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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Small VC firm with very little funds that fails WP:CORP. All coverage is in passing in minor local publications, except perhaps this one, which is still as part of a group of companies featured. Rest is blogs, press releases, minor or otherwise non-independent coverage (most of which is actually about companies they participate in financing. PK650 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. I wouldn't consider the Crunchbase article mentioned in the nom statement to be significant, it barely says anything about Cultivation Capital. signed, Rosguilltalk 04:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:CORP, Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, so I don't think it has passed the general requirements.-Nahal(T) 20:41, 17 December 2019 (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. Avi (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2019 (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.
Comment I've tagged the article for speedy deletion under A7. The article's creator has submitted Draft:SABYNYC DJ multiple times and has been rejected each time. Clear attempt to game the system. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! GPL93 why didn’t i think of that??? Thanks!!! Celestina007 (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: No problem. Good catch by you in the first place. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 13:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article is about a certain Joe Massa but 80% of the references talks about his brother a Christian Massa. Subject of the article hasn’t received enough significant coverage in RS hence falls short of WP:GNGCelestina007 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the articles that I found on google in relation to the subject all contain information that is pertinent to the article. Several of the articles are written solely and in depth about the subject - all of which are reputable sources posted by official newspapers/outlets. The remaining articles in question (that you are referring to as being about Christian Massa) still support the subject as it appears that the work created by Joe Massa, was a dual effort and was done with his brother, thus directly relates to Joe Massa. It is in this manner that I feel the articles support this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidden Hills Editor (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage that isn't actually just about his brother falls well short of notability standards, both general and industry specific. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No evidence of him playing in Liga 1 matches, which is the only FPL in Indonesia. BlameRuiner (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His club are currently in Liga 1 but there is nothing to show that he has played for them in Liga 1. I'm not certain but it looks as if they were in the lower league when he made his appearances. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any national or state-level office that would grant an automatic pass of WP:NPOL #1, and the article isn't referenced anywhere near well enough to clear NPOL #2 (where the bar is "significant press coverage", not just "he is verifiable as existing".) Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only of local interest. Graywalls (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local politician, Fail WP:NPOL.-Nahal(T) 23:16, 17 December 2019 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elive (the deletion rationale here is the same as there); this recreation does not seem similar enough in content to meet Wikipedia:G4, but it does not address the issues raised previously either. Glades12 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable, the current article is still questionable for the applicable notability. -- Editor-1 (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any national or state-level office that would grant an automatic pass of WP:NPOL #1, and with just one source it isn't referenced anywhere near well enough to clear NPOL #2 (where the bar is "significant press coverage", not just "he is verifiable as existing".) Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, no coverage in major media outlets, just primary sources and a name drop by Rob Thomas (musician)Praxidicae (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This was a declined WP:A7; there is no RS here on the actual band as a subject outside of mentions in their blogs/instagram etc. Zero WP:SIGCOV. Britishfinance (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't find any reliable source which pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. The most important its clear WP:TOOSOON. he nothing won or nominated. an also some source found but there is no coverage in the big media.-Nahal(T) 20:54, 17 December 2019 (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, albeit weakly. BD2412T 04:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore the references provided in the article doesn’t establish notability for subject of article. He fails WP:SINGER & WP:GNGCelestina007 (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but how does that stack up against NMUSIC? Gossip rags are not reliable sources, being signed to a label doesn't establish notability, and are any of those nominations notable? PK650 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Bearian, I think PK650 is right and from your own observations and remarks it provides a good rationale for why the article should indeed be deleted. If he is up and coming and perhaps in the future would get notable then this is a case of WP:TOOSOON article may be recreated at a time when there are reliable sources we can work with what do you think/say?Celestina007 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NMUSIC good coverage can pass criteria 1 as can another criteria of having two albums released on a major label though he only has singles so doesn't pass that one, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide such sources? I only found this one, which I can't access for some reason. PK650 (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has significant coverage in reliable sources as specified by Bearian such as Nigeria Tribune and has also been nominated for a notable award The Headies 2016, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources presented above, two are short event announcements, one is a photo gallery, and I am unsure as to the reliability of the other two (musicinafrica & thenet.ng). I am just not seeing "good coverage" in reliable sources. PK650 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some problem with the sources. If someone can't get better sources, it might not be kept. I still have an open mind. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Tribune ref seems sig cov in a reliable source and his award and noms are covered in some of the others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any case the Tribune article would be one source, not significant coverage. Award nomination articles listing him among others is also not significant coverage. What needs to be determined is whether these Nigerian awards are evidence of notability, a fact which nobody here has been able to prove/disprove. PK650 (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, having been nominated for several Nigerian national music awards and won one. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2019 (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. She may have been part of a newsworthy story but per the discussion does not evince Wikipedia notability. No prejudice against recreating the article should she become notable. Avi (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NOTINHERITED notability isn’t inherited. Article creator says subject of article is a photographer but she fails WP:CREATIVECelestina007 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "presentism" means. Sorry! But I think the fact her father is a sexual assaulter who did not get the police involved when his daughter was assaulted is a part of the overall story. His refusal to take responsibility extended to people who attacked his family.
I think Erinn's backstory of sexual assault allegations against Mike Tyson and her father's response to her are newsworthy. Her father did not protect her from her assaulter and then he himselfeventually went to prison for sexual assault while Erinn defended him. Her career as a photographer could be a quiet one and not showy. Erinn went on television to talk about her assault. Thank you! Happy to debate some more! Margodono (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above comment illustrates a problem in reasoning. Wikipedia is not news. Events being newsworthy does not make them notable. Wikipedia is already bloated enough with presentism. Anything of note can be covered in the article on Tyson. There is no reason to have this stand alone article on Erinn Cosby.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
°I don't know what "presentism" means. Sorry! But I think the fact her father is a sexual assaulter who did not get the police involved when his daughter was sexually assaulted by a man who also went to jail for assault is a part of the overall story. Cosby's refusal to take responsibility extended to people who attacked his family. She is a part of two events, two men whose stories are featured in Wiki. Margodono (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with what's been said above. If the abuse is notable for inclusion, it could easily be incorporated into the pertinent articles, but Erinn is most certainly non-notable as there are nill sources about her, in print or online. PK650 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Wikipedia isn't news. Reads like a story. It must satisfy WP:BASIC. Fails WP:BIO. Should have been speedied as A7. scope_creepTalk 11:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional character from Greyhawk, a D&D setting. No secondary sources cited, no evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the nom stated, there are no secondary sources included in the article, and I have not been able to find any real coverage in reliable, secondary sources upon searching for them. It could possibly be redirected to Greyhawk, where she is briefly mentioned, but as there is nothing here but in-universe plot information, there is nothing that should really be merged there. Rorshacma (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to more comprehensive topic such as Greyhawk where the fictional character seems significant. No need to delete information for those seeking it. This might not need a stand-alone page, but destroying the info isn't appropriate, either. Also, there's a massive recent glut of numerous D&D-related articles being slapped with AFDs or PRODs and voted for deletion using derogatory and inflammatory language (visible here), resulting in Redirection within hours without any consensus or discussion. (and, yes, I realize they don't have to have permission, but, it's still gives the appearance of lack of regard). (Please note: language such as "Fancruft" or "gamecruft" should be avoided in the future; as definied by WP "... regarded as pejorative and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil.") - IcarusATB (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Icarus: I am very happy to argue to keep articles that should be kept (and do), and to merge content when there is an appropriate target (and do). Some content has to go, though - huge long plot summaries, or discussion of exceedingly minor characters, game-guide material, excessive use of non-free content... The problem with D&D (and Transformers, and Tolkein...) coverage has been clear for years, and "high-level" discussions have had limited impact. This steady stream of deletion nominations really seems to be the appropriate and effective way forward. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you're right about dismissive or "battleground" language, though. Do please call me out if you think I'm being needlessly unpleasant. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability. The idea that all fictional information must be retained is faulty. This is a general encyclopedia, so there is a limit to the depth it can cover in terms of pure fiction. TTN (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Circle of Eight. I just see non-merge-worthy PLOT with a strong IN-UNIVERSE focus, e.g. the "History" section is about the character's fictional history rather than her publication and creation history. – sgeurekat•c 08:51, 20 December 2019 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional location in Greyhawk, a D&D setting. No secondary sources cited, no evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor fictional location, with no reliable secondary sources, so it fails the WP:GNG. The name is also very generic, and there are a number of other things using the name/term, so using it as a Redirect would not be a good idea. Rorshacma (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as above. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you envision it in the target article? What do you envisage keeping? I would have no objection to you completing the merge right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:GNG, is nothing but a plot description, and besides it having a generic name there is no redirect target that meets the notability threshold. Devonian Wombat (talk 05:07, 17 December 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable fancruft article with only in-universe content and no significant media coverage. The one sentence in Andromeda (TV series)#Premise is quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2019 (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. Does not exhibit significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. Avi (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few articles mention this company, but only in passing (unless I'm missing something). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 11 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry[edit]
