< 12 February	14 February >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Voyageurs FC[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Does not play for league cup. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 22:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 22:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a newly announced team which has received some local coverage. [1] [2] [3]. This is at worst a WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USL League Two WP:GNG not clearly demonstrated and doesn't pass WP:FOOTYN. Prior consensus at this level is mixed, but FOOTYN states that a club should play on a national level or in a national cup to have a presumption of notability. Jay eyem (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The team currently plays for the league (USL League Two) cup. This year they are eligible for the next year's U.S. Open Cup. Do not delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny cide (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So perhaps when they 1) do play for the US Open cup, we can write an article about them from 2) all the press that generates. For now, they do not meet NFOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY is for players and FOOTYN is a rough guideline, not a SNG. This is a fresh team which received decent local coverage about their name announcement only four days ago and will play their first game in four months, have received local coverage in multiple media markets, and received some good press about their announcement back in October. [4] [5] If this is deleted, we'll just have to remake it in three months. SportingFlyer T·C 07:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the notability criteria. We may not have to recreate it if (and only if) they do get local coverage. If a subject is only of local interest, and has had WP:SUSTAINED coverage, not Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill or "local team played" sort of coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep USL League Two is a national league and its teams do compete in the U.S. Open Cup. No good reason to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the good reasons are that USL League Two is a development soccer league, not a professional league and this team has not yet competed for the US Open Cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which are pedantic and ignore the independent secondary sources this team which hasn't played a game has received already. Most but not all teams in the league have articles, and this one already has better sourcing than several I've selected at random. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If they don't deserve an article, we can address that separately per WP:OSE. If they meet a notability criteria, we keep the article. We don't keep articles because they may meet notability criteria one day. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - They already meet notability criteria. For the sake of argument, if they don't, they will very shortly. Other reliable coverage can be found at [6] and [7]. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure that USL League Two is a "national" competition in that same way that the other leagues are. It's kind of more akin to the German Regionalliga, except they do have a final "national" tournament at the end of the year instead of having pro/rel. Plus it isn't an officially sanctioned league. Jay eyem (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, team is eligible to play in the national cup, thereby meeting standard notability for soccer clubs. GiantSnowman 08:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: You read that incorrectly. They may be eligible to play in the national cup. There is no guarantee that they will ever play for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - They play at a level where teams are eligible, do they not? GiantSnowman 15:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @GiantSnowman: Only the top teams at this level attain eligibility every year and most fold before they even finish above the lower half of their own division. What does the criteria say, that they may one day play or that they "have played in the national cup"?. The second half of the criteria clearly does not match the first half. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, if they meet WP:GNG, it doesn't matter where they play, who they play, or when they play them. SportingFlyer T·C 16:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sort of. Both the USL League Two and National Premier Soccer League get about a dozen entrants each automatically, and its up to them to decide who they send through. Since it is a regional league (except for an end of year playoff for both), they usually send the champion of each region through to the U.S. Open Cup. It's not an automatic qualification like the DFB Pokal uses for its amateur teams, but it is something. Contrast this to the professional leagues, where every team gets an automatic entrance. Jay eyem (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This team is playing in a national league within the US system and has already generated enough coverage to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Borgarde (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would those arguing that they play in a national league provide support for their arguments? Not only is the USL League Two not recognized by the USSF, but the way that the league operates is much more similar to a regional league, something similar to college basketball and the NCAA Tournament, or to Germany's Regionalliga. There's nothing really national about the league's structure other than the end of season playoffs, and I really don't think that qualifies the league as national. Jay eyem (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Closing admin, please recognize that the majority of survey responses have been WP:MEETOO statements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jay eyem: Out of pure curiosity, could you provide a link showing it's not recognised by the USSF? I would argue playing in this league would not lend itself to presumptive notability, but absolutely agree with Borgarde's "has already generated enough coverage to merit inclusion on Wikipedia." SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's... really sort of a separate issue, but ok. I'd like to start by noting that ussoccer.com has done a very poor job of posting this information clearly on their website (granted, I only skimmed the bylaws). The closest thing that I have seen so far is this link about the upcoming Open Cup: "They will be joined by the six eligible members of the newly-sanctioned Division III professional circuit, USL League One." It doesn't say anything about sanctioning for USL League Two, which this team is in. I disagree that there is significant coverage for this team already. It certainly is not readily apparent in the article. Only really the statements made by USL League Two and Forward Madison really approach significant coverage. I recognize that the consensus on this particular issue is a bit of a grey area, but I really don't see a strong reason this article needs to be kept. Jay eyem (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious on the sanctioning since I don't know why it wouldn't be sanctioned. I also don't know why you're discarding several feature stories as insignificant. Anyways, if the closer deletes this, I would ask that a draft version be placed in my user area so I can restore this in a couple months. SportingFlyer T·C 03:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think that is a ridiculously low barrier for entry for meeting "significant" coverage. So a new local amateur sports team gets a feature in a local publication and a local television channel. Big whoop. By contrast, a statement from a league the size of USL League Two and from its owners (which happen to be a professional team playing on a national level) I would consider to be significant. I still don't really think that's enough personally, since the articles are basically just "here's another new team". The only thing that gives me pause is precisely the fact that it is USL League Two (the same would apply for NPSL), because they do get this handful of automatic qualifiers whereas other amateur leagues do not. That's why I see it as a bit of a grey area. Jay eyem (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be deleted. This is a trigger happy nomination for a club that meets the GNG, there is enough coverage out there to warrant this article. The argument to a closing admin saying it's METOO is also incorrect seeing as rationale was given in each point. If this page is deleted it will just be restored very soon as the league season starts as interest gets higher, wasting everyone's time more already. The league is sanctioned by USASA and not USSF as it is not a fully professional league as the US system works a bit differently to other countries, which means it is still a sanctioned league. Borgarde (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:FOOTYN: "Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." I very much disagree that the notability criteria is met. However, there is a bit of a gap in FOOTYN regarding club notability. This is a good example because teams that are assumed to be notable have either played in the national cup or played on the national level. This team fits neither of those. However, they are "eligible" in the sense that literally (/s) any amateur team in the United States can compete their way into the Open Cup. This is also further bolstered by the fact that USL League Two and NPSL are treated as being at a higher level for amateur leagues, being granted automatic spots in the Open Cup. Again, this is why it's a grey area. Jay eyem (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN is just an essay, a guideline. It's not met here, but it doesn't really matter anyways (see the large number of Thai amateur clubs at AfD we've had recently) and doesn't trump WP:GNG. If this were sourced to league press releases - and some teams in this league are - I wouldn't be a keep vote. SportingFlyer T·C 03:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep topics meets WP:GNG. I'll work on expanding the article here soon, there is enough coverage (including sources mentioned above) to warrant an article. Especially in the coming months the topic should continue to receive greater coverage. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:41, 17 February 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. Even setting aside the question of SPA accounts (an IP's pro-delete argument carries the same weight as anyone else... provided it is reasonable) the clear weight of PAG based argument establishes a consensus to Keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel Fuld[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. WP:SPIP This is a blatant advertisement for a not notable person. The majority of sources are self or articles written by the person. WP:N WP:BIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.66.14 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — 70.24.66.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(Please note, this was misposted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hillel Fuld and is a procedural posting) RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: signed and converted to afd2 template --DannyS712 (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 22:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 22:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 22:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very not notable. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Single Purpose Account) I think this should be deleted, it is self-promotional and most of the links cited are not newsworthy or of any value. The person himself is part of a group of Israeli consultants that do nothing of value beside post on SnapChat, Facebook and Blogs about other companies information that was already known to the public, mentioning that he was in a bunker is not news, every Israeli as experienced being in a bunker. All the blogs that ever featured him never paid him he is not a journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.237.58 (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC) — 141.226.237.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I think this article should not be deleted. Fuld has been featured in all of the tech industry's major publications, as well as his work been covered non-trivially by reputable sources. The value of his work is proven by his ability to keep getting work, which is shown in the different sources supplied. Forbes, The Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post have all featured articles directly about Fuld, as well as about events and occurrences that include him. Yes, the majority of the sources are his publications, but they are all in major news outlets in the world of technology. אגם רפאלי (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Single Purpose Account} I agree with אגם רפאלי. Even a cursory search using the "Find sources" links above show oodles of articles from reputable publications covering Fuld's work and reputation. I would also note that an administrator (DGG) has been working hard to improve the page along with אגם רפאלי and noted on the Talk page that "... at present... it shows at least borderline notability". On the other hand, both the editor who started this discussion and one of the delete votes are from anonymous IPs like myself. Not quite a powerful movement to delete. 77.126.89.181 (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — 77.126.89.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I noticed that the IP who first proposed deletion of this article had no prior edits, not did they continue to edit Wikipedia after making this proposal. The same is true for both IPs who share my delete vote. Combined with the fact that the brother of the subject of this article was a recent victim of a hate-crime (see external link #2 on this article and see last entrance at Gush_Etzion_Junction#Attacks), I think we have sufficient reason to say these edits were likely bad-faith. Having said that, I am not sure what the consequences would be, but I urge the reviewing admin to keep this in mind. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because I am anonymous, this is not done for bad faith. There are many reason people wish to remain anonymous on wikipedia. I'm providing facts only about how this is not notable person in wiki. 70.24.66.14 (talk) — 70.24.66.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep obviously. Forbes says he is "The Man Helping Transform Startup Nation Into Scale-Up Nation" Geektime says he is "one of 100 most influential people in the Israeli tech industry". Atbannett (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fuld is a very prominent figure in Israeli tech scene and online tech journalism. The article could be cleaned up a bit but the individual is notable. He writes for a bunch of real newspapers, online and print, and Forbes did a bio piece on him (link to article).Joe407 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Forbes.com is not the same as Forbes the print magazine; Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources calls it "similar to a content farm" although then goes on to say that it's an unusually high quality one where the authors "in most cases, may have credentials that allow the specific author to qualify under the self-published source criteria". Neonchameleon (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe407.—msh210℠ 13:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Single Purpose Account) most of the news sources seem to be from opinion/blog pages. The author of the Times of Israel blog is even listed as his employee in his latest blog post. Perhaps more journalistic sources can be found to replace the opinion pieces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.9.66 (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC) — 213.225.9.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete~~ (Single Purpose Account) I suggested this article for deletion and thought that it was pretty straight forward, but I'll provide more detailed information as to why I nominated this since it seems malicious intent is being suggested and is being debated by several people.

