< 15 February	17 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 delete. There is consensus here that although entries in these lists may be individually verifiable, the topics as a whole do not have the coverage necessary for standalone lists. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional ice hockey teams in North America by metropolitan area[edit]

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

List article that seems to be a synthesis of other lists, namely List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises, List of ice hockey leagues#North America, and List of metropolitan statistical areas. The subject seems to fail WP:LISTN (as a "List of Xs in Y by Z") on its own merits in that the topic of metro area size with hockey teams is really only the subject of articles in Potential National Hockey League expansion, which obviously is already its own page. Note: metro ares with major league teams is definitely a GNG subject in that it is discussed when it comes to how many major league teams metro can support (List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises). When it comes the minor leagues, the topic really only comes up in regards to potential venues, which is also already listed at List of indoor arenas in the United States, but not by size of metro area. Other than organizing a list by metro, it adds no other useful info that does not already exist in the comprehensive list List of professional sports teams in the United States and Canada. Yosemiter (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for WP:SYNTH articles created at the same time:

List of professional baseball teams in North America by metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which probably should mention other NA leagues like Dominican Professional Baseball League. The article's table is also so large, it makes the text near illegible in some cases and the minors are better documented at List of Minor League Baseball leagues and teams. Yosemiter (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit This one is actually older than the other two, (under the name List of professional baseball teams in the United States by city) but seems to have been the template for them. My nomination still stands though as WP:SYNTH. Yosemiter (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional gridiron football teams in North America by metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) outside of the NFL, CFL, Arena Football League, Indoor Football League, reliable coverage spirals downwards as to what teams are actually active or even professional and not just semi-pro. Yosemiter (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as failing WP:LISTN and WP:ORIGINAL. Flibirigit (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relist all separately, topics although closely related have significantly different levels of potential notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paulmcdonald: Possibly separate, but even the one that has existed for years has never had any sources. What are your thoughts addressing my concern over WP:SYNTH? If you feel these absolutely need to be separate, I would like to see a proof that the minor league by metro area is even covered. Even the baseball one has a statement at the top that certain leagues are ignored because they are "lightly-attended... with varying team lineups from year to year." In other words, too low level to for an obscure list that claims to cover professional leagues. Mid and lower level gridiron and hockey are even less covered in media. Yosemiter (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you asked, I would argue that these are valid notable lists and that any documentation/sources missing from the articles are surmountable problems solved by editing rather than deletion -- I see no policy violation and no reason to delete. I don't buy the "synthesis" argument because this is not combining or drawing conclusions (if A and B is sourced, then C must happen but that's unsourced) but rather pooling multiple sources together to build a list. I haven't done it, but I'm confident that for each professional team on these lists one can find sources to say that TEAM X is based out of CITY Y and there it is--no original research necessary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - From SYNTH: If "A" and "B" are sourced and A+B = "C", but "A+B" is not published a reliable source, then "C" is OR. Yes, lots of sources stating a team is in a city. And there are lots of sources that list city sizes and metropolitan rankings. There seems to be a lack of coverage for minor leagues that say "there are teams in said sport in these size cities" (outside of a few blogs like this one). That is all I am saying. Yosemiter (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - In this case, what the list article provides is simple counting and sorting, and counting and sorting are not original research. I understand the "synth" argument, I just don't buy it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        My understanding of COUNTSORT is that if an existing data set can be sorted, there is no reason not to. Since the topic is essentially "metros with professional [specific sport] teams", then it would be fine to sort by metro size. I am questioning whether "metros with professional [specific sport] teams", especially with the arbitrary limit of showing all metros that do NOT have professional [specific sport] teams and how the various leagues fit in for anything other than the major leagues, meets GNG. Otherwise, this is not an existing data set, it is a listcruft-y article created from other lists for the sole purpose to be sorted and COUNTSORT would not applicable. Yosemiter (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        From WP:COUNTSORT: "If the counting, ranking, and/or sorting can be reasonably disputable then it likely at that point would be considered original research." The sorting really cannot be reasonably disputed that I can see. There is nothing in COUNTSORT that says all data points must come from the same source.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This information is relevant in areas of expansion, relocation, and as a general guide to see how metro size doesn't necessarily conform to who gets a team (see Winnipeg for example). I don't really see how this is original research at all, since metro size and locations of teams are very well established. In the case of minors, I often wonder how big the cities are who have different levels of minor league teams, and this table is the only page on Wikipedia that shows it so clearly. Jhn31 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jhn31: Well, wikipedia is not a general guide per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, so the topic itself needs to be well covered in independent media. Making it a list because it's interesting is not enough. So combining two other known lists into one specific list is what we call original research by way of combination two subject to make a synthesized conclusion not covered in independent media. As to expansion, as I explained in my nomination, the NHL has its own page about it with all relevant sources (well as the expansion articles for each of the major leagues). There is far more to ANY professional league's expansion than just metro size (right ownership, appropriate venues, and possible conflict of competing sports such as why List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises is well covered). As to minor leagues, the same applies for locations. But I am challenging the existence of independent coverage on the subject of any level professional teams in North America by metropolitan area. Yosemiter (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't think it's well-covered where minor league teams' stadiums are located? Really?? And I don't need a patronizing explanation of what synthesis is. Jhn31 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see this as "combining two other known lists into one specific list" but simply sourcing the list article. And please be careful in saying that this is "what we call" anything. Each editor can only speak for themselves and not a larger group.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course a team/stadium is sourced to a city, that is not my argument here. But that is not these lists. The subject of these lists are All teams [in a sport] by metro area. On an individual basis of a team (or even a specific league) = GNG covered (also the articles already exist for majors). As a list of all teams, at all levels, I do not see coverage as an entire subset for a sport. I did find a couple of blogs. (And sorry for the use of "we", I did in fact mean "I".) Yosemiter (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we required one source for all content in any article, there would be no need for the article--we could just include a link to that source and there would be no need for content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Nobody groups teams by metropolitan area. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? Do you think people think of the Rays as being from St. Petersburg, rather than the Tampa area? Or the Braves from out in Cobb County, rather than the Atlanta area? Or the Jets and Giants from East Rutherford, rather than the NYC area? Etc. Etc. Etc. for a pretty long list. Everyone thinks of teams by the general area they're from, not the specific municipality itself. An article that was listing teams by their actual city rather than their metro area would be silly trivia. This article lists the urban areas in the way that they're generally thought of. Jhn31 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Conjecture has no place here... that is, unless you can provide irrefutable proof that "Nobody groups teams by metropolitan area" -- wait, at least SOMEBODY does... Cities in United States with Most Professional Sports Teams; Bleacher Report; Cities With the Most Successful Professional Sports Teams; The Cities With Too Few Sports Teams… yeah, somebody does... --Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed with Paul McDonald, people do group MAJOR pro teams by metro. Also note, all those sources are for List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises, not by baseball, not by hockey, not by American football, etc. Most media fails to even talk about market area with minor leagues, and that is MY point of contention. Sources do not exist comparing the Kane County Cougars metro area with the Houston Astros, despite the Cougars being part of a larger metro (just as an example, not in specifics). These list articles just take the list of all teams and makes a new article so that it can be sorted in by metro, when outside of the major leagues, it is not normally done. Yosemiter (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cities are not "metropolitan areas" as used in this list. Not even the most diehard Blackhawks fan says the team is based in the Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI MSA. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Clarityfiend:@Paulmcdonald: I think you're getting too hung up on the exact name of the metro area. If we changed it to just say "Chicago," would that change your mind? I decided to use the official US government names of the metro areas because then there's no question of what counts as Chicago. But in your example, if the Blackhawks built a new arena out in the suburbs one day, they would still be thought of as a Chicago team. The (football) Jets and Giants are thought of as New York teams, not East Rutherford teams. The Atlanta Braves play in an unincorporated patch of land outside Atlanta, but they're still thought of as part of the Atlanta metro area. I totally disagree with your assertion -- I could turn your statement around and say "not even the most diehard Golden Knights fan thinks of his name as a Paradise team." Everyone associates the Golden Knights with the Las Vegas area. Jhn31 (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Not only is this an issue with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR but also the list is a non-notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It's honestly quite confusing, and the inclusion of cities without pro teams seems kind of redundant. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul McDonald. These should be relisted and considered separately. Lepricavark (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : There is no encyclopaedic value imparted by the lists nominated for deletion. This is pure personal work from a sports enthusiast. I'm all for enthusiasm but this is putting up one's name in lights. -The Gnome (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Paul McDonald. The essay on arguments to be avoided is about general and bland arguments to the effect that something is or is not "encyclopaedic", a term that is indeed vague. I'm making the argument that the contested list does not impart any encyclopaedic value, an objective for all articles as detailed in the very first pillar of Wikipedia and to which I linked as a shortcut. Since it appears that the reference needs clarification, I specifically referred to the part about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory, since these do not indeed impart encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Hope it's clear now. -The Gnome (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but the lists are quite WP:DISCRIMINATE in their nature with precise definitions and requirements for inclusion. I don't see them as a directory at all either...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Population of metro area is very relevant to professional sports teams. The Milwaukee Brewers, Kansas City Royals, Cincinnati Reds, etc., are often referred to as "small market" teams, and that's based on the size of their metro area, not the size of their cities proper. As previously stated, lots of teams play in the suburbs of the city they're named after – in the same metropolitan area, though. If you want a minor league example, my hometown of Jackson, MS, was considered for a Triple A baseball team a few years back. It would have played in the Pacific Coast League in a nice, compact division with the teams from New Orleans, Memphis, and Nashville and cut down on travel costs. But we didn't get one precisely because the market size of Jackson (95th) is so much smaller than those other three (46th, 42nd, and 36th) and most other AAA cities that it didn't happen, and that was due to metropolitan area size of Jackson, not the city proper. Finally, there is potential expansion and relocation in all 4 major sports leagues, and a huge contributor to that is the size of the metropolitan area. Jhn31 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 24 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) 00:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Food Made Easy for 1 or 2 People[edit]