Article created by obvious COI editor with no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article are all either self-cites or at best passing mentions. WP:BEFORE does not disclose any cites that would qualify under WP:NORG. There is a lot of "this organization is a partner" type references in stories about other topics or "FESI says skiing will continue to grow" and other WP:MILL routine business coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 19:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Definitely fails GNG and I agree there is COI here too. Can it not be speedy deleted? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find really any RS that was specifically on this subject as a topic (e.g. no WP:SIGCOV); all I find are PR Newswire/Reuters-type releases on him as CEO of his firm Prospect Capital (which is slightly more notable), and some mentions of donations by his family foundation. No material RS wants to cover him as a dedicated subject (e.g. no Wall Street Journal profile/bio, which is a core part of any Wall Street BLP in my view), so why should Wikipedia? Possibly a Redirect to his firm Prospect Capital Management instead? Britishfinance (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just notice that his firm's WP article Prospect Capital Management, was also just created by the same relatively new editor Finguru888, who despite having just 16 edits, was able to write this entire article in one go and publish it without any other edits. Precocious talent. Britishfinance (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apologies if this did not meet the notability standards. I was doing a research project on the company Prospect Capital Management and its CEO and wanted to try publishing it. I just took the templates from other similar topics and edited them to properly fit. The CEO may not fit the notability standards but does the company at least?. Finguru888 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2019
Speedy Delete An almost identical draft was rejected via AfC last year. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An attempt to game the system. scope_creepTalk 17:38, 15 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:MMABIO for not having fought in any top tier promotion and not having any major achievements. As for the competition in IBJJF (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) is not a black belt championship. Content on his fights are standard routine reports - fails WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA(talk) 19:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'd encourage a speedy considering it's basically an unsourced (with really controversial content) BLP too. Praxidicae (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has 1 victory in 6 fights in low level pro MMA events, his BJJ accomplishments were not anywhere close to being at the black belt level, and there is no significant independent coverage. He fails WP:NMMA, WP:MANOTE, and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article doesn’t possess in-depth significant coverage in Reliable sources. Most sources given in the article are not reliable sources. Subject of article fails WP:GNG & WP:SINGER. Furthermore a similar article on subject of article has once been deleted in the past. Celestina007 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly non-notable. Couldn't find independent reliable sources that didn't cover him in passing as a "producer". PK650 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I acknowledge my error in !voting otherwise in the AfD five years ago. See, you can teach an old dog new tricks. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The passing coverage in industry publications of ventures involving the subject are insufficient to establish his biographical notability. Past involvement in signing Katherine Jenkins and subsequent ventures with Simon Napier-Belldo not provide notability. I am seeing nothing to overturn the 2014 AfD consensus on the prior version. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable fails WP:GNG.-Nahal(T) 23:12, 17 December 2019 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said last time, this is an overly promotional article. It might be possible to fix, but there is no sign of any real notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion in Russian Wikipedia means nothing. They can delete a notable individual (which this one is) but leave a not notable milking lady who have either Hero of Socialist Labour or Order of Lenin, or both. Link.--Biografer (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. Nothing stated in the article is an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt a person from actually having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing — but the sources here are a user-generated discussion forum, which is not valid support for notability at all, and a magazine article in which he's the speaker and not the subject, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only media source in play. And furthermore, this is written far more like a résumé than like a proper encyclopedia article, and even politicians who cleanly pass NPOL right on its face still don't get to have an article that's written and formatted this way. If somebody can do better, writing it properly and showing much better evidence of reliable sourcing than this shows, then by all means bring it on — but this, as written and sourced, is not good enough. And finally, the notability bar is not passed simply by asserting it as a given that he's more notable than an unnamed "milking lady" — it's passed by showing some evidence that he passes our notability criteria, namely by finding and showing better notability-supporting sources. Furthermore, this represents no significant improvement over the version that was deleted in 2015, but rather was recreated as a straight copy-paste of the first version, meaning it really should have been speedied as a recreation of deleted content right away rather than surviving four more years. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Have you read the other statement that I wrote? In the second statement I said he meets WP:PROF #3 per this. The fact that the article is a mess, yes, heartily agree. But we don't delete articles here for being promotional or what not, we fix or trim them instead.--Biografer (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a reliable source for the purposes of establishing his notability per WP:PROF either. Even that notability criterion is not automatically passed just because it's technically confirmable in a bad or unreliable source — it still has to be supported by a non-trivial kind and volume of reliable sourcing, such as analysis of his academic work in academic journals, before a person actually gets that pass. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promo article for a non notable chef that fails WP:BIO/WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. References in article doesn’t even mention subject of the article Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable chef. I don't understand "References in article doesn’t even mention subject of the article" above: refs 1-7 certainly do, one being a major profile in Evening Standard. Awards,books coauthored, etc. PamD 12:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have expanded the content about her books, with review/interview in The Observer adding to her notability. PamD 12:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article in its current form demonstrates general notability. Schwede66 14:13, 11 December 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. This was originally started as an extremely WP:PROMO article by a single-purpose account (see this AFD for more details). It has subsequently been edited to eliminate the WP:PROMO material, however this leaves the only references to reliable sources being references to the defamation case which ADVFN was involved in.
Per WP:ILLCON: "It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct shall not be used to establish an organization's notability per this guideline." As such this fails WP:CORP and is not notable.
My WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing else but coverage in blogs and other such unreliable sources related to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, or short instances of coverage that do not meet WP:SIGCOV. ADVFN would not be notable under WP:CRIME either as defamation of this kind is run-of-the-mill and anyway the subject would be the defamation case, not the company. Whilst the company is listed, it is only listed on the Alternative Investment Market, a minor market in which companies need only be nominated by a nominated adviser (of which there as dozens) to be listed and which contains more than 1000 companies, and as such fails WP:LISTED as it is not a major stock-exchange comparable to the main NYSE. FOARP (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised to say I'm Leaning delete - the cites are skimpy as is, and I really can't find any substantial information on them in a quick WP:BEFORE (searching the name on Google News) - it's all press releases and passing mentions. I'm willing to be convinced, but it'd have to be more convincing than what I see - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Ravenloft characters#Rudolph van Richten. Restoring redirect decided in previous AfD, and ECP-salting to prevent another anonymous restoration. Since a merge was done, we should keep the history. RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written from an in-universe perspective, consists solely of a plot summary and has no secondary or tetriary sources. The previous AfD closed as merge, but the article was later restored by user:2601:D:B480:ED2:30ED:FD01:8965:1176 with the explanation "going to work on this one a bit". However, no significant changes were made to the page after the restoration. Not a very active user (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Restore Redirect - As the article has undergone no major revisions, and there still are no reliable secondary sources discussing the character in any meaningful way to allow it to pass the WP:GNG, there is no reason for the previous AFD's consensus to have been ignored and reverted. Deletion and restoration of the redirect is the best solution to keep this from happening again. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a high school band program, referenced almost entirely to primary sources rather than evidence of any significant or notability-conferring press coverage. As always, topics like this are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about it in media. But there are just two pieces of media coverage being cited here, and they're both purely local coverage in the school's own local media market -- literally every last one of the other 25 footnotes is primary sourcing such as the band's own self-published content about itself, press releases from its parent school or the school board, and program "recaps" on the self-published websites of competitions they participated in. These are directly affiliated sources, not independent or neutral media coverage, so they are not notability-supporting sources -- and furthermore, the article is liberally threaded with inappropriate offsite links to YouTube video clips of their performances, which are also not notability-building sources. And with just two real media sources here which are both purely local, it has not been adequately demonstrated that they pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not seeing where this high school unit raises to keep status for a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper per WP:NOTNEWS and this subject matter has only very local interest; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sub-units of high schools are virtually never notable. If they do get enough coverage to justify mention, they should be covered in the article on the high school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2019 (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.
