< 11 January	13 January >

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 and redirect to Auditing (Scientology). Tone 16:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional tone scale[edit]

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

Only primary sources. Maybe a merge makes sense, but I've no idea where to. Been tagged as having issues for 11 years. Hobit (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note There was a previous AfD in 2008, but our inclusion guidelines have changed. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Tone_scale. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, might this be merged/redirected to Auditing (Scientology)? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Might well make sense. I didn't think about that as a target and probably should have. That said, I'm rusty on the CoS stuff and so don't feel hugely qualified to comment on if that is the right place for a merge or not. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in part to Auditing (Scientology). The article cannot stand on its own, though some elements of it are worth preserving in another locale. NoCOBOL (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The text is unsupported by acceptable sources and reads like the personal effort of people interested in promoting the subject and advocating for Scientology. (See, for instance, the recommendations for further reading.) Texts that are not duly supported by citations that establish their subjects' encyclopaedic value are neither "merged" nor "used" elsewhere in Wikipedia; they're deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Naufal Kusharjanto[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Sportsfan 1234: It would be helpful if you were to rebut apparent claims against an SNG's items up-front. For instance with RNK, it appears that he has claims against NBADMINTON#3 with the 2018 Finnish Open silver, and NBADMINTON#5 with the 2017 Indonesia International gold. Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is [1] is the premier badminton tournament in Finland, I may be wrong. If so please void this nomination. The Indonesia International is not the highest badminton tournament in the country. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet WP:NBADMINTON #3. He was a runner-up at the Finnish Open, the highest badminton tournament in Finland.Stvbastian (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As runner up at the Finnish Open, as per Stvbastian. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It also appears the Finnish Open and Finnish International are the same tournament under different names. Perhaps those articles should be merged, but that's a discussion for another forum. Smartyllama (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)3[reply]
Keep - It is clear that Finnish Open is the highest tournament in Finland, while NBADMINTON #5 is satisfied in World Junior championships (part of mixed team that won bronze). Griff88 (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as of NBADMINTON #3, ranked second at Finnish Open. Florentyna (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable Loved150 (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is notable but lack of sources in the article. See News. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on notability --DannyS712 (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sabga[edit]

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

Article has been 'notability' tagged for 5 years. Just looking at the subject's IMDb listing, there is no way the subject meets WP:NACTOR. Article should be deleted as subject is not a notable British actor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no coverage, and he played only minor supporting roles, so does not meet WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minors roles are not what shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As noted above, seems to have had only minor roles and so fails notability requirements.Dunarc (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant find any significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Reddragon7 (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New England Business Journals, Inc.[edit]

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

Defunct publisher of local free newspapers. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The business journals appear to have been free advertising papers, had a combined circulation of 25000,[2], and a recent issue of the Valley Business Journal suggests nothing to meet notability. Alternatively it could be redirected to Barre Montpelier Times Argus, and covered in a sentence or two on the merger. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 21:05, 19 January 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 based on sources added. RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Lassalle[edit]