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

Procedural nom to get consensus after a disputed PROD followed by multiple other attempts at PROD all for same concern: insufficient notability. DMacks (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no substantive improvement in the article in this regard since the original. Pinging previous PRODders: Lear's Fool, Joereddington, Alexbrn. DMacks (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'm surprised to see this book in Template:Veganism and vegetarianism, who adds an arguably non-notable cookbook to a nav template? valereee (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable, independent sources used in the article and the Book Publishing Company does not seem to meet our criteria for an independent publishing house. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOOK. Britishfinance (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note SPA creation of this and related articles by User talk:Ekelly7 and User talk:Edeubel valereee (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination this expanded blurb before the check clears. -The Gnome (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Piling on - no independent sourcing about the book in the article, can't find any non-UGC reviews - fails NBOOK. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:50, 23 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) 00:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Awesome Show[edit]

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

Yet another WP:TOOSOON TV pilot article that never went to series as the 2017-18 season has long passed, along with both years. Nothing new at all posted since anywhere; show's placeholder website still exists, but has not had a word updated or added since spring 2017. Nate • (chatter) 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails to meet WP:TVSHOW as a TV series that has never aired anywhere, and likely failed to go into production. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because subject fails WP:TVSHOW. Wikipedia is not a message board for upcoming events. -The Gnome (talk) 15:43, 22 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Ink[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article under the title "CustomInk":

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable private business. Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Colleenaoreilly with no other contributions outside this topic K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Wow. I am really on the fence with this once as it is a very popular company. However, the majority of the references (with the exception of this one) are brief mentions, general announcements, or unreliable. Would love to vote keep, but popularity doesn't equate to notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject meets WP:NCORP, with write ups in the Washington Business Journal (here), the Washington Post (here, here, and here), The Wall Street Journal (here), etc. It is quite deplorable that this is the handiwork of yet more kamikaze accounts but their free roaming around here is a matter of general policy. And the text is in need of some serious pruning.-The Gnome (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, as per a review of sources presented in the last AfD discussion, in this AfD discussion, and in the article itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does look a bit promotional, and could do with a bit of work; however, the Washington Post coverage seems to meet CORPDEPTH, and there are enough sources to meet NCORP, so keep. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:54, 23 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) 00:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MillionaireMatch[edit]

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

Article does not appear to meet the standard for Wikipedia:Notability other than through brief media hype. I'm not confident that any source has enough WP:CORPDEPTH. Zedrox (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination this clumsy piece of puffery. -The Gnome (talk) 15:59, 22 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 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Stamp Dealers Association[edit]

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

The article has remained unsourced since its creation in April 2009 since when there has been no substantive content addition. I am not finding any in-depth coverage; just a few passing mentions. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can just about find passing references to prove existence, but nothing in terms of notability. They have not been the subject of anything (book, article, tv) in any material RS that I can see. Probably why the only referencing on the article has been primary for a decade. Britishfinance (talk)
Delete Nothing substantial enough found to verify notability. ww2censor (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination this article. The dearth of reliable sources spells its fate. -The Gnome (talk) 16:01, 22 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hirsch[edit]

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

May not meet notability guidelines (tagged as such since 2012). Most sources are written by the article's subject. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:AUTHOR with his ideas that helped form the missional church movement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He appears to have published enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Frost (minister) recent discussion about his co-author may show some light on the reasons why he's notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR, and worldcat shows 1800 library holdings Atlantic306 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just a quick glance at Amazon and the reviews of his books gives a strong indication that he is well known. he would also have enough coverage in Christian media if we were to look. Karl Twist (talk) 14:16, 23 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) wumbolo ^^^ 21:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rectenwald[edit]

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

Could possibly be notable but would require extensive rewrite. Article was thrown into the mainspace by an editor mad his draft kept getting denied, it's the exact same as the draft that was declined in the draftspace. ~~'Draftfiy if possible but user who created has since been banned for WP:NOTHERE~~. Keep per GirthSummit, I would withdraw but there are other delete votes here.TheMesquito^buzz 04:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC) TheMesquito^buzz 19:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 19:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rectenwald himself has (Redacted) and identifies its creator (WikiAssistance) as (Redacted). The fact that Rectenwald also thanks (Redacted) for writing the article suggests that some of our COI policies may have been violated here. In addition, Rectenwald appears not to meet WP:PROF based on his low citation counts and h-index or his accomplishments listed in his CV. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I helped the user in #wikipedia-en-help yesterday where they maintained they were an independent researcher but had asked and received emails containing photographs for the article from the academic in question. They also expressed frustration at the size of the OTRS backlog and demonstrated a clear unwillingness to work on a collaborative project, as has subsequently been evidenced by their NOTHERE block. It is for this reason that I am opting for delete as opposed to draftify because the user showed no interest in using the process, and the article is wholly unsuitable for the mainspace. SITH (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete h-index of 6 on GS not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Page advertises subject's work and there seem to be several questions about the creation of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not remarkable. Rscottjensen (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It's possible that the subject might be notable on account of their academic writing. I found one credible review of the book 'Nineteenth-Century British Secularism...', I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. This article would need to be completely rewritten from the ground up however, both to conform with MOS and to achieve NPOV, so I think WP:TNT would be the right approach. Regarding the reported identity of the author, please can we stay away from mentioning that again - we shouldn't be doxxing users based on off-Wiki stuff, even if their account is blocked. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my opinion in light of changes made to the article - see new comment below. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please will somebody explain the reason for this[1] edit to the AfD? Has a user account been pirated? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Some comments in those edits revealed the real life identity of an editor. That's not done - see doxxing. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit did not reveal anybody's details, so why was it removed? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe I don't think your edit was problematic - I requested the revdel, and the only thing that I saw as a problem was IntoThinAir's comment that they've mentioned below. There were several edits after that however, and it's a bit tricky for an admin to disentangle later edits when revdelling an earlier one - I think yours was probably removed by accident. I'd suggest that you restate your opinion - so long as you're not discussing the identity of the article's author, it's not any kind of problem. Sorry for the inconvenience GirthSummit _(blether) 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the explanation. My edit is back in place. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, that was my fault, I apologize. What I did was link to a tweet that contained (apparently) someone's real name; I don't want to get into more detail, for obvious reasons (and because many people who read this will know what the edit said anyway). IntoThinAir (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as it stands certainly has structural and sourcing problems, but the subject appears notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Sources:

a. general

b. reviews of Springtime for Snowflakes

Jweiss11 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has lots of issues, but subject appears generally notable. Aside from the sources listed above by Jweiss11, there's interviews with Stefan Molyneux, Tucker Carlson, and he also has 11k followers on Twitter. So, I think it is a case of keep and then smack some tags on it and hopefully someone will step in and fix it up. Deleet (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above are reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, Newsweek isn't reliable? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTube and a blog. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, Newsweek is not YouTube or a blog. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This figure is certainly notable enough for a dedicated article. His international media coverage alone qualifies him under WP:GNG. 2601:42:800:A9DB:C9FC:9DE6:44A6:6E5A (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote in light of the work that has been done to the article since I looked at it, primarily by Jweiss11, and also by Theroadislong (who copped a fair amount of vandalistic flack from the (now blocked) original author), and from wbm1058. When I originally cast my vote, I was worried that the article would just fester in its previous state indefinitely; a lot of work has been put into making this a reasonably neutral piece. I've made a few more tweaks to the language myself, to put a bit of distance between his ideas and 'wikipedia's voice', and to remove a bit of WP:EDITORIALIZING, but in it's current state I'd be happy for it to stay. I'd encourage others to take a fresh look after the hard work that's gone into it. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but significantly cleanup — being interviewed by fringe far-right people isn't notable, and it needs much better sourcing than his book's own website. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that there is more cleanup work to be done on the article - I just no longer feel that WP:TNT is required, a mop and bucket (and perhaps a stiff scrubbing brush) should suffice. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant person and authority with published works. Clean up, of course, always. But, the edits of some are not in keeping with the NPOV of Wikipedia but are of spiteful resentment against the individual and at odds with the truth. Rauterkus (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous references have been added to validate the claims made, and the links are to major media, including media from across the political and educational spectrum. Please note the added references to validate the subject's notoriety, notes 8 through 46, all to major media. Further, the article has been cleaned up significantly. --Laughingpillow (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