Subject of article fails WP:GNG and as per WP:NACTOR she doesn’t scale through as well. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have found more sources and added additional verifiable information. I live in Chennai, India and she is one of the upcoming actresses with high fan followers. I believe this article satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. warlordlaw —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played the lead in a major film. As usual it is the Deccan Chronicle and the Times of India that reports early new stars in Bollywood films. Some decent coverage, all to do with early career, but I think sufficient for WP:THREE. scope_creepTalk 16:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has at least three prominent roles in notable films and tv series backed up by multiple reliable sources coverage as detailed above and therefore passes WP:NACTOR so deletion is not needed in this case, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 16:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article lacks in depth coverage in reliable sources and doesn’t qualify per general notability guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really not much in the Deccan Chronicle nor the Times of India. Very early in her career and not made a mark as yet. What reference are in the article are woeful. Solid delete. scope_creepTalk 16:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page is genuine and informations are accurate because it’s about a well known actor in Malayalam film industry that I personally know . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.16.82 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best source appears to be The Hindu article about the film Prakashante Metro, which says that this actor plays one of the leads (though IMDB doesn't even have her in the cast list ...?). But it's not clear yet that the film is a notable production, and even if it is, it seems to be the only one in which she has a (possibly) significant role, so it is WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails all relevant notability guidelines. No significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG, no indication that his research has had a significant impact in his field. He has not received a highly prestigious academic award or honor nor is he a member of a prestigious scholarly society or association per WP:ACADEMIC.
Sourcing is terrible with the only citations worth anything being a frontline interview and an article in the Observer. This despite having a BLP ref improve template since 2008. Bonewah (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, I am the Nom.Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America1000 07:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added ten reviews of three of his books to the article. There are probably more; I didn't search carefully for the other titles. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. He has three publications with over 100 publications each in Google Scholar, a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1. And I think the coverage of him (separately from his books) in Guernica and the Observer (already in the article) and in the Journal of Promotion Management (doi:10.1300/J057v10n01_16) make a strong case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. I added a sentence about the subject's social views from the Frontline interview which was missing from the article. StonyBrook (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I am having trouble viewing this as passing either WP:AUTHOR#4c or WP:PROF#C1. The PBS interview does not get him past WP:GNG in my eyes because the subject of the discussion is today's youth and not Crispin as a youth. We are not given a biographical sketch from this source. Also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:N.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Why 4c of AUTHOR? I was thinking of criterion 3: his work is the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per sources provided by David Eppstein. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 19:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR per sources provided by David Eppstein. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:NAUTHOR C3 seems to be the best case, but the GNG and NPROF aspects help support. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2019 (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 issue is the notability, or not, of this article topic. There has not been evidence that this article meets the standard of the appropriate notability guideline and some editors are affirmatively suggesting it does not leading to a delete consensus. It is important to note that while everything that is included in Wikipedia must be verifiable not everything that is verifiable is included. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that verifiably exists needs an article, we are not a product guide. No evidence of notability. Sources added after it was Prod'ded, but these include unreliable sources like personal webpages[3][4] and wikis[5][6], and a how-to page with very limited information about the actual subject[7]. Fram (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what exactly differentiates e.g. Mac book page (or rather a page about historical hardware) from this one on a generic level ? How is that not a "product guide" ? As for the sources, this is the best that could be found on the internet I believe. The how to page[8] was specifically included for verifiability that the actual key combination exists. Is verifiability important or not ? I created this page because I posses knowledge that is not to be found anywhere else and there is no such document that would include all the information in one place. Also, I have the intent to keep improving the page. Have to admit I am baffled. Vladcz (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2019 (CET)
The problem is not the effort you put into the article, but simply that you have provided us with the the best that could be find, and it isn't good enough. For e.g. the Mac book there are plenty of good sources about its design, impact, ... Such reliable sources giving significant attention to this keyboard seem to be lacking, and that means that we shouldn't have an article on it. Wikipedia is not meant to be the first site to write at length about something, but an site which summarizes other sources. Fram (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey @Vladcz:! Thanks for your contribution. I would also like to see an article about Sun Microsystems keyboards, because they are definitely a notable thing in computing history. The problem is that Wikipedia does not allow original research and that Deskthority can be modified by anyone and is not authored by a single expert. The information is probably correct and I'm also looking for more sources about the keyboard. Maybe some information could be moved into the article about Sun Microsystems. Deskthority allows originial research, so I would strongly recommend you to at least make sure all your research is also published there. Dwaro (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I would like to keep the article and mark it as unsourced or unreferenced, so it has room for improvement if new sources are found. The keyboard technology is older than the web, so I'm sure it exists in print form. A lot of articles in the Category:Sun_Microsystems_hardware are barely sourced but still exists. It is also a fine addition to Template:Sun hardware. The nominator said "we are not a product guide", but none of these hardware has been sold for years. It purely exists for historical purposes. Dwaro (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "product guide" as in a manual for an oldtimer car, not an advertisement of new hardware. We have articles on old cars, of course, but not on e.g. the steering wheels or the dashboards of one particular model. That reliable older sources exist is pure speculation though, and the current article has very little basic information (when where these produced) or any indication why they would be notable (they existed, that's about it). Like you say, what we have now is mainly WP:OR with a few highly unreliable sources added to it. Moving it to draft so that it has 6 more months to find those sources may be a good idea, but keeping an article in the mainspace in the probably vain hope that better sources will materialize is not the best way forward. Fram (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Category:Computer_keyboard_models, there are multiple articles about individual keyboards, so the comparison between steering wheels is not entirely correct. Sun Microsystems was a major computer manufacturer in the past, comparable to Apple who has multiple articles about individual keyboards. Note that this article is about all the keyboards produced by Sun, there aren't separate articles for every keyboard made by Sun. A reason for their notability is their influence on the design of today's keyboards. Dwaro (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"A reason for their notability is their influence on the design of today's keyboards.": citation needed. If they are influential on today's keyboards, then there should be articles, books, ... actually indicating this, and one would expect these to be available online in some form. The apparent lack of such sources shows that these keyboards were not influential (or that no one has recognised this influence openly, which is for our purposes the same). Fram (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the HHKB: "The keys are arranged in a layout resembling the Sun Type 3 keyboard.". The Sun keyboards were also the first with a compose key for Unix machines. Also, browsing the Apple hardware articles, most of them don't have any reason specified why they are notable. They exist and are produced by Apple. The Apple Extended Keyboard lists some unique features without any source. Dwaro (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, not another Wikipedia article. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, perhaps some of these other articles should be deleted as well, perhaps they just need the good sources which are available to be added. Fram (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to keep the information in this article and reach a consensus. The parts about specific keyboard models could be merged into the appriopiate computer model articles and merge the generic information into the article about Sun Microsystems But still, I think it is really unfair considering the Apple keyboard article has been tagged for lacking citations since 2006, but pretty much nothing has been deleted. Why is valuable historic information about a previously significant computer vendor being discared this quickly? Dwaro (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because we only consider information "valuable" if other reliable sources have first considered it as such. If no good sources feel the need to spend serious attention to these keyboards, then we shouldn't be the first one to do so. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, not a secondary source. Fram (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many topics that can be reliably sourced and while a fan site can be built around it, that would not entitle an inclusion on Wikipedia. Something being verifiable through a reliable source is a requirement for contents within an article, but the subject of the article must first meet the requirements for WP:GNG; and in some cases, such as organizations, companies and products, which; as described in WP:NORG have stronger emphasis on quality of sources. What is said in Special:diff/930440686 is not advisable per Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing_yourself. Anyone can claim to be an expert. Putting one's own thoughts onto a website, then citing to that website can not be done as a way to circumvent the WP:NOR rules. I agree with the nominator that this article should be deleted on notability grounds. Graywalls (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2019 (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. czar 16:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability as per WP:NBUILD Building was only around for 30 years, does not appear to be a historic site. Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems mistaken as the place is over 100 years old and it looks quite grand. It is easy to find detailed coverage and so the place passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So let's keep because it's old and there's a nice photo of it? Could you possibly come up with a reason less based in policy than this?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SnowKeep per Andrew Davidson. There seems to be a misconception here since the nomination is based on inaccurate information. I encourage the user to consider withdrawing the nomination in light of the clarifying information provided. Michepman (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michepman:Why don't you educate yourself on what a WP:SNOW Keep is. Two votes does not equal a snow keep and is is beyond ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise. Andrew has not provided any policy based reason to keep, other than his usual flawed argument that if at least one source exists somewhere then the article meets WP:GNG. This is not true. GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources. And even then it only creates a presumption, so it still debatable whether the subject passes GNG. We only have two local sources that even mention the subject. That's far from auto-passing GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusf10: - Fair enough. I will strike through the 'snow' reference per your feedback. I still think that this article is notable though. Michepman (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This subject is on the razor's edge of notability, but I think it may qualify as notable under the following provision of WP:NBuilding, which touches on architectural works which may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. I did find a few sources which covered this building in some amount of depth (beyond the usual maps and the like) and it does seem to have had some amount of regional prominence even though I personally had never heard of it before. 65.229.27.130 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per RS - was established 1907 and now apparently defunct. And also possible WP:NBUILDING pass. The nominator missed the mark, there is no shame in it. Lightburst (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough significant coverage that is beyond a "passing mention" for this to pass our guidelines. The nom is under the curious notion that a hotel can't be notable if it was "only around for 30 years" as if there is some quantitative lifespan of a topic in our notability guidelines. A hotel could be notable if it was around for one year. Oakshade (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2019 (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.
Redirect per Gentleman Ghost. The character starred in a miniseries, but I can't find enough sources to justify a stand alone. Still a reasonable search term, though. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Sandman characters, where he already has an entry. As stated by Argento Surfer, there do no appear to be enough reliable, secondary sources to support an independent article, but it can be redirected to the main character list as a reasonable search. Rorshacma (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supposed entrepreneur but seems to be film producer. Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Some minor coverage. scope_creepTalk 14:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general/basic notability requirements for Inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 18:00 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. First off, language like "Born ... to an upper-middle-class family" is a red warning sign that this is a web page, not a serious encyclopedia article. The creator seems to be a well-intentioned fan, but may not be familiar with our long-standing practice of deleting articles about producers. The subject seems very run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 15:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not a reliable source. The methods it uses to create its database are not transpaprent. Beyond this, it aims to create articles on everyone who ever has appeared in a publicly published film. Our aim is much less grand, we want to only cover those who have some impact. So IMDb is inherently flawed to show notability. This article lacks any other sources, and a search for more sources turened up nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a celebratory as a child actor. I've checked Camera (1923-1929) and there is nine reference to the child arriving to working in eight films in different roles as a baby girl to a Chinese girl. Sufficient for WP:THREE reference in a small article. scope_creepTalk 14:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from the sources other editors have mentioned, I see over 1600 hits in Newspapers.com. Obviously, some are simply film listings, or listings for her own vaudeville act (aged 6!), but there are also reviews, such as one of Can a Woman Love Twice?[9] with a paragraph and a half (out of 5 1/2 paras) about her performance. I'm sure that a lot more could be added to this article, and she definitely meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2019 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. They are notable enemies of Thor. Plus, Perrikus currently redirects here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "They are enemies of Thor." Uh... cool? Nothing indicates they are fit for Wikipedia, though. Let this information remain in Wikia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:37, 15 December 2019 (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 Big Pig. Tone 15:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Autobio of non notable musician. Has no notability independent of his band. Solo career and books lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Big Pig). If the article is to be believed, Disbray records an album every few months and writes lots of children's books. Good for him, but like the nominator I can find no evidence that any of his works have received any significant and reliable media coverage. He has a few minor industry association listings like this: [10] but otherwise only the usual social media and streaming sites can be found. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Doomsdayer520 and Bearian. Note I could not find 1 WP:IRS via a ProQuest database search, which includes all Australian/NZ offline news articles. The only metions were in Gig Guides about who was playing where and when-- not substantive. Cabrils (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:01, 17 December 2019 (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.
Fails WP:JUDGE. Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals is not a statewide judgeship. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not seeing where this gentleman raises to keep status for a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this subject bio has only local interest; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local judges are not default notable, and nothing about Salter suggests he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page was created 12 years ago with no references, and none have been added since. I've made more than one good faith search and came up with nothing. The artist released a single album, "Me , Myself, & I", which achieved no chart entries (the US and the UK), and no significant media coverage. This page seems to serve only promotional purposes, and doesn't have any encyclopedic value. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep has two top twenty Dutch chart hits which suggests a pass of WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 but more sources are needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I disagree with Steve on the article being promotional, there isn't much here. 12 years have come and gone and no sources have been added. While Atlantic has good points, there just isn't enough here to justify having the article stay. James-the-Charizard(talk to me!)(contribs) 05:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per criteria 2versusWP:SIGCOV. I removed the proposed deletion tag for this page, because deleting it without a debate might be controversial. I've found some coverage, including a passing reference in Italian, but not much. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per rationale provided by Bearian, his work has been on the chart in more than one country and per that single guideline I believe article could be retained & article creator tasked to find more references to substantiate notability claims.Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be super if this coverage could be added to the article, or at least linked here, so we could evaluate it. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft pending the suggested improvements. BD2412T 02:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Strongly suggest to be heavily edited for improvements. Or else, just delete it - Jay (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per item #2 in WP:BAND, this artist is notable because they have had two top 20 hits in the Dutch Top 40, as verified here: [11] He has also written songs which have charted in multiple countries; see this Italian page, and our article Cowboys & Kisses; not to mention producing Candy (Mandy Moore song) which charted in a bunch of countries. I can’t verify his role in “I Bet You Will”, so that should probably be removed from the article, but the other stuff and how well the music he has performed, written, or produced has done establishes notability. Samboy (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samboy, WP:BAND states an artist "may be notable by satisfying at least one of its criteria. The Dutch charts apparently fulfill that one criterion, but the songwriting and production work is not notable unless it's received significant coverage in RS. I'm not convinced by the Italian link you provided: are you sure it's about the right person? Because according to that, one of his credits dates back to 1981—when Jones would be 1 year old. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 10 December 2019 (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.