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

BLP with only references to his own publications Rathfelder (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Anthony's Historical Dictionary of Trinidad and Tobago is the source I used to create the article, so no, Lasalle's work isn't the only ref used, just the only inline ref. Guettarda (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Anthony ref inline. Still needs cleanup. Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there's an entry in a national-level historical dictionary published by an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield, a notable publisher of scholarly works. There's discussion of Lassalle's role as a leader of the mutiny and the lead negotiator with the government in Meighoo's work (which is a scholarly work published by publisher of scholarly works) and in Brian Meeks' book, another work by an academic published by an academic publisher. There's a profile published in the leading national newspaper published 30 years after the mutiny, showing enduring national interest in Lassalle even though he has left the sphere of "revolutionary" entirely. And that's despite the fact that my access to sources is limited - I don't have access to a library with significant West Indian holdings, nor have I had time to spend much time on the topic. Guettarda (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'n not seeing "an entry" for this person in a historical dictionary, I'm seeing two mentions of them, in two discussions of the same event. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: - I'm not sure what you mean. There's an entry in Anthony's historical dictionary that begins: "LASSALLE, Reginald Andrew [Rex] (1945-)". The entry is between LARA, Brian Charles and LAW. It isn't the longest entry in the book, but it's longer than many, including Brian Lara's entry. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's out of my page preview range but I'll take your word for it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER and imho falls far short of WP:GNG. The cited refs about Dr. Major Bertrand DeJarnette and The Mandarin Oriental Spa don't mention Lassalle. Almost all of the other refs are Lassalle's own work.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaarmyvet: - What's the problem with Anthony's Historical Dictionary of Trinidad and Tobago? It's been a while since I created the article, but I believe Lassalle had his own entry. Guettarda (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's anything wrong with Anthony, but your subject was a company grade officer and is presumed non-notable. If the mutiny had succeeded, that would be a different story.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaarmyvet: - but isn't the subject of an entry in a national-level historical dictionary presumed to be notable? His military rank is totally incidental when experts have deemed someone important enough to warrant their own entry in a work like this. Guettarda (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited the article to break it up into lead sentence, early life and career. The last three paragraphs are not relevant to his notability. It needs more information about his role in the mutiny, and in particular, if there was significant coverage of his role and him at the time or in later analyses, that needs to be included if he is to be shown to be notable. That is probably the only reason he would be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes, unless his books have had multiple reviews in RS. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - subject is mentioned solely within the context of the mutiny by reliable sources. Any salvageable content about their role in the mutiny can be merged to Black Power Revolution.~~ -Indy beetle (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have an entry in the one of the Rowman & Littlefield Historical Dictionary series and some significant coverage in a national newspaper, so I think GNG is sufficed. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. I think we should keep it. There will almost certainly be more sources in print. Rathfelder (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The link in reference #9 (supposedly titled "Holistic practitioner Rex Lassalle promotes lifestyle changes: No quick fix to good health") doesn't match the actual reference. Instead it goes to an article, "Lassalle back home to make mind-body link", that cites Wikipedia, which is a violation of WP:CIRC. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops. Well that's embarrassing! I had both windows open (the Kong Soo article and the Gordon "article") and pasted the wrong URL. I agree, using the Gordon article as a source would we classic citogenesis. Guettarda (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the "national newspaper" references mentioned above, from the Guardian Trinidad, is a first-person account written by Raffique Shah, Lassalle's partner in their attempted mutiny (titled "Mutiny without the bounty"). Thus, that article is not considered a reliable source and should be moved to the External links section. Based on a lack of reliable third-party sources - this article is mostly hanging on content from the subject's own books - as well as the fact that the mutiny was unsuccessful and significant reliable sources cannot be found, this fails WP:GNG. It also does not pass WP:BASIC. It is instead an example of WP:BIO1E, and the one event is lacking significant coverage to warrant a Wikipedia article about the subject. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Changing !vote to Keep. Agree that with improved sources, the article now shows notability. Passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Guardian source I was referring to was not Shah's account of the mutiny; it was the Kong Soo article about Lassalle written decades later, showing that he's still seen as a noteworthy figure after all this time. And no, the article isn't mostly hanging on content from the subject's own books - it's based on Anthony's historical dictionary and scholarly books by two academics - Meighoo, a political scientist and Meeks, a social scientist. The only fact in the article based on Lassalle's own books are two sentences about his birth and early education. Guettarda (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Trinidad and Tobago Guardian is a reputable source. If they run an article by his associate that doesnt stop it being a reputable source, any more than the Washington Post relying on an interview with one of Trump's associates. Its the fact that they choose to run the story that demonstrates notability. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Power Revolution His participation in the failed revolution is all he's really notable for. Reporting in the T&T paper about his tour promoting his book (along with claims like he can tell a lot about people just by knowing their birthday) doesn't seem like much editorial oversight. His name is only mentioned twice in Anthony's Historical Dictionary (once when the mutineers were freed and once for the mutiny) which doesn't seem like significant coverage to me. Certainly it's not enough to show the GNG is met. His role in the mutiny is undeniable, but it seems more like WP:BLP1E. Sandals1 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sandals1: I hate to reply to everyone, but I'm confuse by what you mean by His name is only mentioned twice in Anthony's Historical Dictionary? I can find the following mentions of him: (1) A full entry entry under "LASSALLE, Reginald Andrew [Rex] (1945-)"; (2) Three mentions in the "MUTINY OF 1970" entry; (3) Two mentions in the "SHAH, Raffique (1946-)" entry. So I'm a bit confused by what you mean. Guettarda (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a profile of Lassalle by Hugh O'Shaughnessy, who obviously interviewed him during his trial or after his release. It puts Lassalle's radicalisation into context. It's short, as you might expect from a piece in a print newspaper in the early 70s, but it added a lot to my understanding of Lassalle. Guettarda (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now sufficient independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A much improved article which focuses on his role in the attempted mutiny, and has sufficient independent, reliable sources for that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sleuthing as above and per nominator's gracious concurrence. -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 19 January 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. A possible merge can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Ibn Aqeel Shrine[edit]