</gallery>

Caption1
Caption2

Keep He would pass ACACEMIC for the IMPACT of his work on 19th century secularism (RECTENWALD, MICHAEL. “Secularism and the Cultures of Nineteenth-Century Scientific Naturalism.” The British Journal for the History of Science, vol. 46, no. 2, 2013, pp. 231–254., www.jstor.org/stable/43820386.), and Nineteenth-Century British Secularism: Science, Religion, and Literature, but in addition to his scholarly work, his intervention in the culture wars has drawn significant attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 22 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 redirect to Java Message Service. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message consumer[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since March 2009. Fails WP:DICDEF. I'm split between whether to redirect to interface or transwiki to Wiktionary. SITH (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Java Message Service, where Java message producers and consumers are explained. I don't see this topic as independently notable from Java Message Service and the JMS article does a better job of explaining the consumer concept, so best to redirect there. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 23:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mark viking; just plausible enough as a search term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 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 Withdrawn. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The League of Nations (professional wrestling)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable enough. There are other stables more notable, like 3MB who does not have their page. The article was deleted once here and there has not been any major updates. The creator has been blocked because of sock puppetry. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Its notability is well justified. Will try to initiate plans for WP:PW specific notability guidelines. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the team was unremarkable with in ring performance, their reception and usage as an attempt to get Roman Reigns over makes the stable notable enough for inclusion. Plus, their two championship reigns earlier on, one with the WWE Championship, adds more merit to them having an article. It also clearly shows why they didn't make sense and how their intended purpose resulted in criticism. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Reigns reception part has its own separate page and I don't think that has to do anything with the significance of the subject of this page. As for the championships, they are individual accomplishments, again nothing significant for the team. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The previous deletion discussion isn't exactly fair, as it was done a month into their run, and the argument was WP:TOOSOON, which is clearly no longer the case. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. The reception section by itself is enough to affirm notability. KyleJoan^talk 01:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – passes WP: GNG, the reception section is proof of that. StaticVapor message me! 01:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I voted delete last time but actually had been planning on bringing this up to GA status recently; I'm responsible for expanding the reception section to include comments from up to a year after their time together. Passes WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 09:41, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Varsha Dongre[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E case....... ∯WBG^converse 13:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:41, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Putinism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was created today, as a fork of Russia under Vladimir Putin, an article which actually resided at Putinism itself until a move request in 2016. I don't think the concept of "Putinism" is sufficiently distinct from the general topic of Russia under Putin to merit its own article, and this should revert to being a redirect. — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, the sources currently used on the page and others, such as this, this, this, this, this, [2], this this, tell that the "Putinism" does exist as a separate subject/terminology. One can also make Google searches. Secondly, please see Russia_under_Vladimir_Putin#Putinism. "Putinism" is a section/sub-subject of page Russia under Vladimir Putin. This is a legitimate sub-article. It would be wrong to say that "Russia_under_Vladimir_Putin=Putinism". Finally, according to the closing (a non-admin one) [3], "Putinism can be forked from the new page title if necessary". That is what I did. As a note of order, the result of previous AfD discussion for this page was keep. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, that AFD was keep, but that was referring to the article now housed at Russia under Vladimir Putin. The article was moved there from this title in 2016, but is basically about the same thing. And I'm not saying there's no such thing as "Putinism", I'm sure that exists as a WP:DICDEF term, but it basically just refers to the policies and record of Vladimir Putin during his tenure as Russian leader. — Amakuru (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to majority of sources, "Putinism" and "Russia under Putin" are different, just as Gaullism and "France under Charles de Gaulle" are different. "Putinism" is more like an official ideology. The term is widely used in Russian, including even Russian sate officials. For example, well known Vladislav Surkov just published his ideas about it [4]. This needs to be included on the page. And no, this is not WP:DICDEF because there is a substantial coverage of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a claim to be made that this article needs to be better differentiated from its parent, but that's an editorial issue, not a cause for deletion. The base question is whether "Putinism" is covered in reliable sources independent from merely Putin's governance of Russia. And that answer is resoundingly yes, with several articles in scholarly journals dedicated to examining essentially that question. For example: Economic Affairs, Russian Social Science Review, Journal of Democracy, and much of the content of this book, which (in part) compares Putinism to other similar leader-focused political philosophies like Bonapartism and Berlusconism. The above comparison to Gaullism is apt. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a legitimate sub-article under Russia under Vladimir Putin. I don't see a reason to delete / redirect. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Different scopes, not fork. One is from history of russia, another is description of political system. Tbe previous one was rightly nuked as porly written mixture of both, while this one exibits clear thinking. - Altenmann >talk 01:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Putanism is already a small and legitimate sub-section of the large Russia under Vladimir Putin article – implpying it is a seperate sub-topic, which is correct. The larger article is concerned with mostly "outcomes" (e.g. economic growth, population change etc.), while "Putanism" is concerned with his approach/methods. Britishfinance (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I can't add more. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 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. czar 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Boddington[edit]

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

Boddington has not had multiple significant roles in notable productions. Beyond this the article falls far short of the general notability guidelines, with only one source, IMDb, which is not reliable and aims tocover people regardless of any consideration of notability. A search on Google did not find anything even close to a reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only very minor and uncredited roles so clearly does not pass WP:NACTOR at this time. At least two significant roles in notable productions are needed to produce significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dead like me is her only material role and could (but not for certain) meet one "significant role" in NACTOR. There is nothing else. Almost nothing in to pass under WP:GNG (bar references to her role in Dead like me). Britishfinance (talk) 21:11, 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk777pt/sandbox[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy versions of The Voice (Australian TV series). Compare the number of seasons. Whpq (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G4 per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Patryk777pt/sandbox. Cabayi (talk) 15:00, 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.

Article deleted per WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11 and WP:SNOW. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psifiako Media[edit]

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found people are searching about this company on Facebook & other platforms including Google but no proper two line information has given. so I created this article with as much as reference links I could cite. if this gets deleted it's okay I have nothing to do with this company.

but I'll add more citation or more needed information if I find it on google. IZinePro (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Close to an WP:A7. Any references are in low-grade RS and not significant pieces on the company. Strong WP:PROMO. Britishfinance (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, for lacking significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Intelligence[edit]

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

Searches were difficult due to the commonality of the term, but failed to find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Was moved directly to mainspace from AfC after being declined there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Billion dollar bootstrap unicorn. Sources: [5][6][7][8].Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced and notable.--Geewhiz (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full disclosure, I wrote this article. I also added now a footnote to the article from Scotsman Guide. Following the note from Icewhiz I'd like to add this bootstrap company was in stealth mode until mid 2018. That explains why a Billion dollar bootstrap unicorn doesn't have much coverage yet .--User:Avivdc (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep. sourcing is there to support notability. It just is.E.M.Gregory (talk)

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) 00:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities Truck[edit]

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

Searches turned up a single brief mention (the metro citation currently in the article), in secondary reliable sources. Aside from not meeting WP:GNG, also highly promotional. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Interesting project, but I couldn't find any coverage of substance, either, to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like something multiple, independent, reliable sources could provide significant coverage about, but they haven't, so it doesn't pass WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation later if the project gets that coverage. Bakazaka (talk) 00:00, 24 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter dick[edit]

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

Prod (and prod endorsement) removed without improvement or rationale.Delete as per WP:DICDEF and WP:NEO. In addition, zero of the sources use this actual term. Three refer to it as simply "helicoptering", while the 4th uses the term "dick helicoptering". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my endorsement of the original PROD, and per WP:URBANDICDEF: There is absolutely no literature or news sources using this term, and only one—MEL magazine—for "dick helicoptering" (and again, no news outlets), while [9] "helicoptering" is an accepted sociological phenomonon in parenting. This is urban-dictionary trivia backed by insufficient (read: no) reliable sources; the fact that one of the only non-blog/social media sources available is The Sun—a now deprecated source—speaks volumes. ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this isn't Urban Dictionary. Trivialist (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a DICKtionary. Get it? valereee (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a dick article, WP:NOTDIC applies here I think. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are multiple sources detailing an incident that occurred WRT such an incident. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three of the listed sources are about the same incident, making this WP:NOTNEWS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a dictionary. No chance this article develops beyond being a dictionary. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC TheMesquito^buzz 22:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An unnotable WP:NEO that has no reliable sources that describe the term. Three of the four supposed sources in this article are all on the same, single incident, and none of them even use the term. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 18:06, 22 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 22:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frames and distance[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Frames and distance. Pinging Mccapra, the nom. I am neutral on whether this should be deleted. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apologies for posting in the wrong place. The reason for nominating this is it’s confused. A search of sources shows Dorothy Heathcote did not devise the concept and once that is removed the remaining material is covered much more fully and coherently at Framing (social sciences). Mccapra (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would say redirect to the Heathcote article as not enough substance for a stand-alone article, but this isn't mentioned there. Would say merge, but we only have a single broken citation to an apparent university course page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication the term has caught on past Heathcote, Wikipedia isn't a collection of neologisms. SITH (talk) 03:48, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Eaton[edit]

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

Per WP:NACADEMIC:

Significant impact on field demonstrated by independent, reliable sources. No.
Highly prestigious award at national or international level. No.
Elected member of highly prestigious society. No.
Work has significant impact on multiple institutions of higher education. No.
Named chair at major institution. No.
Highest-level administrative post at major institution. No.
Substantial impact outside academia in academic capacity. No.
Chief editor of major journal. No.
Meets WP:CREATIVE. No.