It should be noted above that אגם רפאלי Is the author of the article. He is sometimes paid to create wiki post as listed on his user page and led me to investigate further.
Bloggers are not generally included in wiki. WP:ANYBIO Biography section is pure self talk. Interviewing famous people does not make one notable.
Career. He is indeed a journalist but this is not guaranteed inclusion in wikipedia. WP:BLPSELFPUB There is nothing in his writing linked here that his writing is significant or well-known, Cited by peers, or won critical attention. Zero. WP:JOURNALIST
Because he has been published in several publications is also not a means for inclusion. It needs to be in depth coverage, that is independent of the source. He writes for all these publications who have interviewed him. WP:BASIC
Stating he was listed in (GeekTime) which is an unreliable source including 100 other people in Israeli hi-tech WP:UNRELIABLE None of these other individuals would get a wikipedia either because of being mentioned here.
Keynote speaking is advertising not means for inclusion and is more self promo. WP:SPIP
The link stating he works with google etc on (Jerusalem Post) shows he simply spoke at the conference. He also writes for this organization. Same with Forbes Article. Small interview. 2 Paragraphs. He works for this company. (Forbes article)
Having Followers on Social media including famous people following him, is definitely NOT Notable and is pure self promo WP:SPIP

I can see this is turning into a debated topic, but am not really sure why. There is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this to be a valid Wikipedia Article WP:GNG 70.24.66.14 (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — 70.24.66.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment @70.24.66.14: You are the proposer of the AfD so your proposal is counted as a Delete, you should not vote again.Britishfinance (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Did the nominator bother to perform WP:BEFORE? In his reasons for nominating he does not mention that a news search shows many WP:RS with articles ABOUT THE SUBJECT or prominently featuring him as a notable figure.

For example:

How can the subject possibly not meet the criteria of WP:GNG? Jersey92 (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(By keep I mean keep, but fix the article to make in non-promotional.) Jersey92 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure. But I did the research. Minor mentions and biased articles. I'll go through the ones you listed.

The Jerusalem Post - Headline "THE ISRAELI TECH GURU WHO HELPS START-UPS WITHOUT ASKING ANYTHING IN RETURN Fuld says he built his entire high-tech career on being a freier." - Minor interview. Less than 500 words.

Business Insider - Headline "How the 'Robert Scoble of Israel' wound up in a bomb shelter with Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak", Minor article. Focus more on Woz than Fuld.

Jewish Journal - Headline "The Man Who Makes Tech Go ‘Boom’", Article is literally non stop promo that is repeated in the wiki post including the amount of followers on twitter and who follows him.

Inc. - Headline "10 Israeli Startups You Should Know" - An article he wrote about 10 startups you should look at. Not Establishing notability.

CNBC - Headline "Ultra-Orthodox Jews in un-Orthodox high-tech positions" - very very minor mention. 1 paragraph discussion his religious beliefs.

and columnists are writing stories about him. For example: The Times of Israel - Headline "Israel’s Secret Sauce of Success: Lessons from Hillel Fuld" - 2 paragraphs. Author even acknowledges in the piece they are "my good friend, mentor"

The man is even giving commencement addresses Touro College Division of Graduate Studies Commencement 2018 -Israeli Tech Guru Hillel Fuld tells Graduates ‘The Core of Business is Passion and Giving’. Keynote speaking sessions do not make you noteable.

All in all, I found the majority of sources were his own articles, interviews from companies he worked with or people he worked with, minor mentions, and he likely paid or is at least involved in his addition to wikipedia. He posted about this on his public facebook page and which perhaps is where many of these defenses are coming from. Facebook discussing his wikipage

If wiki majority really feel there is enough here to establish a journalist with a few minor biased articles about him as a notable figure to Wiki, fine. The current status of the article presented to wikipedia is pure promo and should be completely rewritten. I still do not believe there is enough here to warrant WP:GNG and haven't seen what I consider "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in any of the links mentioned.

70.24.66.14 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — 70.24.66.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment He is a columnist of course most of the articles mentioning him are written by him. He is mentioned on THE COVER of the current issue of 2.0 magazine. Jersey92 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer. Proposer of this AfD, and two other Deletes, and one Keep, are Single Purpose Accounts. Britishfinance (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The longer I look at this one the more insubstantial it gets. I thought at first given the volume of sources it was an easy keep - and the man's obviously a hell of a networker. But half the sources are written by him, half of it appears to be blogs (including the Forbes articles). The source I thought at first was unassailable (the bio in the Jerusalem Post) isn't independent because he works for it Neonchameleon (talk) 00:06, 21 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy King (writer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television director and producer, whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. As always, creative professionals are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because the article states that their work exists -- the notability test for TV showrunners requires the provision of enough reliable source media coverage about them to get them over WP:GNG. The only "reference" present here at all is his IMDB profile -- but everybody who works in television or film automatically gets one of those, so that isn't how you bridge the gap between existence and notability. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 21:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 21:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 21:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither evidence nor credible assertion of notability. (As to the IMDb: heck, I have an IMDb profile, and I certainly don't think I'm notable!) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Thank you. It was only a matter of time before someone was gonna propose deletion on this bullshit. But when I tried to speedy delete it, it was declined because of IMDb. Are you kidding me?!?! Delete this. Trillfendi (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, there are the multiple, easily verifiable Gemini awards. Even if you discount the writing award as being for the show rather than King, he also won a Gemini for his acting (as part of the ensemble cast) in the show. This article confirms his role in the creation of Cock'd Gunns: Reid, Michael D. (4 Sep 2008). "Wannabe rockers make good television". Times-Colonist. p. D.5. And many articles confirm his receipt of Best Ensemble Performance in a Comedy Program or Series at the 23rd Gemini Awards. Here's one example: Strachan, Alex (29 Nov 2008). "Intelligence wins Gemini (too bad it got cancelled)". The Gazette. p. A.12. Bakazaka (talk) 01:39, 14 February 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Passi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NOTINHERITED – the person does not seem to be notable independently from the company he started (Missguided). Consequently, virtually all listed sources mention his name only incidentally, in the context of Missguided. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm original author of the article. Figurehead of Missguided, which is a high-profile fashion company in the UK. He is also on The Sunday Times Rich List -- wealth is not a indication of noteworthiness on its own, but a signal of public interest. There is extensive personal coverage of Passi and also in his role as founder / CEO of Missguided. I'm seeing interviews in The FT, The Guardian, Drapers, Retail Week, Daily Mail, and The Times. Lots of personal coverage around failure to appear in front of a Parliamentary Select Committee too. Additionally, Drapers puts him at No. 10 most influential person in UK fashion -- above Mike Ashley, Philip Green, amongst others. Of course, not all the people on Drapers list qualify, but he is also the founder and 100pc owner of the company, worth £250 million according to The Sunday Times. Seems difficult to me to say he isn't notable. ScepticalChymist (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ScepticalChymist has found some good sources in reliable publications and Passi seems to meet WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:38, 15 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi Yahya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO - no indication of notability. A business executive whose bio is sourced almost exclusively to his companies' webpages, event announcements and a brief appearance on the radio. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm original author of the article. Originally had a profile in the telecoms sector, but has since faded. I proposed for deletion at the end of last year too. Not enough further independent news references. ScepticalChymist (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough from GNEWS to establish notability. Fails WP:NBIO Lapablo (talk) 00:27, 18 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neistat Brothers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Everything about this article is already in Casey_Neistat already and it's unclear if the pairing has it's own notability. Joe (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary content fork as the content is already covered in the Casey Neistat article, could be a redirect to that article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a standalone page as all the contents are already in Casey Neistat. Lapablo (talk) 00:30, 18 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Hebert[edit]