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

Not seeing any historical notability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If sources that are not about the destruction of this shrine cannot be found then this should be merged to Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL rather than deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage and I don't think anyone would honestly suggest that we would consider deleting an article on an historic building like this in Western Europe or North America, where it would undoubtedly be listed as cultural heritage and would thus meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may be short, but meets WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources discuss its destruction, most (all?) only as a one line mention (if that). The coverage is wholly trivial (or non existent).Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL. Sources are not about the shrine but rather the simple reporting it was destroyed. All sources just copy the same AP photo without any description of the building itself - none even specifically attest to the article's use of "historic". Necrothesp's claim of this building being "cultural heritage" are not supported, rather than it being a routine mosque that ISIS didn't like. All sources group it with other destroyed buildings and none would be "significant coverage...directly and in detail" that GNG requires. Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it wasn't an historic building then? It certainly appears to have been. It is described as such in several sources. Just because some countries are more careless about their cultural heritage than others does not make their historic buildings any less significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is being said is that no one had produced one source disusing this site on its own merits, that until its destruction it was no more notable then [[3]], which also does not have an article that I am aware of.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered by WP:SYSTEMIC. If this building was in North America or Western Europe nobody would seriously dream of deleting the article. You're surely not comparing an historic shrine which would be heritage listed by any country with a proper listing system with a glorified modern shed which wouldn't have a hope of being heritage listed anywhere? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, there is no evidence this is particularly notable. Here is another church I canon find an article for [[4]], and another [[5]]. I can find more in one English town that do not have articles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that Wikipedia is a work in progress? Not having an article now does not preclude one being written in the future. Prittlewell Church is a Grade I-listed building, so quite clearly qualifies for an article under WP:GEOFEAT, even though one has not yet been written. St John's Southend is not listed and dates from the 1840s, so does not compare to these older buildings. Just being a church does not make a building notable (and I don't believe I said it did). Being an historic church does. Same for Islamic buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, the fact is we do not, thus your argument that this is an example of systematic bias is in valid. its not. There is no evidence this would have been regarded as a notable religious building in this country.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge/Redirect~~. The most info here is from major news sites and weekly reports here. Other information was from an Islamic State video on YouTube,the video is deleted,so let’s just move this to the Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL page. I realised something too, all this discussion was because of my mistake of putting the word “historical”. Islameditor47 (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was rather misled in my earlier comment by the word "shrine", which to my British perspective conjured up an image of a statue with possibly a small chapel (or whatever the Islamic equivalent is) attached. I now see that this was a full-scale historic mosque, so should be kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Phil Bridger:, @Necrothesp: This RS cultural heritage report [6] reports on this shrine "Site Date:Unknown, most likely modern." on page 54, with a couple more photos. There is simply no evidence that this is a "historic" mosque rather than a very routine one. The building itself has no notability, rather the destruction of it along with numerous other sites (this report, which lists a few dozen other demolished sites, is only an update for the week of March 2, 2015) is what is notable and is best covered in the Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL article. The shrine was not notable before its destruction, regardless of systemic bias, nor does it appear to be afterward either, with a lack of sources focusing on this building rather than many as cultural heritage collectively. Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about whether or not it is genuinely old or not. As we have zero information about it (a two sentance stub on its destruction). So in fact it is no more notable then a glorified modern shed with a gold dome stuck on top.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft I think this article should just be moved to draft, the article can be further improved before review.Islameditor47 (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the split viewpoint as regards Keep/Merge (with a suggestion of draftify) -
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Advocates of keeping have not been able to identify any sources for the mosque's notability or historic character. Coverage of the mosque itself fails WP:ROUTINE. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 01:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see that a Syrian Heritage report [7] says that both this shrine and the Sheikh Jawad Al-Sadiq Mosque are of unknown date, "most likely modern". So it was primarily of religious importance, rather than historic, and while there might be some coverage of it in eg Syrian newspapers, there is unlikely to be as much as if it were several centuries old. So it would be appropriate to merge this into the article Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Move to Draft~~ This article should be moved to draft so that the editor can improve it more. Deleting the page is just like erasing the editor's hard work.Islameditor47 (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is mention of shrine, clearly!Islameditor47 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is at least as significant as much as it is needed to keep a separate article. Excelse (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. While proving the non-existence of an event or an attribute is logically impossible, proving its existence should be trivially simple. (E.g. I cannot logically prove I have never been inside a cinema but I can prove I have, through, for example, a CCTV photo of me inside a cinema.) Editors who support Keeping the contested article claim "notability" and "coverage" but do not seem to be able to provide specifics. One can surmise that none exist. -The Gnome (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge~~ Deleting this is deleting the editor's hard work. If this page is deleted I can move it to another page because I have copied the source text. Islameditor47 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have now voted for both Merge and Draftify (and redirect), which is it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for draft now, I won't vote again. Islameditor47 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adib Shishakly (activist)[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG. Subject does appear to have any claim of notability in the Sphere of Syrian politics other than very trivial mentions here and there in not so reliable/notable media. Being somewhat related to a famous Syrian Politician and sharing his last name (and first) is not and should not be a factor in Wikipedia article-worthiness. Yabroq (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I support with the deletion request.--HD86 (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a founder of the SNC and VP of the SNB he is clearly notable. The article is well sourced and I can’t see how the encyclopaedia would be improved by deleting this. Mccapra (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT This article should not be deleted without getting input from AR-fluent editors regarding Arabic language sources, particularly those cited in the article. It seems likely that their coverage of this man may be greater. FOARP (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT The Arabic sources cited are from Asharq Al-Awsat which is the most authoritative and widely-read newspaper in the Arab world. Shishaskli's views are solicited in these interviews not as a private citizen but because of his standing in the Syrian opposition. The sources for this article are impeccable. Mccapra (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There is clear citation overkill here (e.g. for one piece of information, there are fourteen links!) but analysis show up their worth. First, we have lots of YouTube videos although that website is not acceptable in establishing notability. Then, there are reports in acceptable indeed sources, such as Reuters (here), the The Hindu (here), or Al Jazeera (here), but they mention the subject only once or in passing, their focus being on the Syrian opposition generally or on other persons. The Bloomberg link seems dead. And then we have a conglomeration of puffed up texts in Arab language media of dubious merit. Nothing much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 20 January 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) 21:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand College[edit]

