing a blog post/website/whatever (anyone can do that, there is no third-party evaluation of quality or significance); (2) the author/creator of something publishing a peer reviewed journal article or conference paper with a reputable journal/conference (there is an independent evaluation of the quality and significance of the work through the review process.) The first article is (2) not (1). Now, (2) does not count as much for notability as a fully independent source does, but in my opinion it does count much more than (1) does. SJK (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires independent coverage. That's why it excludes press releases and otherwise content written by the software creator. wumbolo ^^^ 10:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. Multiple passing references do NOT constitute notability. You MUST have multiple, secondary, reliable, and significant sources to support the notability of a topic. Nobody has shown this yet, so I'm leaning toward delete. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG actually says but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material , so while it can't be "trivial" it isn't "significant source" but "Significant coverage" in sources. The context being so that no original research is needed to extract the content.. I agree there's issues with those sources above, but those issues are not with the sources now in the article. Widefox; talk 15:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lets just have a plain keep. There's enough for a keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't, but they do exist, so it does. It meets GNG by sources existing irrespective of if they are in the article per policy WP:NEXIST. Now challenged, they've been put in the article. Widefox; talk 18:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the actual topic - sources at this AfD - the several RS I just added are a good start. To bridge between both camps here, Xmonad / Haskell is very researchy, so an inclusion of more academic sources/tolerance seems prudent, which is slightly WP:IAR but more a tip of the iceberg of a practical example of production Haskell. Widefox; talk 17:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Researchy" aka barely anyone uses it except for a few Haskell enthusiasts, who seem to have congregated here. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL so stuff that is still "researchy" just may not be very notable. Try to look past your own biases, instead of approaching this AFD with the conclusion that the topic is notable, because the evidence shows that it clearly isn't. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion of notability is twofold: 1. from being written in a functional language, Haskell, yes. Here's a source I didn't use underlining that Masterminds of Programming

Conversations with the Creators of Major Programming Languages Shane Warden, Federico Biancuzzi, O'Reilly Media, 2009 p181-182. Widefox; talk 18:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC) ...[reply]