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

While the article appears to be in-depth the subject simply does not meet WP:GNG and his elected position is not substantial enough to meet WP:NPOL. Pretty much all the sources that are used are primary or not : including a high school yearbook, his obit, his wife's obit, another Mayor's obit, a link to the dean's office of Cal State Maritime (which has no mention of Hebert at all), PDF's of lawsuits, A dead link to the Louisiana Marshalls association, an "in memoriam" page for a deceased Louisiana judge with no mention of the subject, and the history of a trade school (again no mention of Hebert). Additionally, "source" one isn't even a source but rather a note by the page's author about the function of Louisiana city commissioners. GPL93 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created by a banned user, who was banned in part because of his unyielding persistence in using weak sources to overstate the encyclopedic notability of smalltown municipal officeholders in Louisiana. Indeed, this cites mostly primary sources (why in blazes would anybody ever think a high school yearbook was a notability-building source?), and even what little bit is actually media coverage isn't helping either — even that is mostly tangential coverage of other people or things, with only a single obituary actually being about him. But as always, the existence of one obituary in the local newspaper is not enough to make a person notable just for serving as a smalltown parks commissioner. Sucks that we're still coping with Billy Hathorn's handiwork four years later, but since he did occasionally tackle a few genuine notables I guess it wouldn't be appropriate to just do a blanket mass deletion blitz on everything he ever did. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 23:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Reads like a long-drawn out obituary, as many of Bill Hathorn's articles do. Penale52 (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Politician notability guideline for inclusion. Lapablo (talk) 00:40, 18 February 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. Consensus that notability is both established by general coverage and also MUSICBIO8. Given that a Grammy is, quite literally, the first example given I believe it can be taken as accepted that it is the definition of a major music award (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

Non-notable orchestra. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The present text has a rather recent focus, but this orchestra has a history of commissioning/premiering works by composers such as Charles Wuorinen [8] and Malcolm Arnold [9]. Recordings by this orchestra also feature on an NPR list [10] and occasional plays on BBC Radio [11]. AllyD (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would like to find some non-snippet in-depth coverage about this Orchestra, but their receipt of a Grammy in 2014 [12] should satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criterion 8. AllyD (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This Grammy is no a major award. This is evident in the lack of secondary coverage of the winner. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry - I am someone who almost always assumes good faith in others’ intentions - but I truly do not see the point of this nomination. Aside from the Grammy (any claim that any Grammy award is not a “major award” is total nonsense, sorry), the orchestra has recorded many albums for many labels, including New World Records and Decca Classics; one of these is a major label and the other is one of the most significant independent labels. In addition, they clearly pass #1 of the criteria; there is an abundance of coverage in reliable and independent sources! For instance, from The NY Times alone, I found many in-depth stories and concert reviews about the orchestra - “Hell or High Water, an Orchestra celebrates the Erie Canal”; “Albany Symphony in Carnegie Hall’s Spring for Music”; “Tested Out Upstate: Classical’s Future”; “CLASSICAL MUSIC: Albany’s Answer”; “Baltimore and Albany Symphonies at Carnegie Hall”; and others. Thus, the WP:GNG is unequivocally passed. My strong recommendation is for the nominator to withdraw this nomination immediately. Zingarese talk · contribs 23:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting GNG on sources provided here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 15 February 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best worst method[edit]

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

Appears to be one epidemic's pet statistical project. Sources are all primary originating (presumably) with the author of the article. Searches reveal little of benefit - although many hits for " best worst outcome" as a generalised English expression. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:OR Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite and expand. I found several recent papers ([13] [14] [15] [16]) from different authors that appear to build on this research; these sources appear to satisfy WP:GNG. ComplexRational (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the phrase is widely used prior to 2015, for example best–worst scaling is often refered to as "best worst method".--Pontificalibus 06:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus 06:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT - the current article is only sourced to a primary source and borders on promoting the method. There are certainly some citations, but I'm not sure they are usable to write an encyclopedia article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seem to be quite a few scholarly papers on this subject. In addition to the ones ComplexRational found there are also [17], [18] (in which admittedly Rezaei is a coauthor), [19] and others. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NUKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GN-z11 (talk • contribs)
Keep - references provided above, by mutually unconnected research teams, easily demonstrate currency in scientific discourse. Article really needs those additional refs, however; sourcing is definitely insufficient at the moment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find quality sources, not linked to the author of this term, that consider this term notable. Seems like this Dr. has made-up a term to an obvious decision making process and tried to claim ownership of it; hence the article is also promotional. Britishfinance (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/ Alternate Merge to Pairwise comparison: A 2015 neologism by Rezaei that has not made it past the mathematical and scientific studying and research, new papers, and alternate models. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of terms such as these. Compare different multi-criteria decision making interval ratios to represent pairwise differences (pairwise comparisons): Euclidean best-worst method (Euclidean BWM), Cognitive Best Worst Method (CBWM), VIKOR method, and Chebyshev BWM. A common problem in practice is that pairwise comparison methods usually lack consistency such as the original non-linear model (NLM) so in 2016 Rezaei introduced the linear model. This has been argued as not accurate and an alternate MILM model has been suggested. "Scholarly research" is great but we shouldn't create articles based just on these as we would have thousands of articles on terms and words supported sometimes by just an author with cross-references from other research papers debating, contradicting, or otherwise modifying and even changing a term. I would not be opposed to the different models listed in a parent article (like "Pairwise comparison") and creating articles if and when reliable sources show independent notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Silva[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator. This young player fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage, nothin beyond routine transfer reports etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (he has not yet actually played in a fully-professional league - being on the roster is not enough, you have to actually get on the pitch!). Giant Snowman 16:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Think he merits inclusion as a page on Wiki, he is the only remaining member of Hearts first team without a page, he is a full-time footballer, not a part-time youth player. He is a first team goalkeeper that is third in line and 21 years old, so hard for him to get on the pitch as a young player. He has been capped by US National teams at youth level, including during 2015 Concacaf U-17 Championship. Signing a fully professional contract and appearing on a professional game day roster is not relevant enough?

WEHarding (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WEHarding: - no, the standard is that a player must actually play to be considered notable - being a third-choice keeper is not sufficient I'm afraid! Giant Snowman 16:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for response @GiantSnowman:, disappointing, but can understand. Makes it very difficult for a young keeper to qualify for a page, even if they are first team! WEHarding (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Happy to move this to the creator's draftspace if that option is desired. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost all online coverage is routine at this point (I added a 2014 interview from a blog that is interesting but certainly not enough for notability by itself). Agree that it's WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As he has not played a first team match for a team in a professional league he does not meet current notability requirements. If he makes appearances in the future then it would be appropriate for him to have an article. Dunarc (talk) 20:52, 14 February 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. Having done a lot of work isn't sufficient for notability, and the arguments advocating don't go much beyond that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavyata Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable model and title holder of a non-notable pageant. A before search throws up nothing. Fails GNG and BIO. FitIndia ^Talk 16:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is a finalist in the Femina Miss India contest (Miss India Elite) who won the Best Talent Award at the Pageant be non-notable? She is also a participant of an International Pageant 'Supermodel International'. Secondly, she has done a lot of modeling work. She has walked on the ramp for famous designers and shows and even won awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anamika S Jain (talk • contribs) 10:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Anamika S Jain (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Keep credible sources show that subject is a successful model and beauty pageant title holder. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable participant/winner of some minor beauty pageants with no significant coverge in reliable sources and there is nothing I can find that addresses the subject directly and in detail. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 04:23, 19 February 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 16:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Bascom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

See Talk:Julia Bascom for the original reason posted anonymously Ylevental (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a notable advocate for people with autism. I've added some more sources which show that she has been consulted for the creation of Sesame Street's first autistic character, addressed the UN and more. Her work, which is referenced on the talk page is noticed by others in the field, including the Oxford Handbook on disability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources, appears to be notable. PamD 09:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the improvement to the article by adding more references to reliable sources coverage, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is certainly adequately sourced and the subject is a notable advocate. Valadius (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Julia Bascom is an important person to autistic people. The people suggesting this page be deleted are attempting to silence their importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.166.94 (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourced well enough. Plenty more sources out there too (as was evident in the last deletion discussion). This article should have been tagged for improvement, not deletion. --Avenue (talk) 07:18, 15 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veena S[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL; WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.

Sole sources (per my searches) are this and this. ∯WBG^converse 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, and merely being "one of" the first members of an underrepresented group to do an otherwise non-notable thing is not a free golden ticket to special-case status either. To be considered notable for this, she would have to show a significantly higher volume of media coverage than just three footnotes, in a significantly higher class of media outlets than just user-generated citizen journalism projects. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator: no evidence that this individual meets GNG or NPOL. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NPOL, needs to win a significant election Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 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 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KVerbos[edit]

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

Non-notable abandonware. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have notability. -- Editor-1 (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of KDE applications. I can't find reliable sources for KVerbos, but the software is listed in the proposed redirect target. — Newslinger talk 04:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article might need more additional citations/sources for verification. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:13, 20 February 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. Per Fram, after deletion, I'll be creating a redirect to Sheridan Le Fanu ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Lucretia Dobbin[edit]

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

No independent notability, a family member of some notable people. The only thing she is "remembered" for is stealing a dagger, an anecdote of very limited notability in itself, and not enough to base an article on. Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some references to her writing career and I suspect there may be quite a bit more out there in offline sources and biographies of Sheridan Le Fanu. Agree the dagger anecdote is very weak. Article should probably be renamed Emma Le Fanu. Tacyarg (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NBIO, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. In general this seems suited to Ancestry.com or Thepeerage.com or similar platform - which cover peers and other people who are notable primarily for their relations or associations than on their own merits. The proposed "secondary" notability claim (writer) does not seem to meet the threshold expected of WP:AUTHOR (in that her works do not seem to have been broadly published, significantly impactful, or otherwise represent "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work".) The references/links in the article are largely passing/trivial mentions than significant discussions on the author or her works. Guliolopez (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Finnegas (talk) 19:04, 20 February 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 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grok Learning[edit]