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

Not notable. Not listed in current NZQA list of accredited teaching institutions. Stated premises at level 3, 182 Broadway are occupied by Techtorium Computer Training, which appears to be unrelated and certainly not an English language school. Akld guy (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A small, apparently defunct school for teaching the English language. No evidence of notability offered or to be found, and no reason to suppose there would be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as proposer. Akld guy (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related note: the article was created by User Jerclark, whose contributions show that he created several similar articles about teaching institutions, all with the same format and listing the same president, James Clark. The similarity with his username suggests that all of these articles might be hoaxes. Akld guy (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as proposer. I could not find anything and 'Wikipedia is not a directory'. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. The school's supposed web site is dead, and the only link to this article from mainspace is from Newmarket, New Zealand. Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That link was added only hours ago, which drew my attention to this article. It's otherwise an orphan. Akld guy (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In 2002 when this institution was supposedly founded, I worked in the industry. I don't recall the name at all which strongly suggests it was insignificant. This, along with comments above indicate that it fails GNG. Obvious COI by the article creator. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any significant web coverage which is no point to qualify as a Wikipedia article. Sheldybett (talk) 06:29, 14 January 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) 21:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janno[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax. I can find no sources not derived from Wikipedia by searching for the title along with "Myślibórz", and "Janno" is a very unlikely Polish name (I speak fluent Polish). This also does not appear on Google Maps, which is very comprehensive for Poland. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the user who created this seemed to run a bot in 2010 producing articles about many villages. It may be that all of those need checking, but I'm not volunteering to take on the task. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per non, also note that GeoNames doesn't show anything, although that doesn't show every place, the fact that the Polish Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it is fishy. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this does not sound Polish (I am far from fluent but know a bit of it). There was a town called Winkel in the German era in West Pommerania but it is now known as Głęboczek, in Gmina Czaplinek. There is no corresponding page on PL Wiki. I found no sign of this town in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nor does it appear on OpenStreetMap. Completely unverifiable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The word "Janno" sounds Polish (I know because I'm Pole), but this page is a hoax. A few years ago, this article appeared on Polish Wikipedia, but it was deleted as hoax. Banana22100 (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others. This does seem to be a hoax. Oakshade (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hoax and Banana22100 --DannyS712 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: May be inaccurate, but doesn't appear to be a hoax as it's listed as a locality of Myślibórz in Pniów on their official site[8], and a little information is given here. Looks like at most that should only be included in Pniów rather than in a separate article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 20:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the evidence it was called Winkel. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 20:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Ramilli[edit]