(added) and 2. as a window manager in itself - which most/all of our secondary sources are about.
Low usage is actually an argument to avoid at AfD WP:POPULARPAGE
It doesn't help consensus by labelling and dismissing others. You and I are here, does that make us Haskell enthusiasts? Should physics enthusiasts not edit and !vote on physics topics? We often encourage the opposite, not that I think it's an issue here. I do note that this has been relisted to encourage programmers.
WP:CRYSTALBALL is irrelevant here (there's no future event etc), but I think you probably mean WP:TOOSOON. That's a good argument for the previous AfDs, it looks like TOOSOON applied before, but now there's many independent sources and it's WP:BARE. Widefox; talk 17:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"barely anyone uses it except for a few Haskell enthusiasts"
What? That argument is just "if you exclude the demographic of people that use the software, nobody uses it." RoseCherry64 (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added several. Widefox; talk 23:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are the ones establishing notability? None of them stick out to me as independent, significant, or reliable. This article still looks like mostly original research. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Lifehacker and xkcd sources you removed from the article I put on the talk. I added a further reading section with another one. I'm confident WP:GNG is satisfied. We don't agree, I'm OK with that. You're aware this article is in 12 languages? Widefox; talk 18:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
xkcd is not a reliable source. The lifehacker article was a how-to. Neither of these fulfill WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 19:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources weren't in reply to your question, they were for other editors to see there's yet more sources so they can make up their own mind. Widefox; talk 20:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question: [26] [27], [28] xmonad being a successful example (of one of two ways) (paraphrased) "one of the most well known Haskell projects" and the smaller sources in the article. GNG actually says but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material and as someone else said, there's no basis in policy that I know of for eliminating a source as a how-to (and about Lifehacker and xkcd I'm not advocating either as complete argument for notability per se - Lifehacker does count IMHO, but a mention in xkcd as a primary source doesn't count, but does show how this topic has wider influence as a (sub)cultural influence - not to the standard per policy, but as rhetoric. Two editors wanted the Lifehacker source included in the article and one not, so I repeat - consensus seems a way forward). The point is that we base an article on RS, which we can. I agree it's not strong, but there's significant coverage in RS. Widefox; talk 02:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're here for the AfD right, not to defend at ANI, so..how many sources did you find? Widefox; talk 18:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We could use input from some folks with strong computer programming knowledge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StrikerforceTalk 15:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia should be marked by some degree of consistency--the principle that people when they come to Wikipedia, should be able to know what they can expect to find; this means we treat different areas differently. For example, in the last year or two we have adopted a very narrow interpretation of the key words in the GNG as expressed in the current wording of NCORP--but we did this not because of what we think is the likely actual notability of commercial organizations, but upon the increasing understanding of the critical need to diminish promotionalism. In the other direction, we have from the first and still now, agreed by very strong consensus on an extremely loose interpretation of the notability guideline for geographical features, in recognition of the principle that WP contains elements of a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia. These are areas where I agree personally with what we do. There are other areas where I do not agree, but the consensus is well established, and it would be foolish to challenge them: for example, the extremely detailed coverage of computer games and some other popular entertainments. Readers should know what to expect.
As applied to this article, the positive reputation of WP was established from the first by its extensive coverage of computer related topics, especially open source software. (as a personal note, I first took WP seriously when I saw a particularly trustworthy & rigorous academic professional using it as a reference in that area). I think we have an obligation to maintain this. There are still limits--some other earliest articles in this area were written based on uncited personal knowledge exclusively (although often by the acknowledged experts); we no longer do this, and now need some show of decent referencing. For its field, this article has sufficient. Readers in this area would accept them as reliable enough. We write for the readers. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This very much resonates with me and is the longer and better answer for why I voted Strong keep early in the discussion. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favor of articles on computer software. Who doesn't want great content for the project? But the fact remains that the sourcing on this article is still not up to standard. Widefox has twisted the "delete" side of the discussion into "Wikipedia is systemically biased in favor of technical articles, therefore we should delete this one" but that's not why this article should be deleted. This article should be deleted on basis of policy without special consideration for the "field"; any such special considerations would inherently further the biases of the editors performing those considerations. The relevant policy is WP:PRODUCT which states that this product must fulfill WP:ORGCRITE to be regarded as notable. This means multiple, independent, secondary, reliable, and significant coverage of the topic. I will now go through every single source and link on the page to show why xmonad fails these requirements.
  1. Github. Not independent or primary
  2. Github releases. Same as above
  3. Download page
  4. Clickbait Top 10. Not significant; one paragraph on xmonad.
  5. 1 page of a book about functional programming in JavaScript. I don't have access to this book but my feeling is that this is a passing mention.
  6. xmonad announcement. Not independent
  7. OSNews: barely a paragraph and routine changelog regurgitation
  8. OSNews
  9. OSNews
  10. Haskell Weekly news: Not independent, self published
  11. Developer discussion
  12. Patch description
  13. Manpage (written by the authors of the software)
  14. Chatroom statistics page
  15. xmonad.org
  16. Thesis (WP:PRIMARY) that primarily quotes xmonad developers in an email
  17. Blog
  18. Stewart and Janssen: these are the authors of xmonad
  19. A book of interviews
  20. 1 page of a book where xmonad is an "example of rolling your own monad". It's just used as an example of a different concept and does not constitute direct and in detail discussion of xmonad.
  21. Another top 10 list with 1 paragraph about xmonad
  22. How to article, does not describe xmonad in detail but only how to use it
  23. Another top 8 article
  24. Some sort of personal blog/journal entry that mentions xmonad a few times in passing.
  25. 4 paragraphs on xmonad. The best source so far, but still a far cry from passing Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Product_reviews
  26. Passing mention of xmonad, doesn't even describe what xmonad is
  27. I again don't have access to this book, but it looks like another passing mention from a haskell programming book. I'm not sure why your choice of window manager would even help that much with "big data"; this just sounds like buzzwordy promotional language.
  28. Top 4 reasons I use dwm for my Linux window manager. Not only is this not about xmonad, it's a blog and only mentions xmonad in passing
  29. Two paragraphs on xmonad under "Unusual alternatives", suggesting that xmonad is in fact an obscure and not widely used desktop environment, which is true
Under notes, there's just a few sources from Stewart and Janssen, the creators of the software and the publishers of the only papers that discuss xmonad directly and in detail.
Now you can see why I brought up WP:Systemic bias. There's clear favoritism toward the article here, despite terrible sourcing even after more than a week of improvements. Can we please just focus on evaluating sources instead of trying to make excuses to include this article? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Firstly (as I've exhausting explained at another software AfDs), is it actually applicable to use NPRODUCT for free, open source software that doesn't even have a company behind it AFAIK? That assumption needs justifying. Until so it should be ignored. GNG is uncontroversial and what everyone else is discussing. There's 5 sources above, I've already listed them in reply so what about those 5? (Nobody is claiming all the sources here count for notability). What does "Another top 8 article" mean in terms of GNG? Can you point to policy/guideline please, and maybe address the reasoning given above for them. Widefox; talk 23:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A product being free and open source doesn't make it any less a product. WP:GNG has pretty much the same requirements. WP:ORGCRITE is just more specific and discusses the bar for product reviews. Given the quality of the sourcing, I would say it doesn't pass WP:GNG either, since GNG also requires multiple, significiant, independent, and reliable secondary sources, which this article lacks. Either way you look at it, xmonad is not notable. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FenixFeather: A product being free and open source doesn't make it any less a product. But, Wiktionary defines product in sense 1 as "A commodity offered for sale", and obviously if being free and open source it often isn't being offered for sale. Sometimes we have commercial open source, where there is a company behind the open source project selling support or consulting or non-open source add-ons, but I don't think that is true here. And if you don't trust Wiktionary, then other dictionaries offer similar definitions, e.g. Merriam Webster sense 2(a)(2). Now, it is also true that there is another broader sense of "product", which includes anything which is produced, even if not for sale or commercial use (Wiktionary sense 3, Merriam Webster sense 2(a(1))). But, which sense is WP:NPRODUCT focused on? I think it is obviously focused on the narrower, economic sense of product, it begins with "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself" – it is talking about products as things which commercial ventures sell, not the broader sense of anything which is produced. Given that, I don't think a WP:NPRODUCT is applicable at all to open source projects unless they have commercial involvement. SJK (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, the only reason I'm using WP:ORGCRITE here is because it offers a policy for how to evaluate reviews. It's otherwise identical for our purposes to WP:GNG. We can debate the merits of whether xmonad is technically a product all we want, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use review standards to evaluate reviews just because this software isn't backed by a company. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a policy - it's a guideline, and it isn't guiding here but distracting. It doesn't apply by letter or spirit. Widefox; talk 21:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment to closer The attempted use of the incorrect deletion guideline here and at other AfDs is being made. This is disputed here and at other AfDs that ORGCRITE or NPRODUCT applies to this article. As it does not, it should be ignored here by the closer and at all the other AfDs where things that aren't products are AfDed. The bar quoted does not apply. This is the exactly the same flawed argument that was used by Wumbolo "Each piece of software is and remains a product, no matter how many times you call it something else" and completely refuted "A software product is a product yes, but not all software are products no..." ...and not all products are software. Other editors have mentioned this. Widefox; talk 00:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. As SJK explained above, the status of this software as a product is debatable. Nobody is "incorrect" about this. My argument is that whether this software counts as a product is irrelevant, because the standard for reviews applies to the reviews of this software. There is essentially no difference between GNG and ORGCRITE in this scenario, and I'm arguing for deletion on basis of both policies. The use of this technicality to justify a keep just shows how desperately poor the sourcing of this topic is. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the other AfDs for how valid this "product" argument is, and how other editor's have questioned it. If you consider SJK's reply (which came in at the same time as mine due to (ec)) as any different to my reply, then you have not understood their questioning of you invoking the incorrect guideline. As this is a procedural aspect, repeating it in the face of consensus against it seems disruptive. Widefox; talk 00:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop accusing people who are disagreeing with you of "disruption"? I simply do not want to engage in a tangential, unproductive discussion of whether xmonad is technically a product. As such, I've argued that, even if you buy the argument that xmonad is not a product, it still fails GNG. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to strike all these erroneous, raise the bar past acceptable norms arguments justified by invalid guidelines, which if memory serves, you've advocated for in terms of "WP:MILL" topics at other AfDs.[29] In this AfD it's very clear cut in terms of xmonad as it's so academic (per above). Simple question - why do you want to delete it so bad? Widefox; talk 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only "bar" I'm advocating for here is the "reviews" section of WP:ORGCRITE, which can be broadly construed per the text, which even includes restaurants and events (something I think we can all agree is not a product). Is it unreasonable to ask for multiple, significant, secondary, and reliable sources? Also, xmonad is hardly a topic of research. It's literally a program for arranging windows on your screen. This is a piece of consumer software, not a cutting edge academic research topic. And to answer your question, I want this article deleted because it doesn't have sufficient sourcing. After DGG posted their comment today I was prepared to update my vote to "Keep", but I glanced over the sources one last time to make sure they had, in fact, been improved, when to my surprise I couldn't find any satisfactory coverage. And so I could not, in good conscience, change my vote to keep. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 01:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You just want to be allowed to use one section of an invalid guideline? I think that answers that. See WP:LAWYERING. I'm presuming your assertions and questions are rhetorical, as this feels a bit reductio ad absurdum / WP:DROPTHESTICK. These assertions and questions have, however, been thoroughly answered in this and other AfDs. At least you provided some comic relief to finding lots of sources to save notable topics. I will nibble on this one though...your assertion consumer software, xmonad is hardly a topic of research seems to a) contradict your previous assertion [30] barely anyone uses it except for a few Haskell enthusiasts b) entirely forget the discussion above involving my attempt to explain the computer science aspect i.e. #1 of the two assertions of notability, and ignore the contents of the article xmonad - dramatically as we have RS saying xmonad being a successful example of ... monad (functional programming), and xmonad was regarded as one of the most well known Haskell projects and literally as we have research papers and a thesis! You don't expect to convince others with this do you? Widefox; talk 01:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... you're not really making any sense to me. If we want to talk about lawyering, you're the one trying to exclude a seemingly relevant policy out of a supposed technicality. Are you saying that Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Product_reviews is useless for evaluating the reviews of xmonad? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 02:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is Tu quoque. You haven't explained how you can 1. hold seemingly mutually exclusive views (asserting both "consumer software" and "enthusiast") 2. assert not a "research topic" when the article actually has research papers
The 5 sources I've asked you to look at (twice)? Widefox; talk 10:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, Haskell enthusiasts are consumers. I don't see the contradiction here. 2. The papers are written by the authors of the software, and therefore do not count as independent. They also have barely any citations because guess what? There's not much research to be done on arranging windows on your screen. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. barely anyone uses it except for a few Haskell enthusiasts vs This is a piece of consumer software, not a cutting edge academic research topic contradicts by normal usage. Dr Monad (functional programming) is not Average Joe. See enthusiast, computer science (and somewhat prosumer, creative consumer) FOSS, early adopter, Haskell (i.e. niche) vs consumer The consumer is the one who pays something (not true here), mass market (no), retail software (no), consumerism (no), - they're different markets shown by technology adoption life cycle - the context being the market/users of this software. 2. there's no dispute there's research then, so we agree. Widefox; talk 18:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading what you're writing? You're literally waxing pedantic on my use of the term "consumer software", which, in casual usage, just means software that's intended for everyday use by normal people, which is exactly what a desktop window manager is. I'm collapsing this because it doesn't seem relevant to the AFD. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 9:29 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)
I'm establishing that the arguments aren't internally consistent, logical, based on common usage of terms or connected to policy in any way. That's the opposite of pedantry - it's a conclusion. (and about refactoring my comments - please don't do that again as you've been reverted by two editors and it shouldn't have been done once per WP:REFACTOR.) Widefox; talk 23:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FenixFeather: I don't think WP:ORGCRITE is relevant here because xmonad is not an organisation, nor does it have the official backing of any organisation. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable" – it is not a company, corporation, organization, group or service. I think in the context, "product" means something that a company/corporation/organization/group offers for sale, and xmonad is not offered for sale, nor are any associated services (consulting/support/etc) being offered for sale. I think, if we can just limit the discussion to GNG, and not get distracted by other inapplicable guidelines like ORGCRITE or NPRODUCT. Regarding GNG, I think you go through a bunch of sources and some of them you are dismissing on considerations irrelevant to GNG. For example, you dismiss the "Masterinds of Programming" source because it is a "book of interviews". How is that relevant to GNG? Nowhere does GNG say that interviews are automatically excluded (especially considering this is a book of interviews with notable experts and it is published by a respected publisher.) (Also note that an interview is not necessarily a primary source; for example, an interview with a Egyptologist about the construction of the pyramids is not a primary source on the construction of the pyramids. Since the authors of xmonad were not among those interviewed, these interviews – and I presume it is the one about Haskell in particular – are not a primary source for xmonad.) Now, I don't know exactly what the interview says about Xmonad, so can't say definitively how much weight should be put on it, but your justification for rejecting it is irrelevant. SJK (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the technicality of whether xmonad is a product or not, do you believe Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Product_reviews is relevant? This last ditch attempt to argue that "xmonad" isn't a product is a distraction and reeks of desperation. A book of developer interviews is WP:PRIMARY and not independent, and therefore it fails WP:GNG. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that section is relevant. The "Product reviews" section of ORGCRITE talks about the risk of "manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel". In my reading, the whole point of this section, is that a product or service (which includes restaurant and events – very many events are services which are sold by means of tickets or admission fees, and a restaurant is a combination of product (food/drink) and service (tables/waitstaff/ambience/etc)) – sold by a commercial venture, you have to be careful about reviews manipulated by that company's marketing/PR. Xmonad is not a product or service offered for sale by a company – so I think that risk is simply irrelevant here. This is why I think ORGCRITE is simply inapplicable in its entirety (including that section) to open source projects which are not backed by a commercial venture. Also, I don't believe that book is a WP:PRIMARY source for xmonad – none of the people interviewed developed xmonad, although many of them are very notable (in computer science/IT) for developing other notable things. An interview is not automatically a primary source. Also, I think language like "reeks of desperation" is not conducive to a thoughtful, civil and rational discussion. Let us stick to the topic of how the various guidelines do or don't apply to the topic of the article and the various sources being put forward as evidence for its notability. SJK (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument for ignoring our standards for reviews is that this piece of software is not being sold, and therefore cannot possibly be promoted? This is absurd. You've never met an xmonad/Haskell fanatic in real life? Let me tell you, you'll immediately change your mind when you meet one of them. Plenty of other things that don't have commercial ventures backing them can be promoted too. Are you forgetting the whole Richard Stallman/GNU crusade against commercial software and for free software? Or how about the many campaigns for various non-profit causes like anti-vaccination? You think just because anti-vaccination is "not backed by commercial venture" that everyone is instantly neutral and objective about it? Come on, this kind of argumentation is unproductive. You're literally arguing that 1 paragraph in a top 10 article should count for notability? Regardless of whether you want to consider our standards on reviews, that's still not WP:SIGCOV. Instead of splitting hairs over whether xmonad is a product or not, can we just agree that it's WP:TOOSOON for an article on this software? Maybe in a few years when it's gotten a few more users and more mainstream coverage, it can have an article. But right now? It's just an obscure piece of open source software that very few people, even in the Linux world, use, as evidenced by source 29. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGCRITE does not contain a standard for reviews of software – indeed, the page only mentions that word once, in linking to an example of what is obviously a commercial software product. It is a standard for reviews of products of organisations–and primarily commercial organisations. Some software is a product in that sense, other software isn't. I'm not arguing the standard should be ignored, I am simply arguing it is inapplicable to software like this. Yes, some people become fans of a technology or enthusiastic about it, but that is a very different kettle of fish from commercial marketing/PR, and I think it makes sense to be far more cautious about the potential consequences of commercial marketing/PR than the potential consequences of non-commercial enthusiasm. I don't think comparisons to the "anti-vaccination" movement have any relevance here at all – they are an (obviously notable) movement of people opposed to the scientific consensus on vaccines, whereas xmonad (and people who like it) aren't in any way opposed to consensus of computer science. (Indeed, one of xmonad's "fans", Simon Peyton Jones, is a computer scientist of some note, and is one of the interviewees in the "Masterminds of Programming" source we have been discussing.) SJK (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm just going to point out that the only argument the "keep" side has for notability is a few very brief reviews that discuss the topic in neither depth nor detail, but because xmonad users are apparently pure and perfect arbiters of software, we should trust any xmonad users on face value, since review standards that can literally be applied to anything else aren't relevant here. Let's not bend over backwards and do mental gymnastics in order to exclude review standards; if this topic were truly notable, we'd be able to easily find fantastic sources on this without quibbling over whether non-commercial software are "products" or fall under the broadly construable review requirements, or a review that discusses xmonad in depth and in detail. You're trying to lower a bar that's already not very high.
The only other source the "keep" side has is an interview of the developers, who note that "The code is separated into side-effect free code, and a thin wrapper for the side-effects.", hardly an indicator of notability, given that all good Haskell programmers aim to avoid side effects as much as possible. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
note - 5 WP:RS + smaller ones has not been refuted. Widefox; talk 18:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: The messy nature of this discussion has disoriented me so I may have missed new sources you've added. Can you just pick the two best sources and show them? If you can show that there are two sources that are significant, independent, and reliable, I'll change my !vote. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(see comment above - I've asked 3 or 4 times). Widefox; talk 23:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just list the two best sources with a brief sentence explaining how they're significant, independent, and reliable? I would like to conclude this already messy AFD discussion and am willing to consider these sources. I just don't know what you're talking about because I went over all the sources in the article. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Wikipedia:Notability_(software) that suggests that we can temper our requirement for sources on software projects but this is a guideline and not a policy and I'm not even sure that consensus has been reached on that since exactly these concerns around notability of OSS have remained unanswered on the talkpage of that article since 2010. Having rules around open source software could make many of these discussions less fraught. Hydrostatics (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not even a guideline; it's an essay. wumbolo ^^^ 15:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydrostatics: Have you seen this source as well? Stefania Loredana Nita; Marius Mihailescu (14 September 2017). Practical Concurrent Haskell: With Big Data Applications. Apress. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-4842-2781-7. SJK (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SJK: Yes, I saw it - it's two paragraphs, and one of them is taken directly from the XMonad website. The preceding paragraph in the text acknowledges itself that it is a brief mention. It's a repeating pattern across the sources, that XMonad gets very fleeting mentions. This is exactly the third point raised at WP:NERROR. I cannot find any substantive treatment of this topic. Hydrostatics (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydrostatics: The many sources distract from the few for notability per "two paragraphs" test on the essay (here's list of 5 from above): [31] [32], [33] (borderline [34] (paraphrased) "one of the most well known Haskell projects")... but to come back to the guideline rather than that essay...the context of "significant coverage" in WP:N is to enable an article to be written without OR. (We have RS saying it's one of the most well known projects in this language, and another saying successful example of monad. Although small, no OR was needed to use them in the article). Widefox; talk 01:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clearly notable. Coverage in both programming journals and publications aimed at end users. Discrediting of sources here is very weak, especially for Warden & Biancuzzi 2009, which is considered "primary" by delete voters—even though it's from a major publisher and contains interviews with the people who created the programming language Haskell, and not the xmonad developers. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be happy with merge. In my opinion xmonad, probably the case nearest the keep/merge boundary on this set of X window manager AfDs, now firmly stands on merit, particularly perhaps for utility in source (code) analysis. There are two approaches for determining it should be kept (as per my vote earlier), one goes per the line of DGG's reasoning, and I would advocate that. I also believe the article passed notability guidelines with references within the article itself with various references presentable for notability including Mitchell, isbn:978-1484227800, Hu et al, Swierstra, Dolstra et al, and I presume Warden & Biancuzzi 2009 (given RoseCherry64's comments). Some of these will focus on an aspect of Xmonad (e.g. source code) while others will only consider the human interface angle. Some are not neutral if used for particular claims, but are reliable in other aspects.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Djm-leighpark mentioned, the software is als notable for its codebase, which would be very off topic for that article. Wikipedia isn't paper, and such there's no real reason to squeeze it in a broad article about window managers, especially since there's a lot of coverage. RoseCherry64 (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison article is not valid as a merge target (inclusion criteria) and as I explained there's two assertions of notability, so two parents Haskell and X window manager#Tiling window managers. Merge to either and the other well sourced content is lost. Not that I see any need or consensus. Widefox; talk 01:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Joefromrandb: Do you have to attack the motives of people who disagree with you for no reason? Sunk cost is not a keep criterion. My motive here is not to "destroy content" (that only received 20-60 views per day before this, rather than the 7 billion as this comment claims), but to use an objective lens when it comes to topics like these that often receive special treatment from Wikipedia editors. Sue Gardner, former Wikimedia executive, notes that one of the reasons women don't edit wikipedia is because favoritism is shown toward articles like these while very strict standards are applied to topics that are more familiar to less hegemonic demographic groups on Wikipedia. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for fuck's sake, get real. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't believe that making Wikipedia a place that's welcoming to users of all perspectives is of real concern? I'm not sure what your comment is saying here. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're nothing if not entertaining; you can shovel it with the best of them, I'll say that. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "them"? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ubiquitous bullshitters. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur (literary device) by WP:POVFIGHTER covers it. (deleting xmonad to save female editors would be a non sequitur (fallacy), but it's a straw man). I read Sue's blog, and it actually has I ... quit because ... some pimply faced college kid knock it off by putting all manner of crazy stuff on there such as need for “reliable” sources when if they’d taken a moment to actually look at the reference they’d see they were perfectly reliable! ... [35]. Widefox; talk 01:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1)Only part of the problem is that people do not know our practices Rather, our practice are not fixed, and any of them, written or not written, can be changed if the consensus supports changing it. We make our own rules. The practical way to try to change a convention about notability is to challenge it here. Practices which depend upon consensus can never be totally stable. But we need some stability, for in practice we could not do actual work if we challenged everything back to the fundamental principles at every one of the article discussions. The burden I think is on the people who would challenge them.
(2)There is no point coming here and saying we must follow a particular general rule. We have no such obligation. People who want to work in a system of fixed rules should be instead working at a project that has them. To have fixed rules, one needs an authoritative hierarchy to make them and enforce them. The most fundamental principle behind all of Wikipedia is that we do not work in that manner. Most of the world does; we're different, and we intended to be different. The point of WP is not merely that we are here to make an encyclopedia ; we're here to show that working in an open nonauthoritative manner can produce something as monumental and valuable as a comprehensive free modern encycopedia. (There is very much an analogy to open software; it is not accidental.) It is equally disruptive to insist we follow a particular interpretation of the rules as to insist that we are a total anarchy. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that we should follow rules for the sake of following rules. I just think we should be transparent and predictable about how we implement policy. A potential editor who is interested in editing female YA articles, as in the blog post I linked above, might feel unwelcome and treated unfairly if they saw leniency applied to software, gaming, and other articles the majority are passionate about, but strict interpretation of policy is applied to other less dominant topics. It's about trying to move toward a more inclusive environment, and part of being inclusive is transparent and predictable standards rather than seemingly arbitrary whims of the majority. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 08:33, 29 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Brennan[edit]