Eaton is not notable. SITH (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Obituaries in multiple reliable sources: Harvard Gazette, Negotiation Journal, Feminist Economics, Perspectives on Work. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nominator's assertion that Eaton does not meet WP:CREATIVE which includes authors. Her books are the subject of multiple reviews. These reviews should be incorporated into the article.Thsmi002 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly reviewed books by Susan E. Eaton. The subject of this article, Susan C. Eaton meets WP:PROF based on citations of her publications in academic journal articles (see Google Scholar). The articles mentioned above by Joe count towards meeting GNG. I've incorporated some sources into the article.Thsmi002 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually one of the obits mentioned by Joe isn't an obit -- it's two pages in the scholarly journal "Perspectives on Work" of the Labor and Employment Relations Association about the "Susan Eaton Seminar" held by MIT and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, intended to gather other scholars to "discuss the major issues and challenges facing those engaged in the different domains in which Susan worked" and to "consider how her work can continue in the areas of work and family, union leadership, the healthcare workforce, and teaching." I think this means MIT, Harvard, and the Labor and Employment Relations Association must have considered her notable? valereee (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NACADEMIC is unimportant as she was mainly a union activist/official. Andrew D. (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per detailed coverage of her in several independent reliable sources. PamD 10:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources meet general notability guideline. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of obits. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:39, 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 merge to Beverly Hills Preparatory School. czar 22:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rexford College Preparatory School[edit]

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

No references. Not notable. Bigwig7 (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Beverly Hills Preparatory School. There is enough material for the combined article to be viable. Just Chilling (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Just Chilling. --Doncram (talk) 19:26, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Body of water cleaning[edit]

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

The article seems to have been created to publicise a competition rather than describe its subject. All the sources currently detail the competition, rather than the subject of the article; the content about the subject itself is a single, dictionary definition sentence, which doesn't appear to be supported by the sources (none of the ones I was able to check use the phrase 'Body of water cleaning'). It's possible that this is a notable subject, but I can't find any sources using the phrase that is the title of the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment. The article, if you read it, describes two totally separate competitions. I hope we can learn from both of them. 4 of the 6 references, if you read them, are not related to the competitions. User:Barkeep49 reviewed the article.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, apologies - it's describing two competitions, not one. I can't check all the sources unfortunately - I'm in the UK, and some of them block access from European countries for legal reasons. The ones I was able to look at were about the competitions; the others, from their titles, appear to be local news websites, so I don't think they're really authoritative on this subject. To build a proper article about this subject matter we really need some solid sources that discuss it in depth. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, at least based on the content we have. Let's call it WP:TNT. The topic of how to "clean" bodies of water (especially lakes) is very likely a notable one. I'm ... not confident that such an article should be at this title (and I'm really not sure what title it belongs at; sources do not seem to agree on terminology), but that's an editorial issue. What's more germane to AFD is that the stub we have here is essentially an advertisement for Erie Hack 2.0 and the George Barley Water Prize, neither of which strike me as notable. The idea that the primary purpose of this ecological restoration activity is to enable human recreation is also effectively unsupported by a broader review of sources. And once we remove the problematic text here, we have removed all the text. No prejudice to recreation (perhaps here, or perhaps under a different name) on the broader scientific and engineering challenges of lake water quality restoration. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can put the full context of the article in Water treatment. I really like clean rivers. This is very important information for Wikipedia.--Wyn.junior (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Odd title and, while the topic itself is worthy of a standalone article, it isn't currently developed enough at this point. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd how many people spend their time going against peoples' work instead of actually helping.--Wyn.junior (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it even odder that some people spend their time trying to dictate what others should work on, instead of fixing their own work. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Squeamish Ossifrage, sorry but this is covered (apart from the competitions) in Water_pollution#Control_of_pollution, and related articles, alternatively the relevant bits should be incorporated in Lake_Erie#Water_quality_issues_and_restoration and Lake Jesup. There is not enough for a standalone article with its odd title...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This is a poorly formed article (solid TNT candidate). Britishfinance (talk) 20:36, 22 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 redirect to Gateway Group per ATD and CHEAP. The sole Keep cmt was based on an incorrect assertion of presumptive notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway College, Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See this Google search for secondary sources. All high schools are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, high schools are not automatically notable they are required to satisfy WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG, which is they have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Need to show which of those sources in Google search are not merely mentions in passing and therefore satisfy the criteria. Dan arndt (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the notion that all high schools are notable is built around a failure to understand how small and transitiory the nature of many high schools is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gateway Group. Keep if notable achievements could be included for the Colombo branch in particular. Reh man 10:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. The sole keep makes a factually incorrect claim of presumptive notability and was discounted. Unfortunately with only a single comment supporting this cannot be closed as a delete. A soft delete might be possible were it not for the keep vote. Even though it is factually wrong in its assertion, any objection at all is enough to block a soft delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicon International School Kandy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mccapra (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found references to confirm that the school exists, which is enough. High schools that can be demonstrated to exist are generally kept at AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:55, 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unbreakable (Dareysteel album)[edit]

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

The album fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. It didn't chart on any official chart and was not discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dareysteel. If, as the nominator says, the album failed to chart, it is not notable enough for a standalone article - about its only claim to fame is that it is the debut album of Dareysteel, so it would make more sense to have the information in the article on Dareysteel. Vorbee (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep The album meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, multiple relevant sources about the album found on search.Mohammede aziz abdul (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammede aziz abdul: What criterion of WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM does this article meet? The album wasn't reviewed in reliable sources and didn't chart on any country's official music chart. Pure Charts is not a notable chart. Only two sources in the article are reliable and they both do not mention anything about the album. The Pulse Nigeria and Vanguard sources are talking about the artist's Man of the Year album. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:00, 23 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Young (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Article has some sources but he fails WP:NHOCKEY. Highest level was ECHL and while the infobox states he played in the AHL he never did. Tay87 (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canadian-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meet criteria #3 of NHOCKEY by being on the First All Star team of the CHL. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The CHL is not one of the leagues listed in NHOCKEY #3. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but award a minor penalty for not including defunct leagues in NHOCKEY. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do include it, there is a link at the bottom of NHOCKEY for defunct leagues. There are too many to list in the main body of NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does indeed meet criteria #3 as listed here among the defunct leagues.18abruce (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY #3. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have to agree with the other editors--he does meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 16:11, 23 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) RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 22:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pasture and Asplin Woods[edit]

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

No independent sources, fails WP:GNG. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 10:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 10:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 10:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article about a Site of Special Scientific Interest in Leicestershire cites three sources, all publications by Natural England, which is a non-departmental public body of the UK government. They are official publications approved by Natural England, not primary or self-published sources. The article is one of hundreds with similar sourcing which have been summarised in Lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Many are featured lists, including List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Leicestershire, and no reviewer has ever objected that the sources are unsatisfactory. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. For the reasons given above. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. SSSI's are notable by the very nature of their designation on behalf of the government (under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949) which place specific duties on local authorities for their protection. Further references could be included (eg A history and natural history of an ancient Leicestershire woodland from the Wildlife Trust), but these are not really needed when the designation itself identifies a Protected area. There are many thousands of articles about Protected areas on wikipedia and each is clearly significant/notable.— Rod ^talk 12:15, 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 speedy keep. WP:SK#1. The parent and subarticle talk pages are the proper venues for proposing merger, or just WP:BEBOLD. See also WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kenan & Kel characters[edit]

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

This list should not be its own separate article. IMO, it should be heavily condensed and merged into the "Premise" and "Characters" section of the main series article, which is of a lesser size than the character list for some reason. The list article has only two references, one being an IMDb credits page and the other being a directory on primetime television series. The main article has plenty of room to incorporate the main characters, possibly even the recurring or minor characters, but the list article itself does not seem to justify its own existence. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 09:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:37, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry David Evans[edit]

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

Not notable. Current sourcing is just an entry on a database, and a puffy interview in the local press which also includes contact details and pricing for his chess camp, so I assume it was a paid piece. I can't find any better sources, so can't get him over the line on GNG; article contains no claim to notability via SNG (WP:NCHESS) GirthSummit _(blether) 08:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 10:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. Anybody who doesn't consider an International Master notable in a chess context is missing the boat rather badly. For comparison, as of 1980 when Larry D. Evans earned the IM title, there were, in round numbers (I am trying to get exact ones), 500 to at most 1000 IMs and International Grandmasters on earth. By comparison, there were well over 10,000 players who had reached the major leagues of American baseball (source [10], go to one of the player pages there and look at the exact numbers) -- and no matter how short their careers (some very short indeed), they are notable enough to get articles if documentation on them can be found. International Masters are in very select company in the world of chess, more select than cup-of-coffee major-league baseball players in baseball. This is true even today, when title devaluation has increased the number of IMs and GMs to something around 5000 (http://ratings.fide.com/advaction.phtml?idcode=&title=g for the GMs, of whom there are about 1600; http://ratings.fide.com/advaction.phtml?idcode=&title=m for IMs, about twice that many) -- a large fraction of whom have earned the title since Evans. (Current baseball total is around 20,000.) We need more articles on IMs, particularly pre-2000 ones, not deletion of existing ones. That should be obvious.

As for the sources, the FIDE page I cited is from the absolute master data base of information on titled players. It is authoritative. The "puffy interview" serves to document what became of Evans after he retired from international play. "Puff pieces" abound for post-career documentation of people who achieved notability during their careers. Don't like it? Find a better one, for example in the archives of the publication Chess Life of the United States Chess Federation. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By that argument, the contributors at WP:Wikiproject Chess are collectively missing the boat. While there are no specific notability guidelines for chess, the convention recorded at WP:NCHESS is that only grand masters have assumed notability, anyone else needs to have played in certain competitions, or they have to pass WP:GNG. The article makes no claim that the subject competed in any of the listed competitions, and I can't find sources that would get him over the line on WP:GNG. My problem with the puffy interview isn't specifically that it is puffy, it's rather that it is unreliable and not independent - it looks like paid content in the local press - and so doesn't help with WP:GNG.