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

COI article about a company/website sourced only by its own website & staff profiles at their relevant universities. A search only returns their own website and social media posts. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG as it lacks significant and independent coverage outside of its own website. Omni Flames (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding some mentions in books [20], [21], but nothing that really indicates it is of encyclopedic noteworthiness. This looks like a promotional article created shortly after the company was launched. SunChaser (talk) 00:13, 17 February 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. Ugh. There's clear consensus here that this is a potentially notable topic but the current article shouldn't be kept due to the way it's written. The problem is, the most common suggestion is that it should be rewritten, and that's not something I can implement in an AfD close. So, I'm going to delete it. If anybody wants to take a shot at a rewrite, please ping me (or any other admin) and it can be restored to your user space for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Underage smoking in Australia[edit]

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

Appears to be a school research project, that reads like a report. Allied45 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace or delete. Remagoxer (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Complete rewrite. I agree the page reads like a school project, but given the subject matter, it may be better to simply do a full rewrite of the page. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 13:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are parts of this "article" that are informative and cited and might be useful in other Wikipedia articles, but as it is it is not an encyclopedic article on the title subject, and reads like a homework assignment or essay. I'm not sure what to do with it, but it should not stand as is. SunChaser (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and reduce. Looks like a lot of work (by a now some years inactive username), unfortunately a lot of duplication with other articles and not on the specific topic. The subject has merit, but the article needs a lot of work. Aoziwe (talk) 09:52, 17 February 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 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi Voice[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the "references" are deadlinked bare URLs to a newspaper that, according to the article, this publication is directly affiliated with — which means that none of them are independent of the subject for the purposes of establishing its notability. Regardless of what the topic is, the notability test is not passed just because its own self-published web presence technically verified that it exists: the notability test is the reception of media coverage it didn't have the power to create and publish about itself, but none of the sources here clear that bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments. Paleorthid (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very minor industry magazine, of interest only to its own readers. SunChaser (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Indus Age. Not notable in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most/all of its sources look "deadlink". It requires valid sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:19, 20 February 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 11:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rockapedia[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Remagoxer (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG as it lacks any real significant coverage outside of a self-published website and Facebook page. Omni Flames (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with Omni Flames it fails WP:GNG, as it lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anything to indicate any notability. Aoziwe (talk) 10:06, 17 February 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 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Jade[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the article mentions, her first single, "Aliens", peaked on several national European charts, including a #80 peak on the Dutch charts back in 2011 [22], which in itself is enough to pass WP:NSINGER. Furthermore, there is evidence of significant, independent coverage on various music review / news sites, e.g [23][24][25][26]. Omni Flames (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Keep Seems to be enough to satisfy WP:NEXIST to get over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has nationally charted. Aoziwe (talk) 10:17, 17 February 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 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max & Bianca[edit]

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

Music duo who had one charting single in Australia (#92) six years ago and do not appear to have anything notable since Allied45 (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BAND. I have supplied content and references. The subject has been described by multiple sources and they have a national charting single.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has nationaly charted. Seems to be enough to satisfy WP:NEXIST to get over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concur with Shaidar cuebiyar the article satisfies WP:BAND. Improved referencing satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 13:42, 17 February 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 merge to Salvation Army brass bands in Australia. czar 11:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Salvation Army brass bands in the Australia Southern Territory[edit]

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

Unnecessary list two local Salvation Army bands Allied45 (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Salvation Army brass bands in the Australia Eastern Territory and include within a new article, Salvation Army brass bands in Australia. My first thought on seeing the title of this AfD was, what on earth is the Australia Southern Territory? Apparently, it is a Salvation Army administrative division, which no longer exists. Whether the two former Salvation Army divisions within Australia are notable and deserve articles of their own, separate from The Salvation Army in Australia, is another question. The existence of Salvation Army bands in Australia is covered in various sources, though there are probably more sources for historic bands than current ones. But the topic of bands within former administrative divisions is not notable outside the Salvation Army. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, not enough entry's for an independent list article Atlantic306 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, such a small niche list does not warrant its own article. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Trivial list not notable in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Aoba47 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Wilson (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Edited by subject with promotional content, but has never received major critical attention. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is a marginal case for a pass of WP:NACTOR#1 (The Bronx Zoo + It's a Bird... It's a Plane... It's Superman TV adaptation + Eddie and the Cruisers + Dallas: The Early Years), this article is a BLP mess, with promotional language inherited from earlier versions, and unsourced accusations tacked on later. Except that this isn't a BLP, is it? Didn't the subject die several years ago? So, maybe not a BLP, but this is a mess of bad/promotional information, and in my opinion our readers are better served with a redlink so someone can recreate the article later with reliable sources. Bakazaka (talk) 17:35, 20 February 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 Deleted (G11) by user Athaenara, 23:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC). (non-admin closure). Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fee[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Article is a vanity page created by the article's subject (WP:CONFLICT) Allied45 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A google search shows that there are a decent number of very reliable independent sources for individual pieces of information in this article, but they are about the dance groups and their productions and often only mention the title subject as founder, creator, producer, etc. Article currently fails BIO referencing, but a lot of this could be fixed with easily locatable references. While undeclared CONFLICT, my quick looking seems to indicate that a significant amount of material is potentially verifiable. Aoziwe (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We read: Andrew continues to be the driving passion behind RAW's success from their humble beginnings to the global company they have become today. Which is just how User:Andrew.Fee wrote it, six years ago. Too much autohagiography. Would anyone who thinks WP would benefit from an article on Fee consider improving this article? -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a very promotional autobio that is a case of WP:PROMO. I've nominated it for G11 as it seems to qualify. If the subject is notable it would be better started fresh by an uninvolved editor without the autobio infection, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 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. Consensus to keep. No reason the delete for copyvio reasons because that was fixed. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 22:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Palladino[edit]

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

While a couple of sources do say he was "pioneering," none of them have anything to say about him that constitutes significant coverage or are able to nod to what was pioneering about his work. The only source of any length seems to be the obit in what I'm not sure is even the main news outlet for his locality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added more citations (including multiple books) and updated explaining why he's a pioneer (with citations). This was my first new Wiki page - didn't realize it'd get flagged so quickly. Thanks for the input. My apologizes if I didn't update this "talk" thread correctly –ActAudio (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient citations to establish notability a a recording engineer. DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I need to do some more research before making a definitive choice, but although the article currently has problems with copyright issues and OR, it looks like it might be salvageable. Just looking through back copies of Billboard, many of the biographical claims can be corroborated: that Mr. Palladino started out at Radio Recorders [27]; that he was promoted to album producer at Capitol Records in 1956 [28]; that he was a pioneer in the use of Ampex recording tape [29] and was responsible for developing Capitol's "duophonic sound" system [30] and twin pack tape cartridges [31]; that he became part of Capitol's A&R team [32] and was promoted to A&R director in 1976 [33]. And although the Granata book and Sound on Sound articles are mostly primary sources as interviews conducted with Mr. Palladino, they confirm that he did work with Frank Sinatra on some of his most important records of the 1950s. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the copyright issue - I did a sloppy job writing this initially (I'm still new to writing articles vs just doing editing). I already re-wrote some of that flagged information more carefully and with new citations. Initially it was just referencing his obituary). So, it's probably ok at this point to just delete those flagged sections. Actaudio (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it would be good if the copyright issue on the page could be sorted out and removed, particularly as it's essentially just a duplicate of the rest of the article. But while it's still there, it's difficult to clean up the article because some of the references are in that section and we're not supposed to alter anything. Richard3120 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see it in any copyright discussion. Is there anything I can do to help move this along? Rewrite on a temp page or would that complicate things more? Actaudio (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC and has coverage in reliable sources such as Billboard and therefore deserves a place in Wikipedia and the concerns about copyvio are being addressed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: I've rewritten the article below the copyvio warning and added the sources I found above. It's still a bit of a mess, with repeated citations, but that's because they're also included in the blanked section under copyvio, and we're not allowed to touch that bit. Once that issue is sorted out, the page can be tided up, but I think there are enough reliable sources now to keep the rewritten part of the article as it stands and pass WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: copyvio issues have been addressed, citations have been sorted out. Richard3120 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 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. Per WP:SNOW, and nominator has also withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unaccredited institutions of higher education[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher education (3rd nomination)

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

The problems with this article are: 1.The list is listing something that may change, and when it does so the existance of an entry here sometimes becomes instantly and unfairly problematic(due to the nature of what Wikipedia has become). Similarly to WP:BLP the inclusion in the list will be seen as an indicator of a possible lack of trustfulness, and when it isn't true it could cause significant harm. The maintenance needed to make this list suitably accurate is excessive. 2.WP:NOTDIRECTORY states that Wikipedia articles should not be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". This is a list of loosely associated topics. The reasons for not getting an accreditation can be many - the list itself states that. It could be because the institution cannot get accredited because it is privatly run and private institutions do not get accredited in principle, or only when established with the consent of the state. It could be because the institution is refused accreditation because its topics are generally obscure(and there is no one who could serve as a reliable accreditator). It could be because the institution is unreliable. It could be because the institution is new and has to prove itself first before getting accreditation. Those should not all be put together in a single list.