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

There is no assertion of notability. The page has been written completely by him. Ciaby (Ciaby) 23:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per G11. An IP has placed an A7 tag but that's the wrong criterion IMO. SITH (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space - while Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over is an option, the subject does appear to have some notability, which could be determined with a massive article cleanup to remove those sources that aren't about him (there are plenty that mention him and others that he authored). In any case, a COI editor should never try to publish an article in main space. This could be a keeper but needs a thorough review, and draft space is the best place for it to incubate. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of any possible notability , this is pure promotionalism. G11 would be perhaps the best response. I would not move it to draft space, since any possible article would have to be started over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Bakazaka (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional text masquerading as a Wikipedia article and put together by a kamikaze. Also, texts unworthy of future consideration are not to be moved to "draft space." Well, there is very little here for future consideration. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Suman[edit]

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

A movie or TV extra and an assistant director. No assertion of notability. Cabayi (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP, she is not notable. Who is she?. No significant news yet. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:50, 16 January 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) 14:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xia Yuting[edit]

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

WP:NBAD doesn't apply to junior worlds, and they don't appear to meet any of the other criteria of WP:NBAD. Created by a banned user, but worked on by another editor, so not eligible for speedy deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet WPNBAD #3 and #4. She was third at the 2017 New Zealand Open Grand Prix Gold. Stvbastian (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If junior championships doesn't satisfy NBADMINTON #5, I think the guideline needs to be updated in order to prevent such incidents. Griff88 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree to User:Griff88, that NBADMINTON must be adapted to the current BWF World Tour. Tennis has similar tours, so for badminton would be the main draw of World Tour 300 and above enough to generate notability as well as Grand Slam titles at junior level, i.e. here World Junior Champion. Florentyna (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject passes WP:NBADMINTON criteria #3 AND #4. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one person arguing to keep, failed to give any specific examples of sources which meet WP:NACTOR -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isidra Vega[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An actress that doesn't pass nactor. According to imdb her films were low budget and she had small parts. The refs in the article where I could see them don't support notability. Tagged for notability since 2016. Szzuk (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's had multiple roles, been written up in multiple RS, see sources in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Antonio Enthusiastic freak Martin (dilo aqui!) 04:52, 15 January, 2019 (UTC)
Delete because subject fails WP:NACTOR. The sources cited as well as others one could fish online are not about the subject per se and do not come near enough in establishing notability. Irrespective of a cinephile's appreciation of the subject's work (as I happen to have) does not translate in Wikipedia articles. There are other media for cinephiles, where every cinema-related detail is worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia is not like that. Wikipedia is not an indisxcriminate listing of information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:46, 20 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Manasse[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as the player has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. Contested PROD with no explanation given. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article claims 22 appearances in Serie C, which would be sufficient to satisfy WP:NSPORT. However, the claim is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 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 moved to Wikipedia:TomeRaider and tagged as historic. bd2412 T 00:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TomeRaider[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2014. No refs in the article. Before showing nothing. Szzuk (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TomeRaider was notable in a Wikipedia context, as it was the platform for the first offline Wikipedia reader, and the only one for years. I doubt many people still use it. See [9]. I am not sure why deletion is the preferred way to deal with topics that lost notability over the years, a state that every piece of software will arrive at sooner or later. A template that says "this article is kept for historic reasons", would be my preference. Erik Zachte (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware it used to be a reader for WP. I think of it much like a bot here on WP - it is a tool that isn't inherently notable. If refs appear I will withdraw, if not it could be converted into some kind of WP page maybe. Szzuk (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace shift or IAR? - it's a very un-google-friendly name, but various searches didn't come up with any good secondary sources. Any German BEFORE checker could check I and google translate didn't miss anything there. Obviously this is worth retaining for its internal historical worth. This can either be done by shifting its namespace. I also think it has a broader worth to readers - I'm not big on my IAR in AfD, but since it's an internal wikipedia area, a good case could be made for our OR being more permissable etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia: namespace per above. Cannot find SIGCOV. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 01:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Paratore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as the player, age 10, has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. Contested PROD with no explanation given. Given the username of the creator, seems to go against WP:AUTO. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league. No signs of significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Kosack (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Jogurney (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ten year old athletes are rarely notable, ~~and the article even says he only began playing a few months ago.~~ (Edit: Didn't read it carefully: He began playing the sport exclusively a few months ago. He had been playing it for some time before that, allegedly.) Doesn't even come close to passing WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG and a speedy would perhaps be appropriate here. Smartyllama (talk) 19:15, 15 January 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. The refs identified are enough to satisfy GNG, there is no point leaving this open a week. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin C. Crow[edit]