Keep: Guardian has it as notorious.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. Note that per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. Also of note is that the article actually has two references in it in the form of primary sources, although these do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 07:47, 17 December 2019 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEBCRIT. I have searched for sources in news websites, Google Books, Google Scholars and JSTOR. The only independent source of significant coverage I found was this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WMF or somewhere else suitable It strikes me as odd to nominate a WMF project on here for some reason; nevertheless, that is not itself a reason to keep unlike what some said in the 1st AfD, and I didn't see anything non-WMF related in the first page of a GSearch. The sources given for its notability the first time around are this twice and this, the latter which seems like a blog. I don't think this passes muster for notability, but should be kept as a redirect. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was surprised to find that there are so few good sources for this project. I ran a search on LexisNexis and the best thing I could find was a brief paragraph about Wikiquote in a German article about the WMF hiring a new CEO (the title is misleading): Ferenc Reinke (8 May 2014). Hier finden Sie die besten Zitate von Promis; Auf Wikiquote gibt's zu jedem Thema etwas. Berliner Kurier. There is coverage in some instructional books on the Internet Archive: How Wikipedia Works (p. 454) Wikipedia Reader's Guide (p. 22) - the coverage in How Wikipedia Works is fairly substantial, but the book was written by people affiliated with the WMF, so is it really an independent source? It is difficult to search for sources because so many articles simply cite Wikiquote or refer to it in passing among other projects, so maybe other people will be able to find more... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are some sources about an incident in which fake quotes posted on the website lost Rush Limbaugh a business deal, e.g. The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason (p. 11), (23 Nov 2009) Rush Limbaugh lost his bid to be part-owner of the St. Louis Rams. National Review, David Warren (17 Oct 2009) The Wisdom of Crowds. Ottawa Citizen, but these sources don't discuss the actual website in any depth. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When google "Wikiquote" gives me 7.5 million hits and scholar 5,400 exc patents/citations WP:COMMONSENSE tells me deletion is likely not a good choice and its hard to all those for being useless. [12] covers is for me and can anyone tell me if [13] is any good? + those above.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikiquote" only has ~43 hits on Google Search and ~6 hits on Google Patents. The first link you shared only says Kizu Naoko: ..."I’m a sysop on several WMF projects, including the Japanese Wikiquote, the English Wikiquote.". The second link, by my count, only has about 2 or 3 usable claims directly about the website but does not describe the website at anything more than a cursory level. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to WP:AGF I am getting "About 8,870,000 results (0.52 seconds)" for a search for "Wikiquote" ... Obviously if you have a paginate predicate of 100 and don't declare openly you have applied a paginate number and take as unreliable mutterings on the web that Google num= limit parameter may return less than the of results it is set to per such non authoritative sources [14] and [15] one have a depreciation. Does anyone have a good up to date Karma Sutra for the Google API?Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My "paginate predicate" does not affect results; it makes them more accurate. The number of results at the top Google searches is notoriously wrong. This is a know fact in Wikipedia discussion. Try this: search "Wikiquote" and then go to page four. You will see I am right. There are only ~ 40 results for the term. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ... I can see the Google Brain has determined many results are similar ... possibly some intelligent caching .. all showing all results gives 8m. I may have missed the 4 pages having too many pages or not looking at the bottom too carefully or it may have taken a while to filter the results. Not changing my keep vote though ... (I'd like to take longer but I'm flipping down the computing AfD list.13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Leaning keep, although I readily admit a localized bias. However, after some searching, I was at least able to find a conference paper analyzing Wikiquote (the conference is identified here as the 5th Joint International Semantic Technology Conference (JIST 2015), at Yichang, China). BD2412T 14:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This source has already been flagged above. It only gives "dictionary" definition of what the website is and perhaps two more encyclopedic claims. There is no independent significant coverage of this website, only passing mentions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone looked at the previous AfD? [16] & [17] likely reasonable content, ...[18] only passing. I have a bias against Wikiquote since an admin knocked off "It that beautiful or what!" and would reply to me .... and they mostly seem to blabber out loads of soap and song scripts on there but to be fair I have a French one that seems to be sticking.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[5] and [6] are the same article and UB Reporter is a student paper, which aren't usually considered to be great sources... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
? About the future: [19] best to skip first 5m. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[8] is from Wikimania and therefore not independent. The only reason to keep this page is navel-gazing. Not every WMF project is notable, especially this one. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is an informative article about Wikiquote. I dont understand why we even discussed for the article to be deleted? Many readers know what Wikipedia is but most readers (except us the sleepless and Wiki addicts) do not know what Wikiquote is. It helps if we work together to improve the article but to delete it, is unthinkable! Wikiquote is one of Wiki branches, what is the real reason why it doesn't deserve an article in here? Perhaps what we should do is to work together to improve the article instead of typing in lengthy to consider keeping or deleting it. My vote applies to all Wiki sister projects below:-
I decided to list them all because they were also being nominated for deletion in the first round by the nominator - Jay (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not all or nothing and this AfD has nothing to do with the other wikis, most of which are independently notable. Notability is not inherited and what is the real reason why it doesn't deserve an article in here? because it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. The same reason we delete any article about any subject that does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, Wikiquote is not really known out there, that is why we don't see much being written about it outside Wiki. But if we delete it, would it help? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or a collection of useful articles about something like this. I'm not talking about promotional articles (which I strongly object) but information about what is "the subject" such as in this case "Wikiquote" is important for readers to understand it's purpose. I used articles like this to educate most of friends who are not familiar about Wiki family. To me this article should be kept since it has the purpose and value to people who want to know more about Wiki and its "family". It may not be useful to some of us here because we know what it is but think of its value to others? It lacks of independent sources/ external reference because many out there don't really know the function of it thus made it less notable than its sister projects but by deleting it will make it more and more unknown. To me, Wikiquote is important therefore this article deserves to be kept and further improved -Jay (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs a bit more guideline-based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Keep, I feel like this article has a place on wikipedia and that it just needs someone to improve it a bit. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a policy-based rationale for keeping. There are no sources available to improve this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: This AFD and the previous AFD seemed to bring up a whole bunch of sources that could be used to improve this article, they simply aren't being used in the article at the moment. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above, none of the sources flagged include anything substantive that can be added to the article. They are all insignificant coverage and passing mentions of the website or unreliable sources such as student newspapers or not independent. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be correct here. I guess that I change my 'leaning keep' to 'undecided'. As such, I guess that I have nothing to contribute and will just be quiet. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we don't need a huge article about it with controversy sections so the sources identified in this discussion are enough for the current article and deleting it would be naval-gazing over-use of notability guidelines and a dis-service to the public who woukd expect the subject to be covered here, or should we just forget about the readers alltogether in favour of bureaucracy, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still the same issue as before - "it's part of Wikimedia" is not a notability criterium and many keep arguments do not address WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG points.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the "it's part of wikipedia" count as a valid WP:COMMONSENSE argument though? I don't really have any strong arguments either way, but WP:COMMONSENSE does exist for a reason, no? I believe that @Djm-leighpark: made this argument earlier: "Keep: When google "Wikiquote" gives me 7.5 million hits and scholar 5,400 exc patents/citations WP:COMMONSENSE tells me deletion is likely not a good choice and its hard to all those for being useless. [1] covers is for me and can anyone tell me if [2] is any good? + those above"Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Already keep voting above but responding to relisters comments). When nominating per WP:BEFORE there is onus on the nom. to try to improve the article first and if that fails, if the article has noteability issues, to tag the article for improvement per WP:BEFORE C#3 or otherwise notify parties for improvement and this does not seem to have been done. This is necessary to give goodly time for improvement and helps prevent hasty and rushed comments by at least one idiot. The nom in the nomination rightly and correctly identified one suitable source, now articled, (Buscaldi et al, 2007) Some Experiments in Humour Recognition Using the Italian Wikiquote Collection at the International Workshop on Fuzzy Logic and Applications conference. (DeVinney, 2007) was a dead link and not recovery at nom. time in the article, I have recovered same and it seems most suitable for the keep. The fact it was used in Italian curriculum ( Ministero dell'istruzione, dell'università e della ricerca, 2018) seems persuasive, the ZIP download reference is a tad of an issue and I have personally not opened it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I have voted for Keep before, this explanation is to respond to relisting). Todate, there are 8 independent sources in the article. I believe it is sufficient enough for Wikiquote to pass WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG without having to rely on Wiki family references. The references are:-
Protocollo MIUR-Wikimedia" (in Italian). Ministero dell'istruzione, dell'università e della ricerca.