A List of suspected diploma mills would likewise have the problem of high maintenance and should not be pursued instead.

The previous deletion discussions were under a different name:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (second nomination);Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Lurking shadow (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and essentially a list defined by a non-attribute. I see the previous AfDs were from more than a decade ago, so maybe consenus can change? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I note the nominator has not got a userpage- so I am suspicious that one of his first action on WP should be an erudite AFD. This is more than a list, items have useful entries such as 'not to be confused with UofXXX- a degree issuing university with a similar name'. ClemRutter (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the nomination unconvincing. The fact that a Wikipedia page requires maintence to keep it up to date is nothing unusual. One of greatest features of Wikipedia is that it can be, and regularly is, updated in real time. As far as I can tell, the nominator has not even made an attempt to solicit assistance in maintaining the list - the bare minimum that I would expect someone to try before claiming that it can't be maintained and must therefore be deleted. Also, I don't agree that this list contains "loosely associated topics". Accreditation is a fundamental, often defining, aspect of educational institutions and educational systems. Grouping unaccredited institutions of higher education into a single list therefore makes complete sense regardless of why they aren't accredited. If you're concerned about the scope of the list or its potentially ill-defined criteria for inclusion, that's something to address on the article's talk page first. Deletion on those grounds should only be considered if no reasonable criteria can be established. Peacock (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in looking for sources that indicate a change every month for every single entry in this page(except historical entries). I also might simply forget that. However, the damage done outside of Wikipedia was an important qualifier. "Useful list" is bad, not good - people will use this and if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsly listed institutions. Similarly, this list is, and will always be, very incomplete. If an organisation is not listed here then it does not mean that it's accredited. Most of them - especially the fraudulent diploma mills - will not even get included because they cannot be reliably sourced. One part of the defining text is this - "Institutions that appear on this list are those that have granted post-secondary academic degrees or advertised the granting of such degrees, but which are listed as unaccredited by a reliable source" - which is actually at odds with the name of the list - it may also include institutions that are not percieved as accredited in one single country... the name of the list would suggest that only institutions without any accreditation should be included.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example of significant harm done to an organization falsely included on the list, or are you just speculating? Peacock (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really any of this. If enough people use that list on an organization that is falsly listed and that organization loses these people because of this... that's harmful. And as people go to Wikipedia regularly to check things(even if they shouldn't take things at face value, most do)... you might call it speculation, but I call it a high risk.

Keep I do edit the page occasionally. I have not found the maintenance to be excessive. jfeise (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well sourced compendium. I note that the proposer has a partial ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as this is a useful list. Educational institutions are usually accredited by the education board of a country and the lack of an accreditation is something which is out of the ordinary. I do not buy the argument that "people will use this and if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsely listed institutions". On the contrary, imagine the "silent but significant harm that can be caused to students who do not have access to a list of unaccredited institutions". Lists are updated from time to time and if reliable sources can be found, we can update this. Any updates can be discussed on the talk.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"silent but significant harm that can be caused to students who do not have access to a list of unaccredited institutions" - No. The students can find out if an institution is reliably accredited without accessing Wikipedia - and should do so(if they don't then it's their fault. Not the fault of Wikipedia.).Lurking shadow (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case your original argument ("if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsely listed institutions") is moot. People can find out if information is outdated or incorrect, without accessing Wikipedia. If they don't, then it is their fault, not the fault of Wikipedia. So all in all, let's keep this list.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We might not like it(and at the same time like it), but people rely on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is important. If someone inserts libel about a big company and it isn't timely removed people will start to believe these assertions. If we have them listed here then most easily assessed sources may copy this information even when it goes untrue. This will especially happen with this list form, because it often gives no additional info on the subjects - or highly incomplete information.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get your argument. If people rely on Wikipedia and it is important, then I guess it is a strong argument to have a list of unaccredited institutions. About untrue information, the same can be said for all articles about people. Should we delete all articles about people simply because someone might add untrue information? We tend to keep then and ensure false information is not added. We do not delete them. The same can be applied here.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we (should) ensure false info isn't added. The bigger problem is when information becomes outdated - something that is accentuated in this list, obviously, because it deals with information that will sometimes become outdated, and then it should edited out immediately. Keeping things not outdated is probably also a problem for articles about people but probably not in the same magnitude.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you agree that we should not delete this article, but instead maintain it. Problems with outdated information can be handled accordingly with policies related to editing.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the motivation to check sources offline and online for each entry(save for historical entries that never reached accreditation) every month - or if you can find someone who has(I certainly don't) - then we can keep this. Sure.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in our rules does it say an article must be deleted if sources aren't checked at least monthly. This article should be deleted if it fails our notability requirements. This article passes notability requirements. SportingFlyer T·C 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well,no, Notability isn't everything, but I think you gave me an idea on how to sort this out, so - let's keep this for now.Lurking shadow (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-sourced list which clearly passes the guidelines set out at WP:NLIST. I don't understand the nom's rationale. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:49, 16 February 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. This article was also eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle. MER-C 20:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Xiang[edit]

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

Promotional article stuffed with promotional links (in Chinese). As a scholar fails WP:PROFESSORTEST. As a writer, let' see: the first 2 books are not even his field. (Writing a book about "Utility Machine Electrical Control Line" at age 14?) Books 3–8 were self-published. Not a single book has a WorldCat entry (one can verify this by clicking on their ISBN numbers). Timmyshin (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The sources, SEC [34], Google Books [35], and WorldCat [36] meet WP:GNG.89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 123Aristotle (talk • contribs). [reply]

How does he meet GNG? The SEC link only mentions his name as a registrant, the Google Books link does not mention his name at all, and the Worldcat link simply tells us that 2 libraries in China hold a book which lists him as the 3rd author. Timmyshin (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:PROF. Additionally, the editing history of the article creator (just enough small edits to reach autoconfirmed, then dropping 2 fully-formatted articles into mainspace) invites further scrutiny. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bakazaka You may be pleased to know that the article creator User:Coqja'uv has been confirmed as a sockpuppet. Timmyshin (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timmyshin, thanks for the update. Bakazaka (talk) 17:26, 19 February 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 04:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Helmink[edit]

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

Tagged as I adequately sourced since 2007. Article created by single-purpose account. Mccapra (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed there isn't enough here. Awards are not significant enough, and book is edition of 200 published by the gallery. Probably TOOSOON. --Theredproject (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source is not a RS.Fred (talk) 18:14, 13 February 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Flash Heat Wave[edit]

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

Fails Google test. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not fail Google test. Coverage in Noisey (Vice), Stereogum, Paste, and Consequence of Sound just to name a few. There is plenty of coverage to be found. Everything is also adequately sourced in the article. Andise1 (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 20 reliable sources are included in the article which makes this band more than notable and easily passes WP:GNG, FYI. Andise1 (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BAND through coverage in independent reliable sources. Adding to what's already in the article, there's also a short AllMusic bio here. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 11:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How does it "fail the Google test"? This band meets WP:MUSIC which is enough to stay. Skirts⁸⁹ 16:36, 13 February 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Conceding a consensus to delete... it's pretty weak. So I'm calling this a soft delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Smith[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Former county judge and district attorney. GPL93 (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure - He might have notability by way of that Kyzer matter, which seems to have plenty of coverage. I'll look into this and report back. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice if nationalized sources about the subject are found. It appears that the subject had a productive 14-year career (described here: https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20131101/tuscaloosa-district-attorney-tommy-smith-retires-lyn-head-sworn-in), but there is not the nationalization of coverage that the community generally expects of a locally-elected official. --Enos733 (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If his coverage is solely from his involvement in the Kyzer case. Wouldn't it be a case of WP:BLP1E? Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Academy of Honor[edit]

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

What is the notability of this? I've never heard of it, there's no inherent reason why it should be considered notable--it's just a group of people selected by its own members, with some local newspaper and TV stations reporting on it. The only time it gets called something, as far as I know, is here, "prestigious"--but of course anything involving Nick Saban is going to be prestigious. Well, Roll Tide and all that, but this isn't notable. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has gotten some non-local RS news coverage, e.g. Chicago Tribune (paywall), the New York Times, NPR, and (this is the largest amount of in-depth coverage I could find) the New York Times again. However, most (but not all) of this coverage is just "Famous person X was inducted into the Academy today". IntoThinAir (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has the backing of legislature and the refs above are enough for notability. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sources definitely do not provide enough coverage on the academy itself to pass - especially given that it needs to satisfy WP:NORG. Additionally, "it has the backing of legislature" is a ridiculous reasoning - not everything that has a state's support automatically has notability. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it does very little to do it. That said, it's an impressive list, so I wouldn't be shocked if someone writing about them has covered the academy in some decent detail. Hopefully a more in-depth sweep by me tomorrow might find some more (or not) and let me finish casting a !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:44, 21 February 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 no consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nilufar Usmonova[edit]