Jeremy Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any realistic sources other than LinkedIn and Internet Movie Database which I found on the Internet may not meet WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 14 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) 15:32, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noubar Afeyan[edit]

Noubar Afeyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete There doesn't appear to be any good sources (besides PR and company announcements) to establish Noubar's notability. The sources in the article are not "independent" and rely on a primary or connected source. Fails WP:BASIC. HighKing++ 18:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 14 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) 15:31, 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. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Rugby League[edit]

World Rugby League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not the official NGB for the sport of rugby league football. The only recognised body for rugby league is the Rugby League International Federation.C0c0nutzg (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:44, 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. That's a lot of reading. Consensus is that he does not meet NPROF, and that other notability critieria (i.e. GNG) is also not met. This subject may become notable in the future, as indicated by the lengthy discussion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Turley[edit]

Steve Turley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem suffiscient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. There is no in-depth coverage of him outside few author blurbs, likely written by the subject. He doesn't pass WP:NPROF (I checked Google Scholar; he doesn't seem to have any works that are significantly cited, plus he publishes as one of several co-authors) or WP:NARTIST (writer, journalist, YouTuber); he is mildly successful on several fronts, but not enough to win any awards, recognition, coverage - or notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every award that exists at all is not an automatic notability freebie — only certain specific nationally notable awards (such as the Grammys in the case of a musician) count as notability claims, while most minor specialist or regional awards do not. The extent to which an award counts as an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself is strictly coterminous with the extent to which media can be shown to care about reporting the winners of that award as news. And neither is notability conferred on the basis of where his writing or video work has been "featured" — it's conferred on the basis of sources in which he's the subject of coverage written by other people, and not on the basis of sources in which he's the author of coverage about other things. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • noting that User:Bcschneider53 does not offer any reason why Turley would meet PROF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: I'm in the process of collecting sources to strengthen my argument. My college schedule is pretty hectic but I'm hoping I can get back to you this evening. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please feel free to ping me to revisit when you've gathered them. What would be most persuasive would be WP:SIGCOV published before he became a candidate, or a demonstration that some of his publications or activities have had WP:IMPACT described in WP:RS. But do keep in mind that, for example, keynoting a conference does not confer notability unless it is discussed in a source (such as a newspaper) with no connection to the outfit sponsoring the conference. And that it not notability in itself that keeps pages up, only the recognition/confirmation of an individual's notability in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject can do that. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bcschneider53:, I think the "Scholarship" subhead could use expansion on the subject of his thesis/book, which could be drawn from the reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: I agree. His "books" section (where the thesis/book info currently sits) has been expanded at the moment to include other titles I previously mentioned here, but also to include a couple of his self-published works, of which he has several more through CreateSpace. If his article stays, would they be notable enough to include here? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know; thought self-published works were to be avoided as much as possible, though if one of them is getting coverage in The Epoch Times, I suppose that adds credibility to the work. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel similarly to Piotrus below. The article was written in such a way to say "these books were reviewed in these places." The Oxford review talks about him - his book? - as his doctoral thesis. I looked at the article again after someone did an important WP:TNT and there's not a whole lot there - I'm not convinced he satisfies WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR, and I assumed above the author notability from the article, which said "his books were reviewed in X and Y and Z" - written as if to establish notability. Furthermore, as pointed out below, these are academic book reviews which point to academia and not authorship as we know it, and he clearly fails WP:NPROF. SportingFlyer talk 05:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: If it makes a difference, the article has been expanded again since the WP:TNT to further establish the subject's notability. I would welcome your second (or I suppose third?) opinion on it if you're willing to take another look. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bcschneider53: I think one of the problems with the article is it was originally so promotional it was hard to figure out which notability guideline it should be reviewed as. As it is now written, it appears his notability comes from WP:NPROF, but he's an adjunct/affiliate faculty member, with no showing of being enough to qualify for WP:NPROF. The other news sources appear to cover him as a student and would not get him to alternative guidelines under WP:NMUSIC. WP:AUTHOR has been previously discussed. As a whole, I just don't think WP:GNG is met. SportingFlyer talk 20:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are completely wrong from start to finish. Book reviews are what make an author in the humanities notable. Citations are largely irrelevant because these are low citation fields to begin with. Two citations is not that bad for some of these fields. James500 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the article shows good signs of bing a promotional bio: the inclusion of his non-notable work in multiple unrelated fields, the quote about why he switched fields --both of them are characteristic of over-personal promotional bios. I am strongly in favor of increasing our coverage of scholars in the humanities, and religion has been especially neglected here. There are tens of thousands of needed bios of those who are actually notable/ DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I took your point, removed PROMO form the page, and ran a couple of additional searches using Stephen, Steve, middle initial keywords. Added a brief but well-sourced section on his career as a classical guitarist (long profile in the Baltimore Sun, and material from an interesting, lengthy analysis of his scripture-tinged political commentary drawn from somebody's recent PhD dissertation. I think this will satisfy your concerns.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @DGG: Turley has actually published more than one book; his T&T Clark work is certainly his most notable, but he has published and co-authored several others through Classical Academic Press and Canon Press. (Just a few examples: 1 2 3.) And "no regular academic position at a university"? This is his 20th year at Eastern in the same position he has always held: professor of world music and aesthetics. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had searches the first 2 of the 3 titles you mention before I wrote my first comment, I couldn't find any SECONDARY sources, news articles, reviews. There really seems to be very little about him in WP:RS, just one book reviewed in scholarly journals.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see DGG's point. Bcschneider53's here's a good rule of thumb: If you can't source something to WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent, WP:RS - it doesn't belong on the page. Also, writing opinion columns in NOT NOTABLE and does not get onto the page. The exception is people who become such well known commentators that other people write articles in WP:RS publications about the fact that they write opinion columns, I have taken out all of the youtube, musician, political commentator hype out of both the text and the infobox. What we can source is his 2015 book and his post as a college professor. I'm thinking.... I may come back and strike my opinion. Gonna think it over.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. Yes, notability is still an issue. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as a Christian trade publication because Christianity is not a trade. James500 (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are highly regarded scholarly journals, absolutely WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exaggerations and puffery" He is not a professor, and not even full time university faculty in any sense. His web page at Eastern says "Affiliate Faculty; Specialty: World Music, Theology, Classical Guitar " and "Stephen Turley is a part-time teacher of world music and aesthetics at Eastern University, and a full-time faculty member at Tall Oaks Classical School" [38]. In other words, he is a high school teacher with a part time adjunct position at a university. 2/WP:PROF does not apply to him. because he is not a professor of any sort, nor a researcher or scholar. He wrote a PhD thesis, and published it as a book. That's not enough to call someone a scholar, even loosely. Nor do we call high school teachers professors, or even academics. 3/ But even though it does not apply here, I do point out the WP:PROF does not require secondary sources, just RS that its requirements be met--it is a specific exception to the GNG . There is little consensus about the relationship of the other special notability guidelines to the GNG, but this one is written down explicitly. For WP:PROF, the standard fot books is publication by a major academic press, but again, the requirement is several books. The standards isn't reviews, because If it is published by a major academic press, there are always reviews in academic journals--but regardless of reviews, any number of non academic books do not contribute to notability under WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is verifiably a scholar. We do not hold lack of a full-time appointment against people who publish veritably scholarly books and articles. There are independent scholars, and part-time faculty who do highly regarded work. Some work for indsutry, some teach high school, if his job is cited inaccurately FIX IT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Henry College, a highly respected private classical liberal arts college in Virginia where Turley has given lectures in the past, considers him to be a "professor of Fine Arts" at Eastern. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just did a Google search and the subject shows up on conspiracy theorist sites as a spokesperson. Just my take on it, but this Wiki article appears to be a possible effort at legitimizing the subject. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AuthorAuthor: What “conspiracy theory sites” is he showing up on? I’m genuinely curious, because I researched him extensively and was not aware of any. I suppose it’s not a big deal now since this ultimately has little to no chance of surviving AfD at this point but I want to be very clear that legitimizing a “conspiracy theorist” was not my intention in creating this article. —Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bcschneider53:, I did not see them at first either. He is all over nationalist sites and on YouTube as a conspiracy theorist, including promoting the 15,000 white South African farmers conspiracy. I would hate to repost any of those sites and YouTube channels here so I will not be sharing. If you continue paging down on Google, you will come across them. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • AuthorAuthor, I think we need to be extremely careful about branding living people as "conspiracy theorists," even on talk pages. Turly was among the many Americans who fell for this [39] July 9 fake news story from Russia Today. I never use Russia Today as a source on anything, I don't trust RT and I personally do not regard it as a reliable source on anything, not even on whether it's snowing in Moscow. But you're proposing to delete a BLP because the subject repeated one of RT's fake news stories on social media. Frankly who among us has never retweeted a fake news story? I remember one I swallowed whole, it was written by one of the most highly regarded journalists at the New York Times and stated that she (the journalist) had verified that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction...... but I digress. For a broader view of Turley, look at this report on Right Wing Watch, an outfit I would trust to know how far out there a YouTube personality is. Their July 2017 report: Writer Calls Trump Presidency ‘Redemptive,’ Part Of ‘Trajectory’ To Bring Us Pence portrays Turley as a conservative Christian who likes Trump but who would strongly prefer to have an evangelical Christian like Mike Pence in the Oval Office. According to Right Wing Watch, we're not talking Alex Jones here. Just a theology and music teacher who has a non-notable YouTube blog. And who supports "conservative nationalist populism" - his own words; prompted by AuthorAuthor's assertions I listened. I get that AuthorAuthor finds Turley's politically abhorrent, but the fact that an editor disagrees politically with the subject of a page is not an argument for deleting the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a vote. It is a discussion about policy, notability, and sufficiency of sources, not a nose count. I suggest you read the link on the template.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: I know it's not a vote, hence why I said: "I know AfD is not based on a popular vote." I was just trying to analyze the general overview of where this stands at the moment. I've participated in AfDs before and am generally speaking familiar with the process. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think Turley meets criteria No. 1 under WP:NACADEMIC, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." His dissertation (and subsequent publication) was a specialized study that broke new ground on rituals in early Christianity, receiving multiple scholarly reviews as well as one by prominent NT scholar Peter Leithart. The project was also overseen by Durham's John M. G. Barclay, one of the most influential NT scholars of this era. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
not every doctoral student overseen by a notable scholar is notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Tornheim: David, you have to be kidding me. I'm an editor with good intentions trying to make this project the best it can be. What happened to assuming good faith? I created the page because I believed he was notable enough on his academics and mistakenly included other non-notable things in an effort to make the page as complete as possible. As far as secondary sources, what refs are you talking about that "go to something other than what they are supposed to be sourced to?" Or that are a "joke" (as you mention in your edit summary)? E.M. Gregory did a great job revamping the article to fill in holes that I had previously missed to further establish his academics and political commentary. The first two refs seem to be behind a paywall so I'll fix that by adding a note to that in the refs, but please don't just assume that this page was created as a joke. I made some honest mistakes, yes, but I had no malicious intentions whatsoever. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the first two refs from this version. They both go to Columbia University libraries rather than where the refs say they go to. I see that the first one has been fixed to [41] in the more recent version. That's better. I'm glad to hear it's not a joke. I will reconsider now that at least some of the refs are fixed. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These 2 articles were linked to link to Proquest News Archive, it is paywalled. It is an article in Newsday about a concert in which Turley played, the other is a long feature story in the Baltimore Sun about Turley as a young concert musician. Our policy is to WP:AGF about paywalled references. Line book reviews, a PROFILE article in a major daily papers demonstrates notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • H-index is useful for some fields, less so for biblical studies where serious work is published in books, and it can take years for a well-received book to be cited in other books. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in thew few years when he gets such cites this can be restored. WP:TOOSOON, simply. Biblical studies or whatever don't get exception to needing citations, two cites, no matter what discipline, even most esoteric, simply means no impact. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: Does it really make a difference how notable a work in a lesser-studied field is if it has three citations or thirty? The number of citations doesn't change the work or its content itself. It is still a scholarly work that broke new ground in the NT field in the area of early Christian rituals. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: I have updated the article with quotes from the reviews. I hope these will be convincing enough to show the importance and impact of his work in the field of NT rituals. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, most book reviews are positive. Impact is measured through citations, not reviews. As DGG said, publishers sent books to many journals, and usually a book gets reviewed somewhere. Now, as I said, this may be enough to prove the notability of a book. But not of an autor. WP:NAUTHOR does not contain a criteria "publish a single work which gets several reviews". Just like, analogically, video games are notable if they get several reviews, but their publishing company does not become automatically notable when that happens. Notability is not inherited. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Turley has been reviewed by multiple scholarly (and thus reliable) journals who emphasize the impact his work has had in the field of New Testament rituals. What part of the quoted criteria exactly is he failing to meet? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Others (specifically E.M.Gregory above) have brought up an important point that it sometimes takes years for scholarly reviews to start coming in, especially for lesser-researched fields. I just found another review here from Catholic Biblical Quarterly via EBSCO that was not published until about a year and a half after Turley's book went to print (January 2017). The citation also calls Turley's writing "both an engaging and important work" that "added a dimension to the reading of Paul by employing approaches found in cognate fields of study, in this case ritual." --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Persistent and well-based arguments for and against NAUTHOR, PROF and the likes till the very end lead to no consensus being evident currently; relisting the Afd for the next week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we grant that "all" he has done in the field of academics is publish a single book (again, he has several others but this is only scholarly reviewed and cited one), his former career as a guitarist received coverage in The Baltimore Sun and serious people such as Rod Dreher and Pat Buchanan have engaged with his political commentary. I can see why the TOOSOON argument might be made for his academics (though I of course disagree), but what about the other claims to notability which E.M.Gregory highlights above? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that notable people have discussed politics with him does not make him notable; there is also no evidence he meets NMUSIC. Being non0notable in 3 fields does not make one notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I am more impressed that Peter Leithart engaged with Turley's book at length. But do note that notability by WP standards can certainly be cumulative.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: So you're telling me that Leithart shouldn't be considered a credible scholar based on his 30-something-year-old opinion of a board game? That seems a bit unfair. I don't think this discussion is going to get very far if we start criticizing people for something that unrelated to the subject at hand. So Leithart doesn't like Dungeons & Dragons. Okay. Fine. What does that have to do with Turley's article? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bcschneider53: Nothing, I was just replying to your comment about being impressed by Leithart. I am not (as in, neither impressed by his research, personally, nor by the fact that he reviewed that book). Not that I am saying it is a bad source, but Leithart is not one of the top dogs in his field - just one of many middling (notable, but not famous) scholars. Going back on topic, if Turley was close to Leithart's level of achievements, he would be notable. But he is not. Leithart is good comparison - he has more publications, dozens of citations, he seems to pass PROF. When Turley has similar resume, he can pass PROF too. For now, he doesn't. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's how notability works: One book gets WP:SIGCOV from "Peter Leinhart," in your words above "Not that I am saying it is a bad source;" Another book gets a long newspaper interview, as you say "certainly a nice addition to external links;" 5 or 6 scholarly journals review a book; Somebody devotes several pages in his doctoral dissertation to analyzing your work; Rod Dreher goes INDEPTH on an article you wrote; the Baltimore Sun runs a long feature story about you, and you pass WP:NOTABILITY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that canvassing. I have been known to change my mind as a discussion continues. I work on too many different things to follow them myself, and I rely on people to suggest where I might want to comment, or comment again, or change my comment. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Timtempleton: So let me get this straight: an article with references to The Baltimore Sun, Epoch Times, Newsday, three scholarly journals, and a two-part INDEPTH analysis from Peter Leithart is "poor"? If that's the case, I reckon the standards for this are far too high; this isn't a Good Article nomination on our hands here...I think this is more than enough to warrant the article's existence. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, or as I'd put it, mentions in passing and business-as-usual routine reviews of a single book. Which do not suffice for an article at all, not too mention would be laughed out by any competent GA reviewer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but that's the point; I'm not suggesting this is a GA. I am suggesting that this has several reliable and scholarly sources, and if that "does not suffice for an article at all," then I'm not sure what does. Though of course, both of us are so set on our opinions that continuing to argue in circles like we have for the last three weeks isn't going to get us anywhere. I believe E.M.Gregory and I (though mostly him, credit where it's due) have vastly improved the article through enough secondary sources to establish that the subject is notable in his respective fields. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Baltimore Sun piece is a 27 year old human interest story about someone's 4th place finish in a competition. That's a reliable source, but isn't enough. You can find examples of similar arguments being made on the talk pages of 3rd and 4th place beauty pageant finalists, if any of those articles are left. If you found 7-9 more reliable sources about him, and they included at least two in-depth profiles, we'd be on the same notability page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: I will do that. Thanks again for your efforts in helping improve the article; I truly appreciate it.
  • To the closing admin, if this cannot be kept, I would like to request that it at least go back into my user space (per User:David Tornheim's suggestion) so that we can continue to improve it as the subject's notability rises. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned above that "Patrick Henry College, a highly respected private classical liberal arts college in Virginia where Turley has given lectures in the past, considers him to be a "professor of Fine Arts" at Eastern." But that's just an example of his puffery. When a someone gives a lecture at a college (or anywhere else), they are asked to submit a brief biography for the lecture announcement. Either he wrote it, or his publicist, or his lecture agency. It does not represent their considered opinion--its a blurb. He's a high school teacher and an adjunct, who apparently would like to consider himself a college professor, even though he has actually published essentially nothing after his thesis. (I see no reason to userify--the previous career gives no hint that he will be more notable subsequently) DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 3 October 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 / SNOW. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Delvey[edit]