Buscaldi, D.; Rosso, P. (2007). Masulli F., Mitra S., Pasi G. (eds.). Some Experiments in Humour Recognition Using the Italian Wikiquote Collection.
Chorowski, Jan; Łancucki, Adrian; Malik, Szymon; Pawlikowski, Maciej; Rychlikowski, Paweł; Zykowski, Paweł (21 May 2018). A Talker Ensemble: the University of Wrocław
Rickson, Sharon (22 November 2013). "How to Research a Quotation". New York Pubic Library.
I also agree with Apples&Manzanas that the Admin should also read up WP:COMMONSENSE and keep the article instead of relist this nomination again and again; and insisted on WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT only. Not only the Admin should use common sense, the Admin must also look at the values and benefits of the article for readers. I have written in lengthy about the values and benefits for readers before, and dont plan to repeat that again. We already have 6 "Keep" vote, I believe the nomination should be closed by keeping the article. - Jay (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can only assume Whjayg/Jay is referring to the relisting admin ... who I have noted on many AfD's providing helpful comments to the discussion on relist ... often displaying great insight into Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's pointless racking up loads of sources that won't pass WP:RS but we now have on the article (Woods & Theony 2011)("Dummies"); (Buscaldi & Rosso, 2007) and (Chorowski et al,2008) with (Rickson, 2013) also fairly tempting for WP:GNG. For WP:WEBCRIT (Buscaldi & Rosso, 2007) and (Chorowski et al,2008) both use a lot of web content while there are many examples of Wikiquote being used for the source of things; and while not the example I was looking for this whole article from the Independent (url-access=limited) seems somewhat reliant on misquotes from Wikiquote [20] for example.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Below I refute any possible SIGCOV about Wikiquote:
Seems to focus on Wikiquote. BUT DOES NOT. Only contains a 1 sentence description of Wikiquote and also mentions Italian Wikiquote. But the mention of Wikiquote is incidental. The website was only mentioned because it was a source of the quotes that were the subject of study.
Also see above discussions where I point out none of the other sources flag have anything significant to pass WP:GNG. WP:WEBCRIT #1 is basically the same as WP:GNG. There has been no sources shown that Wikiquote passes WP:WEBCRIT #2, which is for websites that have received a significant award. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously disagree with Coffeeandcrumbs's assessment here. (Woods & Theony, 2011) in Wiki for Dummies is sufficient to pass WP:RS and is not a trivial passing mention and their work is far from a collection of wiki websites. Obviously in both (Buscaldi et al, 2007) (paywalled) and (Chorowski et al,2008) on a topic other than WikiQuote and they both giving a far more than passing mention to the WikiQuote and explaining why they chose to use it. To go on to the WP:WEBCRIT ... if I quote from the sufficient Criteria#1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. ... Well what are (Buscaldi et al, 2007) and (Chorowski et al,2008) if not using content from Wikiquote. And One can also look a the citations from the article (Rentoul 2013) and (Robinson 2019) who are using content from WikiQuote for their work. So the notability stands. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A sad matter, but nothing suggests lasting significance. Just another of many murders this year. Clearly WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. WWGB (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep This murder is significant as it had brought international media attention. The UK [21], Germany [22], Canada [23], Australia [24], Italy [25], Brazil [26] France [27], Russia [28], Mexico [29], Poland [30], Indonesia [31], New Zealand [32], India [33], the Czech Republic [34], Belgium [35] and China [36]SpinnerLaserz (talk) If anyone from Alabama could improve this article that will be fantastic. 16:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those sites just rehash text from Associated Press or NBC, in order to provide content for the 24-hour news cycle. Per WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". WWGB (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The abduction and murder was a sensational event, but not enough is known about the facts to justify an encyclopedic article. And if additional reporting does justify an entry, it ought to be rewritten as an account of the event, not as a biography. An example might be the "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" which was also nominated for deletion, but later became a featured article. --Dystopos (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as presented, there's nothing beyond common sensational coverage and fails BLP1E. As mentioned, if there is more than transitory coverage reframing the article scope and recreating seems fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 14:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The New Ukraine Civic Movement does not command substantial notability as evidenced by its single external link to the official website (which I could not access).Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG per this and this. Needs clean-up, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: While there have been mentions about the games as derby, but is it enough to qualify for the notability as derby? Coderzombie (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the rivalry may not be intense like Kolkata Derby but it is improving day by day. With the possibility of combined league by AIFF in future, the rivalry can become one of the top derbies. Wiki.editAnshu (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage exists so it meets the GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2019 (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. Closing as delete for both this and the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Ben Artzi. The evidence presented in the two discussions indicates that they probably are not notable as a duo, and definitely are not yet notable individually. RL0919 (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I don't understand why the article is even being considered for deletion when it's clear that notability has been established and the article is properly sourced. --Omer Toledano (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV since even the best sources provided only mention the subject in passing. Does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:DIRECTOR since none of his films are blue-linked. StonyBrook (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StonyBrook:, @Onel5969:, thanks for your input. I've gone ahead and expanded the article with legitimate 3rd party sources (mainstream Israeli news sources) which cover the subject matter in a way which is beyond mere mention. I kindly ask to please withdraw the AfD request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is going to be a problem if the article on his brother Roy Ben Artzi is an almost exact carbon copy of this one. An argument can possibly be made for entry-level notability for the pair as a duo, but that still means this article should be deleted and the other article reconfigured to include his brother. StonyBrook (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@StonyBrook:, thanks. I agree. It's clear that notability exists which has been established on the basis of both brothers Gigi Ben Artzi and Roy Ben Artzi collaborating as a duo across various mediums (photography, music, video direction). If it would be a better idea to merge both articles and have them represented as a duo then I see no reason not to. --Omer Toledano (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@StonyBrook:, @Onel5969:, I've also expanded it further and added additional references. This AfD request should be revoked in my opinion. --Omer Toledano (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all you've done is WP:CITEBOMB, with more trivial mentions. Citebombing is usually a good indicator of the weakness of a notability claim. Onel5969TT me 16:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Onel5969: I beg to differ. I believe you are mistaken and your claim and AfD request is completely unjustified. Gigi Ben Artzi is a well-established and well-known personality in his various fields. Kindly revoke your AfD request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Onel5969:, @StonyBrook:, I've created the article Roy and Gigi Ben Artzi. It's clear that the pair have established themselves as a creative duo through their various directorial and musical endeavors. --Omer Toledano (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge under Roy and Gigi Ben Artzi. We must take into consideration that in addition to Tiger Love (musical group), the two have established a notable fashion photography and film-making career so ultimately a joint article would be required to encompass all scopes. I believe this has to be taken into account and included in any finalized outcome. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gigi gets plenty of photo credit in published media, but that alone doesn't establish notability, the same way a journalist's bylines don't. I see no independent recognition of him nor his brother as notable fashion photographers. StonyBrook (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stub for sportsperson with only one reference to a stats page. No updates since creation in 2006. WP:BEFORE search discloses no significant coverage in reliable sources. The teams listed on the stat pare are not in the list of fully professional leagues for Poland so fails WP:NFOOTBALL as well as WP:GNG. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 04:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he has ever played in a WP:FPL (meaning he fails NFOOTBALL), but more importantly there is no significant coverage, so fails GNG. GiantSnowman 09:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable, semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find sources on him. Did find accountant. MozeTak (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clear consensus to remove the article, but it's not so clear if a merge, a redirect or plain deletion are warranted. The most compelling argument presented in the latter regard is that there are apparently no reliable sources to endorse the content, so deletion it is ... but people can add redirects at editorial discretion and perhaps ask at WP:REFUND for the page history should good sourcing surface. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article is currently supported only by fringe cryptozoological sources, and a WP:BEFORE search failed to return significant RS coverage. The very idea that a rotting mass of flesh has "flippers" and "hair" represents a fringe viewpoint and no mainstream sources exist that could be used to write a balanced, NPOV-compliant article. –dlthewave☎ 03:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete One of the less well-known globsters. --Aurictalk 23:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Globster#Notable globsters. Not quite enough here to have an article, and a short description can be added to the listing in the globster page. Hog Farm (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Not enough blob to glob on its own. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Not worth a redirect since the suggested section Globster#Notable globsters is for notable globsters. This globster is not notable so a deletion is the best approach IMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge Something in the back of my mind tells me I have heard of this, but it is not well sourced. Thus its merge rather then delete.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hog Farm. Not enough for own article but can be included in main list. Bookscale (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think delete is better than redirect here because it is not a notable globster, and that list should remain a list of notable things people call globsters (and not just anything any fringe source calls a globster). – Levivich 22:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant RS-qualifying coverage. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2019 (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.