If you can dig up sources that demonstrate notability per GNG, or that he played in one of the competitions listed at NCHESS, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails general GNG and specific NCHESS requirements. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Is not Larry Evans (chess_grandmaster). Paleorthid (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability can't be established. Colin M (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are over 3000 active IMs, which is why I suspect the Chess project didn't say it was enough to show notability. He lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:01, 23 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) 20:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bentonville West High School[edit]

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

Lacks notability. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 08:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of multiple sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article had multiple sources, more have been added. Peter James (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. This nomination was inappropriate. Nominators need to do WP:BEFORE before they nominate an article. Additional references were easy to find, and I have no special knowledge about high schools in Arkansas beyond the fact that they were once racially segregated. This is one more data point to demonstrate that all high schools are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course it is notable. Agree with Eastmain. --Doncram (talk) 02:08, 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. czar 04:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guenter Klose[edit]

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

Not very convincing claim of notability. 2 references but both offline, and I doubt that they say much about him. Rathfelder (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, nor WP:ACADEMIC. MarkH21 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no significant independent coverage establishing notability. Promotional tone. Colin M (talk) 03:23, 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. Michig (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpanofiction[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NEO. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A neologism only used by its coiner. A PROD was declined in 2007 by the article creator with "wait for more references"; we have waited long enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yikes, this was allowed to linger for far too long. As far as I can tell, it's just WP:MADEUP. The 2000 Hawaii "World Autonomous Control Conference" where the concept was apparently initially presented doesn't appear to have left any meaningful online record of its existence, if it was actually an event. The book cited is real, but is not an independent source, and may very well be self-published (I can find no record of a Decision Intelligence Group book publisher in Australia; this business by the same name is unrelated). Zero coverage in reliable, independent sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We have waited long enough. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is nothing on Google Search, Google Books, WorldCat, JSTOR or even unreliable sources on message boards to suggest this exists. This probably should be put in Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. SITH (talk) 04:17, 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. Michig (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlexicon[edit]

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

PROD removed by original author in 2006 with no stated reason or improvement, this is probably a dictionary definition but in any case not notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current sources don't look reliable - they appear to be personal websites, written by the same author, and the definition given seems to be the invention of that author. A google search shows that the term does appear to have some usage, so it's possible that an article on it might be written; this isn't it however - neither the content nor the sources would be useful for a rewrite, so probably best to delete per WP:TNT. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a student project in 2006 [11]. Not a notable neologism, and probably not a neologism at all, but a title of an utterly non-notable work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As presented here, exclusively used in context with Nick Walker's student-project website (as noted above). Walker isn't notable, nor is this project; there's simply no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. There are uses of the term in computer aided learning and linguistics (see here, for example), but I don't think there's enough to make that concept notable. Even if I'm wrong in that regard, the current content is unrelated and not suited for retention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. Plus per WP:NOTNEO. SITH (talk) 03:55, 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 keep. Michig (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Person[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is not ideal, but I had no trouble finding and adding sources from the LA Times, Denver Post, and CBS TV Denver station. He's been covered in the press at a level that meets GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviews in NYT, NYer, Art in America, LA Times. [12] --Theredproject (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the addition of referenced content from substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that show that the article passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included, thanks Atlantic306 (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. Michig (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rosa Parker[edit]

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

No reliable and independent sources found to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One reliable source at New York Times. Not a well written page though. Karl Twist (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CREATIVE and it is unclear whether the Anna Rosa Sigurdardottir in the NYT article and this person are one and the same. Another of the listed sources states the former is an Icelandic artist. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's conclusion, the article cites no sources indicating the subject meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:AUTHOR; a quick search turns up nothing obvious to remedy this.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The brief NYT review and coverage in Playbill suggest that Plums in New York may be notable, but they're not enough to establish Parker's notability. Article mostly reads as a promotional WP:AUTOBIO. Colin M (talk) 03:37, 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 redirect to Skeeter Thompson per ATD and CHEAP. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springgun[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found nothing that could properly meet WP:RS to support notability; perhaps why the article has no references. Probably a WP:A7. Britishfinance (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Notable in that it was a Skeeter Thompson band and a band that a lot of Little Rock musicians played in. The_stuart (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The stuart: notability is not inherited – just because Skeeter Thompson is now in a famous band doesn't mean his previous bands are automatically notable. And there is no evidence that everyone in the Little Rock local scene was involved, or that any of them are notable either. Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article provides no sources to back up any claims, and a google search turns up nothing. If the argument is that their activity predates internet sourcing, their sole album release alone doesn't qualify them in that no reliable source databases shows any evidence of coverage, reviews, sales, chart activity, etc. Bottom line: bands are not entitled to a wikipedia article based on mere existence. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skeeter Thompson article and thus preserve the history if no credible references can be found. I'm sure some aspect of this group will be referenced or linked in other artricles Karl Twist (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references and search doesn't find anything significant, we have an article about one member but that could be redirected as there's only one reference and that's coverage of the notable band he was also a member of. Peter James (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skeeter Thompson per WP:ATD-R as an unsuitable article with a useful title. Bakazaka (talk) 00:06, 24 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, after much-extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 23:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By Common Consent[edit]

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

As per WP:BEFORE source searches, including several custom searches, it appears that this blog fails WP:WEBCRIT. Other than this source, source searches are providing passing mentions about what people have written on the blog, and name checks, but no additional significant coverage about the blog itself has been found. Multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required to qualify notability, not just one. Additionally, the many primary sources in the article do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a LOT of cruft in the article, but I feel coverage such as [13] to be enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepdent sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a well written/structured article, but it gets good mention in New York Times, Steve Evans gets to write about his blog in The Washington Post, also noted in Chicago Tribune. The list goes on. What is more, is that I can see quality U.S. media outlets consider this blog to be a quotable source on Mormon topics. This passes WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Britishfinance. This is a notable blog on the topic of the LDS church. SJK (talk) 20:15, 23 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 redirect to Active users. WP:SNOW czar 04:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daily active users[edit]

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

I previously merged this article into the Active users article, but this merger was partially reverted by Softlavender with the edit summary "rv undiscussed merge -- you'll need to file and AfD to do this". As advised, I'm filing this deletion nomination with the intent to redirect Daily active users to Active users, as there is significant overlap between the two topics, and there is no content in the Daily active users article that is not already included in the Active users article. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What even? Why would the merge be rejected? Merge/redirect. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Active users. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to active users, as with the other AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Active users. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Active users. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Active users. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:58, 22 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 redirect to Active users. WP:SNOW czar 04:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly active users[edit]

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

I previously merged this article into the Active users article, but this merger was partially reverted by Softlavender with the edit summary "rv undiscussed merge; you'll need to do a WP:MERGEPROP or WP:AFD to achieve that". As advised, I'm filing this deletion nomination with the intent to redirect Monthly active users to Active users, as there is significant overlap between the two topics, and there is no content in the Monthly active users article that is not already included in the Active users article. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What even? Why would the merge be rejected? Merge/redirect. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Active users. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to active users. I'm disappointed that an editor who has been with the project since 2007 mandated the bureaucracy and delay of an AFD in order to reach what is clearly the obvious outcome. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there is nothing special with "monthly" compared to "weekly" or "daily". Schwede 66 19:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Active users. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Active users. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:59, 22 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. Michig (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Raza Ansari[edit]

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

Politician who has not held office. Fails WP:NPOL Whpq (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. especially in light of copyright violations. AmorinoLA (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A businessman and a proposed election candidate for political election, no political activity yet, and definitely not eligible for an encyclopaedia article. Totally fails WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Article author has a history of promotional creation of articles on people named Ansari. Article nominated for speedy deletion by two independent editors, Ritchie333 declined speedy saying "has sources" but obviously without heeding the issues behind A7 and G12 nom. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said "the article has sources, can you find a suitable redirect first before deleting?" As a general rule of thumb I will not unilaterally delete anything without consensus that cites national broadsheet news coverage such as the Times of India. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 I copyedited the brief prose so the copyvios were no longer an issue. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we will need to add a new guideline to A7 that prohibits nominating anything that has ever been mentioned in the Times of India. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:NPOL anf WP:GNG and the copyright violations certainly don't help its case. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NPOL. A7 should not have been declined, for there is no indication of importance. —teb728 t c 05:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won — to already have a Wikipedia article today, he would have to already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway. But this article isn't even trying to demonstrate any evidence of that — as written, it's literally just "Irfan Raza Ansari is a candidate, the end". No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is a reason why he would already get an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there are news sources name-checking him. Before we hit the delete button, are we all absolutely sure we've done WP:BEFORE on this? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as nominator, I did look for sources. I found nothing of significance. I agree that declining the A7 was appropriate, but there is nothing else out there to support inclusion as an article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources namechecking him is not the notability test. Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some of that kind of sourcing — so if that were enough to get a candidate over GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would mean absolutely nothing anymore. The notability test for a candidate is either (a) evidence that he was already notable for other reasons, or (b) evidence that he's getting so much more coverage than most other candidates get that he's got a credible claim to his candidacy being special. But no, ten Google news hits isn't enough to do that, especially since even those ten aren't all verifiably about the same person — at least four of them aren't in a political context at all, for starters, and nothing present in them adequately clarifies that they're actually about the same person as the political-candidate coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I never thought I would need to mention WP:GOOGLEHITS to a seasoned editor like you. Yes, before AfD'ing we've even followed the article creator, having already fought about some of their other promotional creations. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:15, 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. czar 04:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Howell[edit]

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

Subject fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:GNG) AmorinoLA (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'm finding a number of articles BY her, I'm not really finding anything ABOUT her. Her work does not appear to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:24, 23 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 redirect to 9/11 Truth movement. Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Citizens Watch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fringe site that fails notability guidelines. First AFD was in 2006, however it was flooded with Keep votes from WP:SOCK accounts, hence closing as keep. PlotHelpful (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would dispute that some of the "Keep" users are sock puppets:

The following are all users with a considerable history of contribution to the project, and with too many contributions for me to consider it likely that they are merely a sock puppet:

USER:Computerjoe - now inactive
USER:ST47 - admin
USER:Angelbo - now inactive
USER:Tony Fox - now inactive, admin
USER:Fairsing - now inactive
USER:Bluedustmite - now inactive

There are only two users who are almost certainly sock puppets, USER:Bov and USER:Gazpacho, and also one that I consider possibly a sock puppet, though probably not, USER:Drett - though it does also appear that they hold some... questionable... political views.