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

Fails, Wikipedia:MUS and no Wikipedia:Independent sources. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources,per achievements by singer. Article need c/e if kept though.BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article definitely needs editing. As for notability - there do not appear to be national music charts for Uzbekistan. I do note that her songs/music videos have been released on Vevo (as stated in the article and in this source [37] - that at least is clear from the Google translation), and Vevo hosts music videos from established recording labels Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI - so perhaps she meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" (what counts as an album???) The info in the article suggests that she might also meet #11 "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network", but that's hard to verify. The news website Podrobno.uz calls her a pop star and a famous singer [38], and Nuz.uz [39] calls her a "Popular domestic singer" and "one of the top performers of modern Uzbek variety art. Good vocal, inherited singer about the mother, attractive appearance and amazing performance allowed the young singer to achieve great success in show business." (according to Google Translate). So, probably notable, but hard to verify. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the notion that this article is over the threshold for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 19 February 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 merge to Honey Cocaine. czar 02:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Drug[edit]

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

Non-notable mixtape performed by non-notable recording artist. Seems to fail WP:NALBUM and WP:NMUSIC. TheKaphox T 16:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Honey Cocaine. Mixtape hardly has much coverage, but Honey Cocaine is notable enough. She has significant coverage in Vice (Noisey), HipHopDX, BET, an Allmusic biography, XXL, etc., all established music/cultural publications. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as previously suggested. Doradafan (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Honey Cocaine. Vorbee (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Honey Cocaine per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 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. Sourcing for WP:N (or indeed, WP:V) was found wanting. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rudramurti Ahir[edit]

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

Single sentence article with no reference. The subject is not notable, fails WP:GNG. Google search only results in mirror sites of Wikipedia and a very few other sites. Most of them are unreliable, and the others don't have enough content establish notability. KCVelaga (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ - This figure was a king of the Abhira Kingdom sometime between 250 and 415 AD. I'm not sure if tribal kings are automatically assumed to be encyclopedic but my inclination is that they are. However, I'm having trouble finding good information. Here is mention in one book[40]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see snippet view of that book, Smmurphy, but the title isn't promising - it is about a myth. - Sitush (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only see a snippet as well - and I agree that it is a terrible reference. The source I gave is, I think, using the name Rudramurty as the name of a god identified with Shiva (see also: [41]).
The underlying issue stays the same. If there is enough information to identify this figure - that is if reliable sources describe the figure, however briefly, and if he was a king of some stature, then I think he is could be encyclopedic. In the K.S. Singh source, Rudramurti is mentioned alongside Ishwarsen (also Ishwar Sen) and Shivdatta (whose page is here: Śūdraka). Looking for these figures, I find one or two more sources, but I'm not sure if those are less dubious than Singh. In those sources, Rudramurti doesn't seem to be mentioned. So what we have is a single source possibly copied a few times. I won't !vote delete at this point, as I'm happy to be swayed back. But looking closely, there really doesn't seem to be anything here.
I can think of various reasons this could have been fabricated and various ways in which it could have been fabricated. In particular, the ur-source for Rudramurti is probably the same as the sources for Śūdraka, stories and myths of uncertain accuracy. So I looked for more about Śūdraka to see what I could find. One source discussing Śūdraka/Shivdata also mentions a general Rudrabhuti in the service of Saka Rudrasimha (see Rudrasimha I). So Rudramurti could be a misspelling of Rurabhuti. In general, our knowledge of the Abhira kings seems to derive from a small number of inscriptions (for instance [42], describing inscription 1137 here [43] - Rudrabhuti is mentioned in inscription 963 in that same booklet). Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSOLDIER Generals are notable. reliable source from Anthropological Survey of India mentions him as the army chief and a king. These 2 books are strong enough for me to keep this stub.^[1]^[2]--DBigXrayᗙ 06:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Singh, Kumar Suresh (1998). "Rudramurti+Ahir" People of India. Anthropological Survey of India. ISBN 9788171547661. Retrieved 5 February 2019. ((cite book)): |first2= missing |last2= (help)
^ Singh, K. S. (1998). Rajasthan. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 9788171547661. Retrieved 5 February 2019.

Yeah, the problem is that the "states" series of The People of India is, unlike the "national" series, not considered to be reliable. They mostly plagiarise the Raj era stuff, which itself is unreliable for a bunch of reasons. Also, while NSOLDIER does suggest that generals etc are inherently notable, that is based on It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: ... It is a fair presumption for the modern era but if we actually cannot find much in the way of sourcing for someone who lived ca. 1600 years ago, and all we can find is passing mentions in dubious sources, then it is an equally fair presumption that we are not now going to do so. I'm really undecided about this. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind comments Sitush. Yes, this was not an easy choice, but I would prefer to take sides with the Anthropological Survey of India and trust their expertise. IMHO, if there are ambiguity at an AfD it is better to err on the safer side i.e. to keep. We have to decide on what already exists and if that is promising. This source is promising enough for me. hence I decided to keep. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that your two citations above are from the same source? They're both Volume 38, Part 1 of the "Rajasthan" part of the states series. And, as I said, AnSI is not reliable in that series. There was a reason why Cambridge University Press were unwilling to pursue their collaboration after the initial "national" series publications. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done a search of JSTOR, eg@ this, but can find no mention of him, including under alternate spellings such as Aheer and Rudramurthy. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sitush and nom.∯WBG^converse 12:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked high and low but can find nothing that would get this person over the GNG bar, nor even reliably confirm his military status. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 14 February 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 02:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas W. Koon[edit]

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

Unreferenced and fails WP:NPOL. Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found. Clear fail of NPOL. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 10:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cumberland MD is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, but the article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to make him special. Notability is not inherited, so the fact that his house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places doesn't grant him an exemption from having to clear regular biographical standards — it justifies an article about the house, which in fact we already have at Thomas Koon House, but does not reify into an inclusion freebie for the house's occupant in the absence of enough sourcing to make him notable as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The national historical register articles get crufty pretty quickly too, so the fact there's a two-primary-source directory listing of his house on the site isn't helpful for his notability either (apart from all the other issues). SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors are not presumed notable, and the sourcing is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 16 February 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 and split. Clear consensus that the list article should be kept. There also is strong consensus that the article should be subdivided in some manner. Finally, there is general agreement that significant additional cleanup is required without necessarily determining what that should be. I interpret this as an easy keep, but a recognition that there is much work to be done on the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult films[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:TNT this could potentially be a very good article if it was started back from the beginning, but most of these films simply aren't considered cult films by any decent standard, leading to a very WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. For every single entry I checked, none of the Wikipedia articles about them ever used the word "cult" to describe them. Unlike the previous AfD, I do not believe the large size is a reason to delete the article. I invite people to randomly open articles for these films and find any mention of being a cult film. Right now it's just a list of films where someone somewhere has called them a cult and not even to a standard where that is mentioned on their own articles, so why would they be of a standard to include them here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I edit extensively in cult film articles on WP. I agree with most of nominator's arguments, except there isn't a great framework for categorizing these films. Just because the articles don't call themselves cult films doesn't mean they aren't. I would love to see some form of categorization that better structures this - but this list seems fairly cohesive when I glance over it. Skirts⁸⁹ 01:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we would expect the article to at least mention that it has some cult status. Otherwise it's just a list of thousands of potential cult films where the strongly considered cult films are given the same weight as the ones that are only considered cult by one person somewhere, which is the current criteria. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous books about cult movies and so the topic easily passes WP:LISTN. WP:TNT is not policy; the actual policies are WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm asking people to choose to follow WP:TNT, it doesn't have to be a policy. Of course there should be an article at that name, the point is that the best way to fix it is to start from the start. WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE are policies that support deleting this article for the purpose of restarting it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that is quite false as deletion is not our policy in such cases. The policy WP:IMPERFECT states clearly that we improve such pages by a process of in situ editing. Andrew D. (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

It doesn't say we can't delete. I'm not arguing that the article must be perfect, or that it should be deleted for not being perfect. I am disappointed that you think I am saying this. Other than deleting it entirely (and starting it again and making it a great article), the other way to improve the article would be to individually remove most of the entries to the article. The formatting of the article is not an issue, and the article does not lack figures or graphics, and bias is not a problem in the article. I don't see why it's preferable to take the time to remove most of the entries and figure out which ones should be retained, than restarting the article. I think quite clearly that alternative would be the one seeking perfection at all costs, not me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence (but leaning to support) - cult is a very notable subject and an article should indeed be created. However, from galncing over the list, I see a lot of films which are clearly not "cult" films. They might be "famous" films or even "good" or "taught in film schools" films, but that does not mean they have a cult following, in the style of say, The Rocky Horror Picture Show has. I'm leaning to agree with the nom here, that the only way to fix this list, is to work from the start, adding only films which fit a criteria, instead of going over more than 1000 films and checking if they fit or not. --Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia has a lot of list-of articles like this, where a single mention of the target word in any source is sufficient for inclusion. The bar for inclusion is very low. The end result is a list that is too long and not authoritative or very useful. This is no one's fault, no one has taken the time to cull the cruft and maintain the list at a higher standard of inclusion. AfD is not the right tool, though, it's not a shortcut. The right tool is the "Edit" button and talk page discussions. -- GreenC 15:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Split for reasons already decided at 2nd nomination. No compliance with WP:Before. The Wikipedia death penalty of WP:Delete is totally inappropriate. WP:I don't like it is not a policy based reason to delete. WP:Not paper. This is a waste of a lot of editor's valuable time.