Anna Delvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Only sources suitable for use in article is a single news article about a routine crime in a single local newspaper. All other sources available are primary documents (court filings and the like) or unreliable or similarly trivial to the one currently there as of this nomination. --Jayron32 14:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet made up my mind whether they are sufficient to establish notability under WP:PERP or WP:BASIC, although I'm leaning keep at this point. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an op/ed piece, filled with editorializations and opinions of the author, and written in a novelesque format rather than journalistic. Not everything printed by a newspaper or magazine is reliable even if the actual news stories and articles they print are. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 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 no consensus. Opinion is divided about whether the mentions of the ship in some literature are enough to pass WP:GNG. That's not something for me to decide by fiat. Perhaps editors should wait until the poor Incomparable becomes shipgirlified in Japan, at which point there will be reams of anime and manga to draw upon as sources ... Sandstein 12:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Incomparable[edit]

HMS Incomparable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on an unbuilt battlecruiser is not notable. The ship is not listed in any of the essential references on ships of its type in the Royal Navy. Not Silverstone's Directory of the World's Capital Ships, not Gardiner & Gray's Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1922, not Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905–1970, not Roberts' British Battlecruisers 1905–1920, not Parkes' British Battleships 1860–1950, nor Friedman's British Battleships 1906–1946. There are, however, a few paragraphs on it in Sumida's In Defence of Naval Supremacy, but they merely discuss Admiral Sir Jackie Fisher's proposals, neither of which were accepted by the Royal Navy, nor even granted a design review by its naval architect, the Director of Naval Construction. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Ships and WP:MilHist have been notified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This rationale isn't actually true. It is in the Breyer book. The Land (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above-mentioned rationales include other ideas such as merger. Please see WP:PERX. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I am choosing the delete option provided and ignoring the upmerge option as I see no point in keeping just Fisher's designs. This seems fancrufty in my opinion by giving undue weight to Fisher over all other ship designers. Llammakey (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:10, 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 no consensus. There was much discussion but little conclusion, even after four weeks and three relists. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Du English[edit]

Ray Du English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no significant coverage of reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. The editor whose username is Z0 12:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@台北人: Sources do not have to be in English. Quite often that is now well understood. Sam Sailor 17:22, 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 05:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alt. search term: 阿滴英文
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sam Sailor, I can't tell if they're very popular in those regions but usually a subject's notability on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not Google search results. Searching for "Ray Du English", "Atsuto Utsumi" (translated spelling of 阿滴英文) or "A Drop English" (apparent meaning of Ray Du English) brings up unhelpful sources. I don't speak Chinese so I cannot verify if the Chinese sources are legitimate. This article on zh.wiki has some sources in Chinese but looking through a bunch of them shows they appear to not constitute what is required by the general notability guideline. I can't say for certain that these sources[46][47][48][49] in the ZH article are usable in establishing notability because they do not seem reliable or independent (to me, at least). Flooded with them hundreds 17:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: I don't speak Chinese so I cannot verify if the Chinese sources are legitimate. Exactly. You are judging them on the lack of English language sources, not on the available sources. Basically a useless nomination. What do you think we should do here? Sam Sailor 18:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've already said I've gone through the non-English sources and found that they might not constitute reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What I meant in the quoted sentence is "I'm not an expert in Chinese but judging from a Google translation these sources do not appear to be legitimate, and thus I cannot verify if they can be used in establishing notability", and it is completely appropriate to clear my doubts by bringing the article here. Flooded with them hundreds 07:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As no consensus is evident despite this Afd getting listed twice, listing it one concluding time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 13:57, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kerosene Island, Bermuda[edit]

Kerosene Island, Bermuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence this island actually exists. The coordinates are for a different island, and I suspect there may be a combination of citogenesis and a poor database. I removed a blatant hoax, and there's nothing left. Creator is banned but not sure if they hoaxed. If there were proof that this was the former name of an island then redirection should apply. AFD not PROD due to potential for good faith recreation. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Kotite[edit]