With all that said, taking a quick gander at the sources suggest that the subject is not notable, but I won't vote unless I get the chance to look in more detail. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @NoCOBOL: I quickly scrolled through some of the keep votes as at time i nominated and found out some were blocked SOCK accounts. So i take it back that it was flooded with sock keep votes as i have seen that some were also admins as at then. PlotHelpful (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't this be merged to the 9/11 Comission article, since it is tangentially related? I see a potential, the 2 articles are concise enough. Garlicolive (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019

Comment The section 'Press coverage' looks like a weird way to attempt to establish notability. If the mentions contain useful information you would imagine they be used in the body of the text. Also, if you look at the CSPAN ref, which is a hosting site and therefore primary, it indicates the information on the page isn't even correct. the organisation has two founders, one of whom isn't on the page. Mramoeba (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete leaving aside the sockpuppet overpopulation problem with the 1st AfD, and leaving aside the fact that this is a FRINGE, conspiracy theory outfit to look at the sources. Problem is that the souces I find in searches are either FRINGE (self-published books with titles like The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, and Mounting Evidence: Why We Need a New Investigation into 9/11,) or they are mere mentions , tend to be vague, and have different sets of facts. One of the very few recent mentions in a reliable newspaper, the The York Dispatch, How a national conspiracy theory museum wound up in the 'boondocks' is about a new conspiracy theory "museum, the Hidden History Museum that is composed of stacks of cardboard filing coxes in a rented space in a disused strip mall. The files were collected by a man named John Judge, now deceased. Her's the part about the "9/11 Citizens Watch": [ https://www.ydr.com/story/opinion/columnists/mike-argento/2019/01/16/how-national-hidden-history-museum-wound-up-york-county-pa-conspiracy-theory-museum-john-judge/2582211002/ Judge wasn’t a 9/11 truther, though. Tenenoff said, “He thought those people were fanatics." He formed a 9/11 Citizens Watch to counter the 9/11 Commission, asking the questions that weren’t asked. He didn’t believe, as some truthers do, that the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. He thought that was preposterous, Tenenoff said. How would they get the explosives in the buildings? Were the explosives built into the buildings’ steel frames? He didn’t buy that. Nor did he buy the notion that the Pentagon attack was staged and that a plane did not crash into it. He lived close enough that he felt it. No, all of that was distraction, he believed. He did have some questions. Were the suspected terrorists identified as being on the planes really on them? Did George W. Bush know about the attacks and let them happen to give him a pretext to invade Iraq? He was more interested in the aftermath, Tenenoff said, the loss of civil liberties, the constant state of war, the amount of power shifted to the government. “He just wanted to know what really happened,” she said. The truth, it seems, is out there, contained somewhere in the 270 boxes and 8,000 books and hundreds of audio and video tapes housed in a small, nondescript office suite in the middle of nowhere, Pennsylvania.]. As someone menitoned above, our article cites a different "founder". In sum, there is just not enough reliable sourced, SECONDARY sourcing to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Working on Keep. Trying to clean up the article and find better sources. Don't know why John Judge (not John Judge) isn't included. Put an external link for 4 C-SPAN videos until I figure out which is used as a ref. Here is an RTF of their 9/11 Commission Critique which concludes, "We do not anticipate that we will disagree with all the many conclusions and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission’s final report..." Still looking for"The Omission Report". There are other bad links too. Org seems less fringe and more just criticizing the process and secrecy of the investigation. If you did merge, maybe Criticism of the 9/11 Commission might be a better article. StrayBolt (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment @StrayBolt: As you are working on it can you get rid of the passing mentions please which are clearly there to give the illusion of notability, as noted above (and one may add the BBC ref to that as well). Coverage needs to be in depth and not trivial. Mramoeba (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some coverage here at Scoop.co.nz, Wednesday, 24 March 2004, 10:00am - "UQ Wire: Breakthrough For 9/11 Truth On C-SPAN!" and Scoop.co.nz, Wednesday, 24 March 2004, 10:09 am - "UQ Wire: Breakthrough For 9/11 Truth On C-SPAN!" And these two ladies attended a 9/11 CitizensWatch press conference. And some of the books that reference this aren't self-published either. Karl Twist (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No see this is exactly what is NOT going to help establish notability. This is making me think delete. The CSPAN refs are all primary because it's coverage of their own press conference made by themselves. It doesn't mean it's ok because Scoop posts a link to it which is what your two links are, a link to a conspiracy theory news aggregator page. Also failing to see how a non free Getty image has anything to do with this. If this is the best there is, then it's not notable. Mramoeba (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I believe there is a good degree of discernment by Scoop with what they choose or choose not to publish, just as much as they do with major NZ newspapers. The Getty image is just an indication of the conference that would have been either televised or printed in a reliable newspaper. That wasn't to prove notability as such. It was more for those who want to find out about it as I don't have the time at this moment. Karl Twist (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop is not a newspaper. This is an uneditorialised press release redirecting to 911truth.org, a conspiracy theory website. Wikipedia informs us "The website publishes a large number of submitted news and press releases due to their permissive policy." All of these links are already on the page anyway as they all lead to CSPAN which is in external links. Mramoeba (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having had some time to look at this, this is a clear delete. The organisation managed a handful of press mentions, none in mainstream sources, and the rest of this is primary, some of it disingenuously made to look secondary through the wording and reference landings (from article edit summary I removed the worst). In summary:

1) Primary: Own website, allowable for basic facts/descriptors only

2) Primary: Zogby market research was sponsored by Citizens Watch. This article is a summary of findings

3) Christian Science Monitor is generally considered reliable source, however this is a short article covering groups who submitted questions to the commission the adverts CW posted and quotes, there is no in depth coverage, in fact the only interpretation of CW by the journalist is "one of the groups observing the proceedings"

4) BBC is a mention, the entire article is 9 different reaction comments, no journalitic analysis or interpretation.

5) Abook which is not viewable. From the Google snippet I suspect this could very easily be another passing mention of their reaction to the report, as covered elsewhere.

6) Washington TIMES, wikipedia disputes reliability, "The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations." There is no coverage of CW in it anyway, just a quote from Kyle Hence.

Mramoeba (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting, and agreeing with User:Mramoeba, there are menitons, but fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I still stand by my keep vote. Because so much of the media is controlled by the like of Murdoch, searches need to be done in other areas. The Getty images pic that features April Gallup and Rosemary Dillard states they were at a 9/11 Citizens Watch press conference at the National Press Club. Was it on TV or in which papers? Anyway ..... But if it leans too much toward Delete then the history should be preserved and it should be re-directed to 9/11 Truth movement and a small section be created there. Karl Twist (talk) 13:02, 22 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Leviv ich 04:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rapture of Canaan[edit]

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

Although the author may be notable, this book lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. It doesn't appear possible to draft an article about this book beyond a plot summary. I'm not sure if Oprah's Book Club is considered a major literary award and whether being a NYT bestseller is enough, but per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, perhaps this article should be merged to Sheri Reynolds? Leviv ich 03:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 03:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 03:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 03:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a clear and obvious pass of WP:NBOOK#1. Reviewed at or near release date in New York Times Book Review, New York magazine, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal, Los Angeles Times, Booklist, Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus Reviews, among others. The Oprah Book Club inclusion got coverage in Rocky Mountain News, Virginian-Pilot, (Newport) Daily Press, Sacramento Bee, and Baltimore Sun, among others. The audiobook was reviewed two years after the print release in Billboard, Atlanta Journal, Atlanta Constitution, and a Knight-Ridder story picked up by Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune, among others. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention it's covered in The Best Novels of the Nineties: A Reader's Guide and Desire and the Divine: Feminine Identity in White Southern Women's Writing? I should have. Bakazaka (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Bakazaka. Leviv, I think you should just withdraw the nomination. St Anselm (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing. Leviv ich 03:57, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Politycki[edit]

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

Almost entirely unsourced, except the subject's personal website, a national library catalogue, two YouTube links to a short video by the subject and a reading by the subject. A Google search only gives one possible reliable secondary source on him by a local German newspaper: [14], so the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Beyond the fluff, the author does not qualify for WP:AUTHOR and fails WP:ANYBIO having won two minor prizes and being long-listed for the Independent Foreign Fiction Prize once. It doesn't help that all of the contributions to the article were from three SPAs (Jabel2150, Corvuslibri, 85.176.22.138). MarkH21 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC),[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I disagree about the exceptions to sourcing. This BLP article has one source about one book. Sourcing through the "External links" is inappropriate, not reliable, and IMDb is a user-generated site. If someone wants to keep all the apparent original research then "prove it" with BLP acceptable sources. The "Five pillars includes "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons." Otr500 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I am finding other sources on German websites but I can't tell how material they are: NDR.de, Stern.de. I can't find anything that would be a solid RS on English sources. He seems to have more than one published work (and even his "authority control" is showing up links) which can imply notability. Untimately we should not have a BLP on WP with effectively no references (the referernce is a link to one of his books); therefore, at minimum, we should draftify. Britishfinance (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think it needs more source(s) to confirm it in an adequate credit. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:59, 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClassifEye[edit]