A stub with no independent sources. A quick Google search revealed nothing more than sales websites with this product. There are some videos of this product in use, and there is a "news" article that mostly reports what the creator said. I do not see any significant and independent coverage of this medical tool in reliable sources. William2001(talk) 22:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and not a good quality article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The sole delete vote borders on WP:IDL.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 04:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak keep, the introduction of this paper says: The prechop technique, first described by Akahoshi in 1998, revolutionized the chop technique in cataract surgery. Several papers discuss this technique and derivations [37] – Thjarkur(talk) 11:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Þjarkur, I'm still unsure about this article meeting WP:GNG, which states that sources should be secondary. It seems to me that most of the papers are primary sources? Perhaps a redirect to a cataract surgery-related article would do as the article barely contains anything for a merge? William2001(talk) 22:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few more mentions here: [38][39] and in this opthalmology textbook [40]. The paper by the inventor would be primary, but later independent academic papers which summarize previous knowledge in their introduction are secondary-ish although not the best. This could redirect to Phacoemulsification § Surgical technique, but merging it would give undue weight to this niche technique. – Thjarkur(talk) 22:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2019 (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 walls of text added by the IP obviously don't succeed in convincing the other editors here that the subject is notable. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of meeting WP:ORG guidelines. Given references are either primary or not significant coverage. Google searches not finding any significant third party coverage. noq (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EPSI is a strong reality in Sport environment, both in Brussels and at European level. They are partners of the EU Commission in the European Week of Sport and they are in the same business area - and same dimension - of many other non-for-profit organizations that are already present on Wikipedia
Here just few of the amount of articles foundable on the web about the European Platform for Sport Innovation (all third partiers):
The last two of the lists were only about EPSI. Moreover I can add examples of articles regarding directly EPSI, their projects, their partnerships, their events and conferences.
Please identify which (if any) amongst the list of announcements by related organisations is independent of EPSI. Who apart from the members are talking about EPSI specifically rather than brief mentions in articles about other things. noq (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A part from Varala (who is a member) and EYVOL (a Project were EPSI is part), all other websites and links attached are not EPSI members or projects, but indipendent and external organizations that are talking about EPSI.
Just clicking and reading some of those links shows that your statement above is not true. The Ecos link is a "page not found", the necstour and cbbs links are announcements of partnerships, the dala sports academy link is an announcement that someone attended a conference. None are independent coverage of EPSI. noq (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EPSI has created partnership with external organizations (like NECSTOUR and CBBS) that are not part of EPSI, but indipendent and external organizations. Regarding ECOS, you are right, I attach you the right one (http://www.ecos-europe.com/sphere/2019/07/01/sphere-project-in-brussels-for-co-innovate-in-sport-2019/) ECOS is another indipendent organization. Dala sports Academy, it was not about a conference, but a EPSI Conference, so I honestly do not see why you are saying that it is not true, while it is...
EPSI is a relevant organization in the world of sport in Belgium, especially at institutional level. it is partner of the EU Commission for EU week of sport (cited in EU Commission website: https://ec.europa.eu/sport/week-partners_en), as well as other organizations (i.e. FESI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_the_European_Sporting_Goods_Industry) that are already present in Wikipedia. Actually I do not understand the point of this discussion, with check of every link. All of them are from indipendent third parties.91.223.167.193 (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I provided more than 20 external sources and several of them are not EPSI partners... the EU Commission itself cannot be considered an "EPSI dependent" organization. Regarding the other wikipedia page quoted, it was just an example of a similar organization (with no external sources on the page), whose creation did not create any problems. 91.223.167.193 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the most basic stnadards of the general notability guideline. Every verifiable source offered appears to fail at least one of the GNG measures. Many are not significant, e.g., news article that mentions EPSI at the very end in passing but most are, as Noq indicates, neither independent nor reliable. This seems to be a normal lobbying/consulting firm going about its run of the mill business. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 02:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, it is not a simple lobbying firm, but a network of 60 organizations coming from almost every European country. Categorizing it, it can pacifically stay inside “Pan-European trade and professional organizations” like the other page mentioned, that has the same charachteristics as EPSI. EPSI is partner of the EU Commission (http://aceseurope.eu/commission-sport-officials-visited-aces-europe/), in the framework of the European Week of Sport. EPSI is one of the main actors of Sport&EU policies and their HeadQuarter House Of Sport, is contributing to create a common environment to European Sport Organizations. Only referring to “House Of Sport” I can quote https://www.ideaconsult.be/en/spotlight/house-of-sports-boosting-synergies-in-the-european-sports-ecosystem and a paper article “House Of Sport: Hub for Sport Organizations” published on the last number of the magazine “EU Cities of Sport”. EPSI documents and studies are included is several books papers. Among others: “Improve economic and policy knowledge in the field of sport related industries with particular focus on sporting goods sector” (EU Publication foundable even online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/42a5c3f6-5ca1-11e8-ab41-01aa75ed71a1/language-en); Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism (A. J. Veal); Sports Science Research and Technology Support (Jan Cabri, Pedro Pezarat Correia); Research Methods in Sport Studies and Sport Management: A Practical Guide (A.J. Veal, Simon Darcy). EPSI is main topic of many articles foundable on the web coming from independent sources too. I already mentioned this one by IPSO (independent and reliable, since they are organizers of the biggest Sport Industry Fairs in Europe) about a recent EPSI enlargement: https://www.ispo.com/en/markets/european-platform-sport-innovation-epsi-new-partners
I can add for example these too (independent and reliable as well):
Honestly speaking, after more than 10 days of this talk, new sources and link are still foundable, both on paper and in the web in independent sectorial magazines and websites. 91.223.167.193 (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, I urge you to please read the message I left on your user talk page to understand why experienced editors are disagreeing with you. It is neither personal against you nor animosity towards this organization. To address the substance of your reply, however: no; those links, like all those before, are not convincing. Your new links are not significant coverage, being mere acknowledgements of the existence of this organization or a simple conference announcement. I am sorry but this does not help your position. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 15:04, 10 December 2019 (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. Can be redirected at a later date if a connection is proven. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just one of many cyber attacks. The main reason this was reported nationally is because it happened hours after the shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola. If necessary, a reference to the cyber attack could be included on Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting, but there's no indication of a link between the two. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the part of no direct link between the 2 yet, however, logically they could be. I would say not to delete this article, and allow editors to write on it for a few days. Then re-look at the article and then consider for deletion or not. The article was created today, has a decent amount of national sources, and already is being offered for deletion. Give the article a change. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a news source. There is nothing yet to demonstrate that this cyber attack stands out among the manyothers that cities have suffered. If it turns out to be linked to the NAS Pensacola shooting, then it would be fitting to mention it in that article. It may be worthy of a sentence or two in the article on Pensacola, Florida. However, I do not see anything about this cyber attack that rises to the level of a stand-alone article, nor do I see anything in the article particularly worth saving and merging. Obviously, that could change based on future development in the stories, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we should not create an article in anticipation of future developments. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deletion, I would be willing to move this into a draft so I may work on it. I would rather work on it for a few days then attempt to use the AFC submission system then watch the article be deleted without any chance to show notability or links. For all we know, minutes after the page is deleted, the FBI could release information that links the shooting with the cyber attacks. Again, I relate back to my previous statement "Give the article a chance". I would be ok with the draft idea instead of deletion if that is voted on.Elijahandskip (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: -- an AFD usually lasts for 7 calendar days, so that may be enough time to salvage the article. However, if you think that would be not enough time, you can always request that the article be moved to draft space for you, though I think you may need to ask an admin directly. You can do this even if the article is deleted since admins have access to deleted articles and can provide the contents to you directly at any time. Michepman (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless (and this is a big unless) it is shown that it is somehow connected to the shooting, in which case, merge to Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting. The CNN source in this article states that attacks of this kind are fairly commonplace, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am okay with combining all the contents of this cyberattack article into the Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting article, but there is no need to lose this article's content. X1\ (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, articles are not here on the possibility that something might happen so that they become notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear violation of the not news principal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2019 (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 Macanese cuisine. Despite spirited resistance from the IP, there's a clear consensus for redirecting this to Macanese cuisine. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Macanese cuisine is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Macau cuisine, and that this should thus be converted to a redirect pointing to that article. The influences of Cantonese and Portuguese cuisine are discussed in Macanese cuisine and do not need to be disambiguated separately for this search term. I previously made this change and was reverted, so I'm bringing this discussion to a formal venue here. signed, Rosguilltalk 00:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer deletion over redirecting to Cantonese. A source of confusion here (which also undermines the Canadian/Metis analogy) is that Macanese in English is an adjective that can refer to anything from Macau, and is not necessarily a reference to the Macanese ethnic group, so it's entirely possible that someone will use this search term in an attempt to find Macanese cuisine, even if this could be considered inaccurate. Unless it can be demonstrated that Macau cuisine is notable independent of both Cantonese and Macanese cuisine, I think the best solution is to have a redirect pointing at Macanese cuisine and add a hatnote pointing to Cantonese cuisine. signed, Rosguilltalk 00:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Macanese in English is not or at least sparsely an adjective that can refer to anything from Macau. It is an exception in the English language. See Macau people#Name and Macanese language#Name. The article Macanese cuisine if considered an article about food culture in Macau in general, is severely WP:UNDUE. --146.95.196.199 (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both Oxford [41] and Random House [42] include relating to Macau as part of their definitions for Macanese. Oxford also notes the specialized definition, and lists it alongside the more general definition. The solution to the UNDUE issue would be to start an actual article at Macau cuisine, with hatnotes between that and Macanese cuisine. signed, Rosguilltalk 00:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that usage is obsolete as you can read from Clayton, Cathryn H. (2010). Sovereignty at the Edge: Macau & the Question of Chineseness. The people of Macau used to be Tanka, then "Macaense", then Cantonese. At the second stage, the concept "of Macau" and the concept "Macanese" used to match (thus you have the dictionary entries), while at the third stage, the term "Macanese" retains its original usage and the Portuguese Macau government's attempt to redefine the term "Macanese" according to the current situation failed. So unless Wikipedia gives up its WP:COMMONNAME policy and start a compaign to redifine "Macanese", the article Macau cuisine should not be redirected to Macanese cuisine. If someone starts an article it would be great, otherwise I'd rather it stays red (deleted) or an disambiguation page. --146.95.196.199 (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should let other editors weigh in, but just quickly going to note that COMMONNAME is for article titles, not for redirects; we have Template:R from incorrect name for cases like this. signed, Rosguilltalk 01:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference is, most Canadian people are not proud of their Metis cuisine in general, not is Metis cuisine widely used to boost tourism in Canada. --146.95.196.199 (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom - Is it plausible that someone looking for information about Cantonese food would search about Macau food? Not even slightly. However, it is very plausible that someone looking for information about Macanese food would search for "Macau cuisine", since this is an easy mistake to make. Further more, Macau is not officially part of Guangdong province, and has many other cuisines other than Cantonese (I once ate some great Portuguese food at the Club Militar De Macau, Super Bock is drunk throughout the city, and other varieties of Chinese food are available there) so a redirect to Cantonese Cuisine is not even nearly appropriate. Similarly deletion is not a good idea given that Macau is an autonomous region and is home to its own cuisine. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP:If your idea is to make Macanese cuisine an article covering cuisine of Macanese people and think that represent the cuisine of Macau, that's a straight tourist POV (and actually somewhat European POV as well) as I mentioned before, as it doesn't reflect the food Macau people eat in their routine life. For example, almond biscuit is a signature Zhongshan and Macau cuisine, and certainly a prime topic of Macau cuisine, but not at all Macanese. Pork chop bun, also, is extremely popular in Macau, and is solely a cuisine of Macau and can not be found anywhere else of China, but certainly not Macanese. Basically what you did is redirecting American cuisine to a Thanksgiving dinner which an average American do not eat for 364 out of 365 days but certainly what a tourist would remind of when talking about American cuisine, yet I believe the article American cuisine should deal more with routine American food like mac 'n' cheese. The same applies to Macau. --146.95.196.216 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If your idea is to make Macanese cuisine an article covering all cuisines of Macau, it'll no longer bear the previous problem but I'll tag a WP:DUE onto the article as it is very misleading and false advertising. It's essentially writing an American cuisine article with 98% of the article dealing with Thanksgiving dinner while the other two percent about mac 'n' cheese. Think about a child whose Australian and Macau parents are being divorced and will live in two different country. Now he must choose one of his parents to live with. One of the factor helping to make a decision is the local cuisine, then he read the Wikipedia UNDUE article about Macanese cuisine and chose to stay with his Macau parent. Upon arrival he realize the entire daily food of Macau is out of his mind. What role does Wikipedia play in this situation? --146.95.196.216 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My solution is . . . these aren't problems for AFD. But hey, I'm only a "tourist" with a "European POV". FOARP (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't twist my comment. Your idea was tourist or European, but it doesn't imply you were. --146.95.196.199 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other two solutions (keep disambiguation page or deletion)? If it has to redirect to Macanese cuisine the article would have to be rewritten. --146.95.196.240 (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a content issue, not an article/topic issue. AfD is not for the content inside an article. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, if you're interested in correcting this issue, I would suggest drafting some content about Macau cuisine, distinct from Macanese cuisine, in draftspace. Depending on how much coverage you can find in reliable sources, we can then potentially incorporate that into a new article at Macau cuisine. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Macanese cuisine. Macau cuisine is a likely search term, and should point somewhere. I note that Cuisine of Macau, a synonym for Macau cuisine, already redirects to Macanese cuisine. The first sentence of the lede of Macanese cuisine already links to Cantonese cuisine and Portuguese cuisine, the other two topics on the DAB page.
An alternative might be to convert Macau cuisine to a WP:BCA, with a sentence or two on each specific topic. One thing Macau cuisine is not is a DAB page: see MOS:DABNOENTRY. DAB pages are intended to distinguish between ambiguous terms; here, only Macanese cuisine is a full title match, Cantonese and Portuguese cuisines are related topics and there is no ambiguity. If that is done, Cuisine of Macau should be retargetted to it. Narky Blert (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2019 (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.