Toni Kotite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The director of an off-broadway musical (mentioned in the first source), whose film career didn't work out (the film she directed, "kevin approaches", seems never to have materialized, and imdb only lists other projects "in development"): now she has a "dog grooming business", but the source is a press release, not a reliable independent source, despite the note "from the news desk" at the top. In general, I see lots of announcements and very little actual achievements, and little attention for her besides these regurgitated press releases about new films or plays. Fram (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about #2., "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." for Eating Raoul? She played a major role (directing the musical) ? A loose noose (talk) 23:07, 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. Michig (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baranagar Ramakrishna Mission people[edit]

List of Baranagar Ramakrishna Mission people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Uncredited, unsourced, unnecessary split from Baranagore Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama High School. A list of 4 people doesn't need a separate article. Cabayi (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:16, 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 Draftified by creator. The draft shall be mandatorily vetted by a third party aprior to being main-spaced and shall the creator choose to move it back by himself, this close gives express permission for of revertion(s) of the same, subject to common sense. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 19:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Arora[edit]

Naresh Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political operative. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:18, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funded companies in India[edit]

Funded companies in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is apparently a list of startups in India founded by venture capitalists, followed by what seems to be a list of startups not funded by venture capitalists. Almost none of the companies of projects listed here are notable. I think this violates NOT DIRECTORY.

It is the work of a now banned paid editor, though it is not clear who might have paid him for this particular article. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:21, 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. Michig (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Artist Series[edit]

New York Artist Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page for a business interest. GNG fail: I cannot find enough RS. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:22, 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Grand Rapids FC women season[edit]

2018 Grand Rapids FC women season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:NSEASONS for two reasons. First, the team plays in United Women's Soccer, a Division II league in the United States, not a top professional league. Second, WP:NSEASONS says that "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original], and this article contains none of that. The lack of prose in the article causes it to run afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, which is another reason to delete it if not rectified. It is questionable whether there is enough independent, reliable coverage from which information can be drawn to write enough prose that would make the article consist mainly of well-sourced prose. While there is some local media coverage, this is routine and not significant and fails to rise to the level needed to satisfy the presumption of notability under WP:GNG. That guideline indicates that even where an article achieves the presumption of notability, the results of a common-sense discussion should prevail. Common sense tells me that the 2018 season of the Grand Rapids FC women was not so much more notable than the seasons of all 26 other UWS clubs that it is the only one that merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. The club didn't win its league's championship, and there does not appear to be anything special or notable about this club's season. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki rabbit hole[edit]

Wiki rabbit hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Certainly doesn't look to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Delete or merge to Wikipedia#Readership. SD0001 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such rabbit holes look to be notable only in the context of Wikipedia (not for wikis in general). The section Wikipeda#Cultural impact (or Wikipeda#Readership within that) are the most suitable places to move this content to. SD0001 (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001: If this content is merged into Wikipedia or wherever else then next someone would say that 8 sentences are WP:UNDUE, then someone would cut the 8 sentences + citations to 1. I would agree with that - 8 sentences and potential expansion of this is too much for the general article on Wikipedia. At the time of cutting it to 1 then that triggers justification for splitting the topic into its own article. The topic meets WP:GNG so it merits an article. If the objection is saying Wiki versus Wikipedia then this article could be renamed to "Wikipedia rabbit hole". Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 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 00:41, 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. Kept as nominator changed their vote to Keep. (non-admin closure) Dial911 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jevon O'Neill[edit]

Jevon O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. The only secondary coverage I find is about his films and mentions him incidentally. Rogermx (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:02, 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 00:41, 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. It seems that everyone in this discussion believes the subject is notable. Michig (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Canton[edit]

James Canton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article without substantial encyclopedic content. Lots of affiliations given but no direct description of role or relevance of subject. 4 in-line sources only support statements about being on advisory boards. All the rest is completely unsourced and filled with puffery. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fully agree that the subject is notable, but still can’t see much worth keeping in the article. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:33, 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 03:05, 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 00:40, 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. Consensus was that Townsend-Small passes WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Townsend-Small[edit]

Amy Townsend-Small (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. No independent sources showing they have had a significant impact in their dicipline, no highly pretigious awards (their award from the OEC was not at a national or international level), not a member of a scholarly society, no indication that their work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, they are only an associate professor, haven't held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution, have not had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, and have not been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 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 00:35, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Lacerda[edit]

Julio Lacerda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Great art, but I'm not seeing the notability of the artist as a person. Having artwork used in museum exhibits (assuming that is what the first source states) seems hardly sufficient to fulfill any criteria, and the other two sources are passing mentions. My googling doesn't reveal anything more suitable either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale for creation of the article was Julio's section in Steve White's book, Dinosaur Art II. Here he does not just have a passing mention, he has an entire 11-page section about him and his art. Nevertheless, I agree the case is borderline so I understand if this is not notable enough for Wikipedia. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you agree it's borderline? Because that is what Ferhago says. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 15:51, 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 00:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:23, 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. The dab / redirect issue can be addressed editorially. Sandstein 12:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Mine[edit]

Emerald Mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable video game series, fails WP:GNG. Lordtobi (✉) 20:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 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 00:28, 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 merge to The Partland Brothers. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Honey (Partland Brothers album)[edit]

Electric Honey (Partland Brothers album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately referenced article about an album whose strongest real notability claim is that it exists. The fact that a band may have an article about them as a band does not mean that each of their albums automatically inherits an inclusion freebie as a separate topic, but the only other real basis for notability here is that it grazed the bottoms of the album charts in Canada (#92) and the United States (#146), which are not high enough chart positions to deem the album "inherently" notable on that basis in the absence of any other evidence. The sourcing here isn't impressive, either: there's one very short blurb of an album review (which is not substantive enough to carry a WP:GNG pass all by itself), its own primary source buy-it page on iTunes (which is not a notability-assisting source) and the nominal verification of one of its unexceptional chart positions -- and even when I refimproved the band's article the other day, I found virtually no coverage at all that would bolster the notability of the album: the band's initial coverage was entirely in the context of the modestly popular (but not a megahit) single "Soul City" rather than the whole album, and then after that they jumped straight to the "one-hit wonders try for comeback" phase of their careers without the album itself getting any non-trivial attention at all. Basically, there's just no substantive reason why the album needs its own standalone article independently of having its title listed in the band's discography. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:13, 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 00:26, 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. Michig (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Krebs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ed Krebs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to have really anything to work with as far as sources online. There is apparently an architect by the same name who is likely more notable than this fellow. The first AfD from 2005 was fairly anemic, with keep !votes like If Amazon sells his books, he's notable enough. Both his website have since been shuttered. His "published works" actually seems to consist not of four of his books, but one children's book he co-authored, and three other books he contributed illustrations for, which doesn't really bump him up in terms of notability as an author. GMGtalk 18:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Tu'us[edit]

Jabal Tu'us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can not find sources on this hill that would make it pass WP:GEOLAND. Sam Sailor 00:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:10, 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.

Jabal Zikt[edit]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 13:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Jabal Zikt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can not find sources on this hill that would make it pass WP:GEOLAND. Sam Sailor 00:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SpinningSpark 08:46, 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. Michig (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of names for turkeys[edit]

List of names for turkeys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:NOT; this is a list of translations of Turkey (bird) into various languages. Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:45, 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.
More