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

I felt this was a candidate for CSD:A7 but am not a tech person so decided to go AfD under non-notable company and non-notable technology (most references are from 10 years ago). Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's note: Notability began with a full article published a decade ago about the company's technology and benefit to India. An article about Haloid would not be something to delete, even if today people ask "please Xerox it" rather than please Haloid it. I added a "Benefits to poor" section to this Wiki stub, which now includes book citations. Pi314m (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author observation: Wiki asks for contribtions, decries information being lost, and then . . . history gets deleted? A report posted to the U.S. Department of Justice, available here, says that nine companies in this space developed "contactless fingerprint technologies that are worth noting." The first two are now facing deletion from Wiki's servers. ClassifEye is listed first of the nine. The second is also HatNoted. The report notes both companies have closed. Is this like deleting history? I updated the ClassifEye article to point to the report. Pi314m (talk) 08:16, 7 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. Sourcing offered above is in passing and / ot WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Author asks) Merge? i.e. Start an article named Contactless fingerprinting and use both the above article and runner up Pay By Touch, the top two in the Justice Department report, as examples/sections? Pi314m (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pi314m That sounds like a good idea as the technology is likely notable (presuming that there is no existing WP article on this), and it could include discussion around the companies in the space. I find myself recommending on AfD often that older articles, where the sources have dried up for a decade, it is better to consolidate articles around a main theme. It is most likely as time goes on that such consolidated articles will survive, whereas individual weak cases will get deleted and and useful history/references lost. Britishfinance (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge, as articles on technologies are not used to house information on the companies, as it's undue promotional details. I removed the corporate overviews for the two companies: diff. It's excessive and misplaced. Generally, corporate articles are merged if there's a parent company, not a technology article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment. Got it. Without naming the companies (ClassifEye _and_ Pay By Touch), I described application of their technology: USA, England, India, Peru, Israel (section name: Applications). Pi314m (talk) 19:50, 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. czar 04:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Martin (heavy person)[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Only ref in the article is an obituary calling him "World's fattest man". Other refs I find are more obituaries (such as [15]), the Daily Mail does appear to have mentioned him at least once before his death. He appeared on a Channel 5 show "70 Stone and Almost Dead" (which is likely the reference for some of the information), but that's not sufficient to establish notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient substantive sources to establish notability, Wikipedia does not need to regurgitate whatever unusual news the Daily Mail decides to disseminate. Reywas92^Talk 05:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He barely makes the List of the heaviest people and a link from Keith Martin would be fine. The title of this article is so implausible that a redirect from here wouldn't serve any purpose. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a link in a disambiguation page it should also be possible to be presented with a relevant title when putting the name into the search box unless there's a good reason (something better than "implausible") not to. In Special:PrefixIndex/Keith Martin ( there's nothing else for the same person. Peter James (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable trivia. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:27, 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. Sandstein 18:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chigorin Chess[edit]

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

Not notable. Something someone (Ralph Betza) made up; the only reference is written by him. A search finds references to an unrelated Chigorin Chess Club but nothing about this game. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even though I created this article. Ralph Betza is definitely notable, but if (as I find now) even The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants doesn't include it like it does for so many of his variants, this is not really a notable game. Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Although, since many variants by the same author are notable, and this one is similar in gameplay to Almost Chess, I would like a userspace copy if possible as it may plausibly get enough coverage in the future. Double sharp (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above; this game is not discussed in any sources that are not WP:SPS or WP:CIRCULAR, and even those are not plentiful. ComplexRational (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable; has only had wiki-gnome edits since its creation, so if Double sharp is !voting delete then it's basically a G7. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 23 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. Withdrawn; apparently Google search didn't include CECV in results. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Penultima[edit]

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

No notability for this chess variant; the only reference is a newsletter of the Variant Chess society. I found a few message boards where people tried to play this, but nothing that establishes notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has a paragraph in the CECV, §38.11 Games in which the players have different roles: Pritchard, D. B. (2007). "Penultima". In Beasley, John (ed.). The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. John Beasley. p. 354. ISBN 978-0-9555168-0-1. --IHTS (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We now have two sources in the article. The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants is presumably a reliable source, but not accessible online. Variant Chess describes itself as the Journal of the British Chess Variant Society, not a newsletter as stated in the nom, and is set out that way. It may not be scholarly peer reviewed, but it seems to meet our usual criteria for news sources; it has an editorial board, articles are from named writers, and it does not accept paid content. The article in question is in-depth (two pages) and shows that the variant is (or was) actively played, rather than just made up by someone as an interesting exercise. I also found two brief entries in book sources: UNBORED Games and Tabletop Game Design for Video Game Designers. That seems enough to me to get it past the WP:N. SpinningSpark 09:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, CECV is avail online here. --IHTS (talk) 10:24, 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Bushkar[edit]

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

Lacking in presumed notability. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. I've expanded the article since the nomination using Newspapers.com. Significant coverage can be found at sources including 1) Doughty, Doug (September 8, 2008). "Tech sports standout considered players' ref". Roanoke Times. Retrieved February 16, 2019., 2) "Frosh Rule Good To Tech And Spiders". Daily Press. AP. February 1, 1943. p. 5. Retrieved February 22, 2019 – via Newspapers.com., 3) "Tech's Bushkar Is Chosen State's Best Cage Player". The Evening Leader. AP. February 26, 1945. p. 5. Retrieved February 22, 2019 – via Newspapers.com. 4) "Bushkar Signs With Norfolk". Daily Press. AP. March 10, 1946. p. 2B. Retrieved February 22, 2019 – via Newspapers.com. —Bagumba (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

snow keep whenever a college athlete gets coverage like that, notability is a clear pass on WP:GNG alone.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "presumed notability" is irrelevant if the subject meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 00:27, 23 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. Sandstein 18:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gen's Guiltless Gourmet[edit]

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

Sources provided are not reliable or independent. I’ve found various directory-type sources and of course IMDb but I’m not sure that there’s anything like multiple independent and reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 02:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 02:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With tens of thousands of shows across thousands of channels in so many countries, they are not presumed notable. Reywas92^Talk 05:10, 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. Sandstein 18:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Demard[edit]

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

Of the sources provided one is the artist’s own page, another is an article by him (not about him). One minimal ref survives recording an exhibition he held; other refs are all dead. Mccapra (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 02:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 02:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 02:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is very poorly sourced, with the primary non-independent source (Demard's website) being offline. Scouring the web I see no evidence of a contribution as director / filmmaker of any work at all, thus making it impossible to satisfy step 4 of the WP:FILMMAKER criteria (notability attained through significant critical attention of works produced). There is no evidence furthered of any means of meeting WP:BASIC, and an internet search turned up nothing. The French Wikipedia version of this article shed no light here either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domeditrix (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 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 redirect to Darwin–Wedgwood family. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Wedgwood (1721–67)[edit]

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

Not notable except for being the brother of Josiah Wedgwood Erp (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my suggestion on Thomas Wedgwood III below. Mccapra (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There are details of the various Wedgwoods in works such as Chaffers. Andrew D. (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaffers wrote a compendium of English pottery manufacturers (not individual potters) most of which are too obscure to rate a separate article in Wikipedia. In addition John Wedgwood wasn't even a potter. --Erp (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaffers contains biographical details of the various Wedgwoods, including this one, giving details of his work, residence and death. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is a notable historical person. _Srijanx22_ 10:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srijanx22 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge No indication of notability of than that inherited from his brother. Reywas92^Talk 05:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Darwin-Wedgwood family (or even better, as proposed in another AfD to a Wedgwood family article to be split off of Darwin-Wedgwood family). Agricolae (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the other AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a wider Wedgwood family to cover all the relatives of Josiah of dubious notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Notability is not inherited, lack of sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Josiah Wedgwood has been the subject of numerous biographies. An early biographer who wrote a two volume biography and a number of additional books is Eliza Meteyard. Based on her book, I think there is a good case the Josiah's brothers, Tom and John, are both suitably encyclopedic subjects for an article. Their lives and motivations are discussed in detail, and a good deal is known about them. You can see their entries in the book's index, here[16]. I think there is a much weaker case for Josiah's father. In this and other early, public domain biographies of Josiah, all that is written about his father is based on his will, his date of death, and generalizations about potters and inhabitants from Burslem during that period. I am !voting on all three AfDs (that of John Wedgwood (1721–67), that of Thomas Wedgwood IV and that of Thomas Wedgwood III) with this comment, as I think they are similar enough. I am voting weakly because I think the best proof of the subjects being encyclopedic would come in actually improving the pages (based on Meteyard or other sources) and I do not have time to do the improving myself. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Josiah Wedgwood per WP:NOTINHERITED. He is not notable as WP:GNG requires multiple in-depth sources, and only one biography of his brother was provided above. I don't think that even that can be considered significant coverage, but a redirect would at least be supported by the one book. wumbolo ^^^ 20:42, 22 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. Invalid nomination; notability ain't temporary and disruption by the subject (and his followers) do not affect it either. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dice[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

In the last AfD I voted to keep the article as I felt that the article could be improved if RS could be found to update the article. However, the events that have occurred over the past few days with Dice desperately attempting to "fix" this page has made me change my mind. Most RS cover the conspiracy theories he used to promote years ago, and there is little coverage of his YouTube channel today (even though it has 1.4 million subs). If no RS exists for his career today, he simply can't be notable. I think deleting this article would be best for everyone, as Dice would not have a biography to complain about, and there is no indication that he will become notable anytime soon (even with this controversy) funplussmart (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is evidence already in the article of reliable sources discussing him in detail. Clearly passes GNG. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets GNG, and deletion is not cleanup. Vermont (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep under WP:SKCRIT#2d as nomination is "clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion". Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The only "dispute" is Dice and his followers trying to violate basic policies and push his agenda into this article. I was thinking on and off about re-nominating this page for a while, it was only this incident that made me actually want to do it. funplussmart (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has accrued significant coverage in WP:RS, including in print sources like [17]. Notability is also not relative to date, and the AFD process should not be used as a means to remove a possibly-disruptive individual's article from the project, as is implied by the nominator's comments. I would support a speedy keep in this instance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and Bakazaka. Nihlus 02:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Maintenance_of_BLPs for what I'm talking about. funplussmart (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete # of users is not an accurate measure of notability, but # of impartial references to is. DO not see this person used as expert in this field, just someone who has a big megephone on YouTube. AmorinoLA (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of lack of credibility of well known and hugely read sources that mention him but which are banned on wiki. So there can’t be a real article! Qwerty786 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Check these dozens if not hundreds of sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia, that mention him: [18], [19]. Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment in the previous AfD. Despite Dice's pitches on YouTube about his article, reliable sources make clear he hasn't really done anything of significance since 2015. They basically use him as a go-to guy when they need an alt-right person who will actually talk to them. That doesn't mean his previous work as a conspiracy theorist isn't notable (views he has never renounced, btw, and books he still sells through his own publishing house...) In fact, because he's trying to rebrand himself as some media commentator rather than as a conspiracy theorist who believes that Katy Perry is a Satanic Witch dancing in the Iluminati rituals at the Super Bowl Halftime show is even more of a reason for us to keep this article: his actual views and published opinions, as noted in reliable sources, are important for the public to know. Deleting this would be giving Dice what he wants: a whitewashed page, and preventing the reader from getting a fair, accurate, and up-to-date article on him, independent of his control. We are currently the only place that does that, and it is a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes GNG and ANYBIO, as the simplest click of a link in the Find Sources section at the top reveals. Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 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. Sandstein 18:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Sites[edit]