Given its massive size, I think splitting it by Decades makes good sense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty? I was sure to state in the first sentence that the article would most definitely exist, but from the start. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to repeat what I said at the last AFD last year since nothing has changed at all. Dream Focus 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the entries have references. If reliable sources call it a "cult film" then it should go on that list. The length of the list is not a problem. Best to have everything on one list so you can sort by alphabetical order, by year, or by director as you see fit. Dream Focus 17:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that if a reference to a reliable source calls it a "cult film" then its on the list. It doesn't matter if a Wikipedia article calls it that or not, we go on what reliable sources say. Destroying an article and hoping a new one will form in its place that is more to your liking is just plain ridiculous. Get on the article's talk page and discuss anything you need to discuss about how to improve it, don't waste everyone's time with a pointless AFD. Dream Focus 17:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus I disagree that a single reliable source should be our inclusion criteria. I would also suggest some entries on that list are backed by more reliable sources than others. But that suggests cleanup and it seems that this work could be adequately done without TNT on this article. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with caveat This is clearly a notable topic and meets the criteria laid out at WP:LISTN. However, I agree with some of the other observations that it is too WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Spurious mentions shouldn't qualify films for the list. The bar for inclusion needs to be much higher. We had a similar problem at List of films considered the best and imposed a far more stringent admissions criteria on the list which addressed the indiscriminate nature of it. The list is going to survive the cull, and once it does we need to initiate a discussion on the talk page to come up with some sensible inclusion criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all those suggesting I should have started a discussion in the talk page, that is exactly what I did and I didn't get any traction. I decided it would be easier to restart the article and check if films are sufficiently cult status before adding them, rather than checking if every existing entry was sufficiently cult status. So to those saying I am wasting editors' time, deleting the article and recreating it would be the faster way. There's something like two thousand films on this list. I believed this would be successful in the same way as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box office bombs (2000s) was, which I find to be very similar in characteristics to this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk:List_of_cult_films#The_ghost_of_the_box_office_bombs_lists? No one participated that agreed with you so you sent it to AFD after a few days? Anyway you believe it was be easier to start a new list from scratch than to work with the existing one. That is fairly ridiculous unless you planned on just leaving most things out and not even checking to see if they met whatever new inclusion criteria you may eventually come up with. Anytime someone wants to destroy an existing article claiming something new and better might magically appear somehow in its place, it is in fact a waste of everyone's time. Dream Focus 21:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only person that participated was someone I had notified personally. Yes I do believe starting again would be easier, because most of the entries don't meet the standard for inclusion. If it wasn't most then I wouldn't have proposed this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Onetwothreeip already has a substantial draft page. That doesn't seem as good as the existing page nor does there seem to be any accompanying plan or discussion. If Onetwothreeip thinks they can do better, they should work up that draft before touching the current page. If and when the draft is better, it can be merged into/over the current page without needing to delete anything. Note that the current page had about quarter of a million readers in 2018 and so it would be disruptive to remove it until there is an equivalent replacement ready. By preparing any radical replacement separately, we would be able to revert if the new version was not well-received. Andrew D. (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Andrew Davidson A quarter million readers is a lot - even more incumbent upon us to be giving them good information. So let's take a look at how well the list does. In examining the first 10 on the list: 7 Faces of Dr. Lao sources to a book about magicians so not RS, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad doesn't appear to be called a cult movie (but is listed as one of several impressive films by a filmmaker), 8 Femmes is said to have, "A cult-like appreciation", 9 1/2 weeks is not called a cult film but is called "an enormous international hit" which is the opposite of a cult film, 9 songs is listed in The Rough Guide to Cult Movies: The Good, The Bad and the Very Weird, 12 monkeys is called part of the new cult cannon, Les 12 Travaux d'Astérix is sourced to a Comic encyclopedia, 28 Days Later is called that in the very first sentence of the source, 37°2 le Matin is listed at cultographies.com (which had an editorial board full of academics), 42nd Street is sourced to a important book about cult films.
        So I see 2 that have no source behind them, 2 which are sourced to poor sources, 3 which are sourced to popular press books/periodicals, and 3 with what appear to be strong sourcing. This hit rate is below what I would like to see but doesn't lead me all the way to delete. Ideally I would like to see a handful of sources be considered as top notch and films in them are auto include, a number of other RS sources be considered reliable and if there are multiple citations to them a film is included, and the rest removed. However, I have other editing priorities. I'm not interested in doing the work of analysis for the whole list, let alone the consensus building it would take to agree on the kind of sourcing (and individual sources) I propose. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Andrew Davidson That draft has nothing to do with creating a better list of cult films. That was intended to be the start of splitting up the article into decades because it's a very large article, before I realised the extent of the low inclusion criteria. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        If you don't want that version of the draft then you try out your TNT theory on it. Try blanking it and then see how you get on with a clean sheet. Get back to us when you've got something to show. Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        If you intended that to sound passive aggressive then that was successful. You suggest I recreate the entire list myself? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Onetwothreeip's proposition is to use TNT to reduce the list to nothing and then start again on some new basis. That's easy – it would only take 5 minutes to make a fresh start on the draft. If the new list is so large that it would require lots of work then what has been achieved? Is Onetwothreeip's plan to delete this popular topic and then just walk away, leaving recreation as someone else's problem? Andrew D. (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Andrew Davidson I don't think it should be someone else's problem, but I don't think it should be only my problem also. A small list would also take effort because of determining what I would be excluding (or not including), unless you're suggesting I would essentially blank the page boldly. I could have done that, but I think to carry that out honestly would require it passing AfD. As for the referring to me in third person, I don't know what that's all about, I'm right here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I use usernames rather than pronouns in these discussions for clarity as there are multiple parties and so pronouns can be confusing. Use of the third person also provides some formality and emotional distance which may help in reducing tension. Parliaments such as the UK and Swedish have a convention of this sort for similar reasons. As for the substantive point, I see that the discusion is nearing a conclusion and so let's leave it at that for now. Andrew D. (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see I was pinged at that discussion but for whatever reason I didn't get my notification. I would have commented at the discussion had I been aware of it. I have added the article to my watchlist and I am happy to participate in the discussion once the fate of the article here is determined. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. AfD is not clean-up, and this is not a remotely questionable list to have. We can trip over lists of cult movies so easily (there are entire books listing them). It's like pushing to delete a list of science fiction films because it's too messy and unsourced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Erik I'm honestly curious because people keep saying that we should have an article here, but I made sure that in the first sentence I said that was not the issue and there should be an article there most definitely. Do people not believe me? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actions speak louder than words. You proposed this as an AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article currently has 485,129 bytes of wiki-code. If kept, it needs to be subdivided (perhaps by dacade?). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I split it after the previous Afd (List of cult films: A, etc.), but somebody restored the one-page monstrosity without leaving links to the sublists. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - So this page is duplicating a set of smaller pages?!? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore split, and prune sublists mercilessly. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is very well sorced and notable, another user has raised the possibility of separating the movies by decade, sounds reasonable enough. Garlicolive (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has lots of sources. I would suggest, based on the limited sampling I have done (both above and otherwise) that it is not well sourced. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Other things like winnowing (I strongly support) and splitting (sure) are good ideas but since this is not Articles for Discussion feels outside the scope and is probably better done BOLDLY or on the TALK page. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we're now at the point where this proposal should end. I'm glad that people have appreciated the significant problems with the article, but it was not my intention to propose this article for deletion in order to bring attention to those problems, my intention was entirely to delete and restart this article per WP:TNT, which I appreciate is not nearly a consensus view of the community. This can't be closed by myself early as a speedy keep because not all views except mine were to keep, but this should now be moved to the talk page of the article. As for the splits, surely by decade is preferable to alphabetically. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually can we keep it open? Clarityfiend has just brought this this family of lists to my attention above: List of cult films: A. We obviously don't need this list if we have the alphabetic lists, so maybe the answer here is a merge and turning this page into an index? Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - If we're going to discuss splitting the article instead of the original proposal then that is a good reason to keep this open.

Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original list, as it has clear inclusion criteria, and then restore the A-Z sub-lists per WP:SIZE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

@Onetwothreeip, Barkeep49, Clarityfiend, Ruyaba, Andrew Davidson, Gonnym, GreenC, Dream Focus, Erik, Pigsonthewing, Garlicolive, and NinjaRobotPirate: (apologies to the editors I have double-pinged in this discussion). Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we need to start this discussion over. It has emerged there is a family of sub-lists, one of which can be viewed at List of cult films: A. It appears that Clarityfiend split this list into alphabetic lists in March last year. Then six months later it was restored by MagicatthemovieS. The fact that these sub-lists exist change the fundamental nature of this discussion. As we can see from above there is a consensus to retain this list in some form, but we only need one version. My preference is now to copy over any new additions of the last six months to the sub-lists and then restore this page to its index form. After this is done, we can take the discussion to the talk page to determine a sensible inclusion criteria for these lists. Betty Logan (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sensible solution, but I would prefer they are split by decade than alphabetically. There are several ways to go forward here and I'd like to hear what others think. Maybe we could retain the alphabetical splits as the live versions for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lists of horror films is organized by decade. But then, if that is the preferred approach then maybe it would be better from an organizational perspective to delete the alphabetic lists and simply break the main list up by decade? You'd only have to work through one page then instead of 27. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting split into decades and then conduct the inclusion criteria and removal process? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters which way around it is done. But currently we have two lists, and we only need one, and since this is an AfD discussion we should decide which one we are going to keep. If we favor alphabetic lists then let's bin this list, but if we are going to split by decade then we should bin the alphabetic lists IMO. We can determine which at this discussion. After that AfD's role is over and discussion can move to the talk page where the next step can be discussed. Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think splitting alphabetically is sensible and the page turned into an index and all the better that work on it has already been done but again argue this is the wrong forum for this discussion. Suggest continuing off the talkpage discussionOnetwothreeip made at the article. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list is currently a WP:CFORK which is serious. The correct solution is to immediately remove one of the forks to ensure any edits are to a single copy, to prevent further potential loss of data and confusion among editors and readers. If someone wants to work on trying to reconcile the two lists they can at their leisure, the two lists are still available in the history. -- GreenC 02:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's getting a bit confusing but I think first we have to make the consensus clear that this should be split. Do we all !vote to split the article? It would be better for this to be eventually closed to split rather than simply keep. Then we have to decide if we're going to delete the alphabetical lists and keep the long list, or delete the long list and keep the alphabetical list. I think keeping the long list makes it easier to split it into an article by decade, but who here is able to split the list by decade? I tried to do so on one of my user page drafts and was unsuccessful since the references were lost. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruyaba, Andrew Davidson, Gonnym, Dream Focus, Erik, Garlicolive, and NinjaRobotPirate: Do you agree this article should be split? If so, how? This way we can at least end this AfD to split. I note that Clarityfiend, Pigsonthewing, 7&6=thirteen, Barkeep49, Lugnuts, Betty Logan and myself have already indicated support for a split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this - if the page isn't going to be culled, then a split is needed. If one is going to happen, then we can wait and see what the results are after. However, I doubt anything will change, so split is a safe bet. --Gonnym (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had posted on the Talk Page, but I would be in favor of a split by decade, it seems it would more well organized this way. Garlicolive (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to salvage this article. I gave up years ago. But a split sounds reasonable. If we have to choose between decade or alphabetically, I guess decade sounds like it would have fewer subpages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who's volunteering to split by decade? It took me a fair chunk of time just to get the references copied properly for the alphabetical split. Sorting by decade is going to be even more work. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should honor the work you did those months back there and let it sorted alphabetically, if it is so much less work. Garlicolive (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to combine all the alphabetical tables, sort them by year, then split it up by decade? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no idea what i am doing i just want to add a link to the main page so there is some content instead of a blank space where the list should presumably be.. test- List of cult films: A

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 16:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Chisholm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notabilty. Not enough sources for an article of substance. Vmavanti (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found a few more refs (added to page). Seems to be many more out there? Found coverage of his tours, nominations and records with notable labels see WP:NMUSIC. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep due to refs added by Dushan Jugum; it needs some work, but they are notable --DannyS712 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 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. Additionally, the non-neutral post at WT:NSPORTS was a case of WP:CANVAS. —Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Soto[edit]

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

This article has one source, a directory. A biography requires sufficient non-trivial reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality. I cannot find any biographical sources about this subject. Rather than individual sub-stubs it would make more sense to merge these articles to a team or event article. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOLY - competed at the Olympics. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 04:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And she's also played for the Peruvian team at the Pan-American Games, some coverage of her here and here, and this states she has captained the national side too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she's competed in the Olympics, she gets an article - unless and until the Wikipedia rules change. PamD 09:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ALso known as Patricia Soto and Diana Patricia Soto - see incoming links via redirects. PamD 10:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaking rules (i.e. policy) for subject-specific notability guidelines, which basically say that people who have competed int he Olympics are likely to have enough sources to have an article. A "rule" that being in the Olympics automatically means an article, violates Wikipedia is not a directory, also verifiability from reliable independent sources. A local agreement of sports fans on the subject specific notability guideline cannot override policy with its much wider base of support. Which is the point. There are dozens of these articles, we already banned at least one user for mass-creating directory stubs, and this is just another one. Wikipedia is not a directory dates back over 14 years. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rules, conventions, guidelines ... Anyone who has appeared in the Olympics has been allowed to have an article. Rather than trying to remove one article on a woman playing a minority sport for a southern-hemisphere country, it would be more useful to work for a change of the notability guideline. When all the one-appearance footballers and cricketers are acknowledged to be non-notable, then broaden the net to Olympians in other sports. PamD 09:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some WP:FORUMSHOPPING by the OP here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Appearing in the Olympics is enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search in Spanish shows a lot of coverage, with results in at least three different languages, though it tends to be either about matches she's played in or on the Olympic team as a whole, including [44]. I think it's enough to pass WP:NOLY. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just based on the current sources in the article, I would say "redirect to team article", but there seems to be relevant coverage under the name "Patricia Soto", for example [45]. es:Diana Patricia Soto also shows other medals she has received. So keep. —Kusma (t·c) 12:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Patty Soto" is also a good search term. Apparently she also played outside of Peru [46], for CV Haro. While Volleyball isn't nearly as much reported on as many other sports, the coverage seems nontrivial if you search properly. —Kusma (t·c) 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes both WP:NOLY and WP:GNG per the above sources. This nomination seems rather WP:POINT-y as does the forum shopping when nom didn't get what he wanted here. Smartyllama (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Note, I am coming here via a discussion raised by JzG at NSPORT) JzG is challenging the presumption of notability given by NOLY as only one source exists in the article. The "Keep" !votes stating she's notable because of NOLY are not contributing as NOLY still requires editors to find independent secondary sources to build out the article. Whether JzG had done the necessary legwork per WP:BEFORE is unclear, but there are factors working both with and against this: we have a 2000 Olympian so there should be a good chance there will be online sources but that she is from Peru and that might making finding even online sources more difficult. But !voters cannot restart "NOLY" here; that's exactly the type of WP:ATA in AFDs. --Masem (t) 15:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish, but I was able to find sources straight away, which I've listed above, including the fact she captained the national side. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But do those sources provide in-depth coverage about her? That she captained the team is a fact, but not significant coverage. Just being able to find sources that include her name is nice, but that's not the extent of what needs to be shown. --Masem (t) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these do: one, two, three, four, five. Again, I don't speak Spanish, but if I can find those in a few seconds, I'm sure someone who has a better grasp of the language could find a whole lot more. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is not the place to change our clearly established guidelines. Agathoclea (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets GNG per the sources Lugnuts found. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with the new sources presented by Lugnuts. My advice to the author is to write articles with sources that clearly demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG from the start. Even if someone meets the SSG and it's a stub I think the article should at least contain a source or two proving notability so we can avoid these discussions. Sports-reference isn't a sufficient source to demonstrate notability. Rikster2 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 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 16:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Language Services[edit]

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

They have won a few start-up business awards but are basically an English language training school in Hong Kong. Fails WP:GNG and has elements of being a promotional article. Britishfinance (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Just a promotional directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. I don't object on creating article about British Council HK and some tutoring school that became listed company (i.e. may have enough GNG and company in-depth coverage). But this one, never heard of it, no RS to support WP:GNG notability, and G11 speedy deletion tone (promotional tone). Matthew hk (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the firm did have significant size based on google hit of the Chinese name "雅理加語言教育中心" or "雅理加語言培訓中心". However still lack of GNG passing news article. Matthew hk (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with edits! (Author) Hi all, writer of the article here. Thanks for your thoughts and feedback. Wrote this article as a start to flesh out the Education in Hong Kong/China category. As Matthew hk pointed out tutoring schools and British Council are quite notable in Hong Kong even if they don't always meet the GNG criteria. It's a hugely influential industry in the city and Eureka is notable in the education sector here especially amongst local schools. I welcome suggestions to remove anything that sounds promotional.--Funkymonkeyinthesun (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks but Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting a business. There are better websites for you for such a purpose. Britishfinance (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry that you have that impression. My intention is to move onto improving the following existing articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_Level_Learning , continue to expand (from the Chinese article) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Red_Cross_Youth_League, and increase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_English-speaking_Teacher_scheme. I have no intention of promoting a singular business, so I would love to know your feedback so that I might be able to continue to improve the category "Education in Hong Kong" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Education_in_Hong_Kong. Thanks.Funkymonkeyinthesun (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seem it was transcluded (Special:Diff/881316076), somehow DannyS712 relisted the Afd (Special:Diff/882422654) and not sure what happened after that. Matthew hk (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk: I edit-conflicted with myself is Special:Diff/882422653. I have brought it up with the XfD closer script's creator, and know how to avoid this in the future (don't relist afds from their subpages to soon after each other). Sorry, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly promotional per nom. I would need to see more sources in order to support the claim that language schools are especially notable in Hong Kong. Skirts⁸⁹ 01:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:20, 14 February 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 Procedural close. Appears to have been filed by mistake; the article is a draft and has never been in mainspace. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket on the Hearth (1967 special)[edit]

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

Reason Blake2003 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blake2003: Sorry, I'm a bit confused. The article you linked to have never existed, but you just created a draft (Draft:Cricket on the Hearth (1967 special)). Do you want to publish the draft? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this an actual AfD or is Blake in the wrong place?--It's Boothsift 00:23, 13 February 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.