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

Article reads like a memorial, doesn't prove notability, and is thinly sourced. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:BASIC, and a web search turns up nothing that indicates notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domeditrix (talk • contribs) 12:02, 23 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel James (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I respect the guidelines at WP:NBOX, I think he does actually meet the overall WP:GNG. Coverage in multiple sources that isn't trivial and this is hardly a spam stub. I rather like it, it presents the facts and doesn't embellish. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Champion of the West Indies, significant coverage in Michael Anthony's book The Making of Port-of-Spain: Port-of-Spain in a World at War, 1939-1945. --Michig (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a copy of that book and it's apparently out of print. I did see that the Paria Publishing website says they don't publish books, but they do aid self-publishers. I have to question the reliability of the source and I see no way to verify the source or coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boxrec doesn't even show he fought for a West Indies title. Since he didn't turn pro until 1945 I'm surprised by the claim he received "significant coverage" in a book covering 1939-1945, though it is a local book of unknown reliability.Sandals1 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:NBOX, so let's look at the sources given for meeting WP:GNG. The Afro-American encyclopedia has 2 sentences--one that he was from Trinidad and the second says he became a professional boxer in 1945. The T&T Guardian article mentions him in passing as losing twice to one of the fighters they're discussing. The T&T Newsday article is his obituary, I can't access the "First Citizen Sports Foundation" (whatever that is) link, and the Kingston Gleaner mention is in the local sports section. Sorry, but I just don't see coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Impressive record in his own country - Gentle Daniel boxing record Karl Twist (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What impressive record? He won 1 of his 4 fights for the national light heavyweight title and that was the inaugural fight for that title between two first year professionals. That title was only fought for 7 times in history and he was in four of them. It was 27 years before another fight for that title after Gentle Daniel.[20] Talk about a minor title!Sandals1 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non-notable boxer. There's nothing to show he meets WP:NBOX (see my comments above). Nobody has shown there's significant independent coverage from reliable sources to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:42, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur A. Oakman[edit]

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

Per source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards. Reliable source coverage is limited to minor passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations, none of which establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Lucifero4

@Lucifero4: Why? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article seem to be used. User:Lucifero4

Thanks. I'm not sure what "used" means, although a high-traffic article, or articles with numerous incoming links may indicate a topic for which large numbers of people seek encyclopedic information. In this case there are several incoming links, but only as a result that Oakman is included on the Template:CofCApostles template. Regarding pageviews, before this AfD the page was averaging about 30 a month, or one a day, just barely more than what a page will receive from "Random article" traffic. I'm not giving a !vote here because I'm not sure he isn't notable in the same way that U.S. State legislators are notable (may only have local coverage, but actions demonstrably affect large numbers of people,) but although I appreciate the position I can't agree with it. However, I appreciate the explanation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources to show notabable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For RLDS a good place to look for sources is the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, and indeed, Oakman's role in the European church leading into WWII is discussed in "National Socialists and Social Idealists: The RLDS Church in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945", R. Ben Madison, The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal Vol. 16 (1996), pp. 15-30, and less extensively (though as "a towering figure in RLDS history") in "Forgotten Outpost: The Reorganized Latter Day Saints of Poland" by the same author in the same journal, Vol. 13 (1993), pp. 31-50. He's mentioned briefly in several other articles on RLDS history, though mostly in one paragraph or a few sentences. There's also the entire biography of Oakman listed in the sources, though of course one might dismiss that as not independent. Bakazaka (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some sources and expanded/reworked the article a bit. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced added by Bakazaka (Madison, Parker) meet WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:41, 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 redirect to Darwin–Wedgwood family. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wedgwood III[edit]

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

Not notable. Only claim to fame is being the father of a famous person, Josiah Wedgwood, (and two others who also have Wikipedia articles but whose fame is only because they were the brothers of Josiah Wedgwood). For the record and as a possible conflict of interest I am a descendant (but so are probably a few thousand others). Erp (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:INHERITED. There are times, and these 18th century industrialist dynasties are examples, when someone can be notable even though most of this is on behalf of other members of the family. The whole family is notable, as the multi-generational development of their family-owned business (which is certainly notable!). To omit one generation leaves us with a serious hole in the overall picture. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As Andy Dingley says it's the Wedgewood family that is notable, not each individual member of it. My suggestion is that all the Wedgewood articles up for deletion here be merged into a single article about the family, which can both cover why the family matters, and briefly summarise the lives of individual members. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so this is another of those AfDs where it's a bulk AfD, but done silently without cross notifications? 8-(

I'm against merging. The borderline ones will be very thin articles, but they're just easier to manage as clear nodes within the namespace. Even if merged, we'd still keep them as redirects. That said, merging to the family article would still be better than deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Darwin–Wedgwood family article and I could see him mentioned there or in Josiah Wedgwood's own article (along with his two brothers Thomas Wedgwood IV and John Wedgwood (1721–67) who I also suggested for deletion, my apologies for not cross-linking them). I note that this Thomas Wedgwood was not a notable potter nor was his son Thomas and his son John's main importance separate from the other siblings was that he was murdered. If anything, the Thomases, father and son, were rather unsuccessful and the father died when Josiah was only 9 or 10. I also note that if you are trying to show how the previous generations (many of whom were also potters) connect are we going to include articles for all the individuals that connect Josiah Wedgwood to his wife and third cousin, Sarah Wedgwood? --Erp (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There are details of the various Wedgwoods in works such as Chaffers. Andrew D. (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that mention in Chaffers is not sufficient; his work was an attempt to list every maker (Marks And Monograms On Pottery And Porcelain: With Historical Notices Of Each Manufactory (1866)). I don't think Wikipedia should consider each and every manufactory of pottery to be significant enough for an article. Note also that Thomas III and Thomas IV are one manufactory (Josiah started his own separate from his brother). John Wedgwood wasn't even a potter. --Erp (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so there is no reason to arbitrarily limit our coverage of potters to those that Erp prefers. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol..."this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". This is a meta-reasoning (WP:EVERYTHING): Wikipedia merely being able to have article on anything doesn't mean it should. The content on the person may still be WP:PRESERVED in the family article rather than in a separate one. Reywas92^Talk 08:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty barebones article with little information on the individual himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:D94:36F7:5D0D:60A5 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and repurpose -- The Darwin-Wedgewood family article seems largely about the Darwin family, but bringing in a few relatives with other surnames. With several notable members of the Wedgewood family, mainly notable as connected with Josiah, there is a case for having a family article, dealing not only with Josiah's father and brothers, but with wider connections. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to existing Darwin-Wedgwood family or proposed Wedgwood family article. One way or the other, as an entirely genealogical article on a non-independently-notable person, this article as it stands should go away. WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Agricolae (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge No evidence of notability beyond that simply inherited from the rest of the family. Darwin-Wedgwood family would be a fine place to merge any useful information, but he is not notable by himself. Reywas92^Talk 08:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge WP:Not paper WP:Before not honored. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 13:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Notability is not inherited.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Josiah Wedgwood has been the subject of numerous biographies. An early biographer who wrote a two volume biography and a number of additional books is Eliza Meteyard. Based on her book, I think there is a good case the Josiah's brothers, Tom and John, are both suitably encyclopedic subjects for an article. Their lives and motivations are discussed in detail, and a good deal is known about them. You can see their entries in the book's index, here[21]. I think there is a much weaker case for Josiah's father. In this and other early, public domain biographies of Josiah, all that is written about his father is based on his will, his date of death, and generalizations about potters and inhabitants from Burslem during that period. I am !voting on all three AfDs (that of John Wedgwood (1721–67), that of Thomas Wedgwood IV and that of Thomas Wedgwood III) with this comment, as I think they are similar enough. I am voting weakly because I think the best proof of the subjects being encyclopedic would come in actually improving the pages (based on Meteyard or other sources) and I do not have time to do the improving myself. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:18, 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. Sandstein 17:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Gideon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Relies totally on WP:PRIMARY sources. SITH (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of secondary sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A web search for reviews from publications of his books turned up nothing, indicating that the notability criteria of WP:AUTHOR (that an author may be regarded notable should any of their works have won significant critical attention) cannot be met here. Domeditrix (talk) 11:58, 23 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 04:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interest at maturity[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There seem to be few reliable articles on the topic aside from ones which just define it. SITH (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worked all my life in finance and while the simple concept is understood, there is no defined term or IAM derivative; hence why this article is unreferenced, and there are no clear RS available beyond references to the concept. In a strange way, there should be an IAM term, but maybe because it is so obvious, it never happened. Britishfinance (talk) 14:37, 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.