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

A computer programmer and researcher known for early computer graphics. There is just one ref in the article which is a trivial mention. Google is showing a few research publications related to his line of work. Tagged for notability since 2016. Fails GNG with no significant coverage. Szzuk (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar reports two papers with over 1000 citations and four more with over 100, but in this field I believe that those are not exceptional numbers, although anywhere outside computer science they would be. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of book sources saying things like "Frank Crow developed the first practical method of anti-aliasing" [10], "The first anti-aliasing methods were developed by Frank Crow" [11], or "A seminal work in rasterization and reconstruction with anti-aliasing was the doctoral dissertation of Frank Crow" [12]. Anti-aliasing is a major topic in computer graphics and it appears that his work was very important. The two >1000-citation publications are on different topics where he also appears to have made important contributions, box blur for texture mapping (another book source: [13]) and using the stencil buffer for shadow generation (more book sources: [14] [15] [16] with quotes like "Frank Crow pioneered the development of shadow algorithms for computer graphics"). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 13 January 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 List of communist parties. Keep in mind that WP:V applies to merges. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of left communist organizations by country[edit]

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

only six organizations, can be replaced by category. Fire and Ice 15:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of communist parties - there are only five entries in this list, and it could probably merged with the article List of communist parties without too much difficulty. Vorbee (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Vorbee. (Are there right communist organizations?) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Left Communism is a proper noun.Fire and Ice 01:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I'll be damned. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the early years of the Soviet Union it would have been very dangerous to be branded a leftist. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Vorbee. As Clarityfiend notes, surely it's an inherent part of their nature? Listing political organisation naming disputes sounds like it would be a deep rabbit hole... Nosebagbear (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Honestly, this doesn't even pass the WP:TITLE test. WP:COMMONSENSE (and WP:PPOV) applied, it's tautological. I've yet to see 'communism' and 'right wing' discussed as being inclusive when it comes to political theory, so what is the purpose of the 'left' qualifier? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can be merged with left communism.Fire and Ice 06:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Left communism. The term is valid but the list is not long enough to stand on its own. Mccapra (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of communist parties. This content has almost no sourcing at all and may not be verifiable. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:44, 20 January 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 List of tallest buildings in Albania. Tone 16:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Tirana[edit]

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

List that is not notable as a set and is organized according to a private data mining company. Fails WP:LISTN. Citrivescence (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm normally pretty harsh on these lists because they stink of OR to me. In this case the sources show that there are listings for the tallest buildings in Albania, but not for Tirana. I think there's a strong chance that sources could be found in Albanian though, and wonder if this has been looked at. FOARP (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is little particularly Albanian about this one (in comparison with the Albanian kulla and Albanian Bunkers), except the location. The list shows examples of modern architecture, wherein size appears to matter. There are many lists of this type, grouped by country, and there is nothing special about this one, except the remarkable photoshop painting, which alone merits keeping the article. Maybe the list can be expanded with local intelligence, like architects, rental prices, reviews, notable people and events connected to it. These are likely to be covered by local and regional newspapers. The list is an example of using Wikipedia as an intelligence database, and also a funny example of WP:POVology. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are lists like this for many major cities. I think it's reasonable to have one for the capital of Albania. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too many run of the mill structures at 15 stories. Many can't be properly sourced. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of tallest buildings in Albania. Too much overlap. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of tallest buildings in Albania. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 20 January 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 Sarvam Thaala Mayam. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvam Thaala Mayam (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Film soundtrack that doesn't have any notability beyond the film. No awards, just the usual reviews tied to it being the film soundtrack. Should be merged back to main film article. Ravensfire (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Keep the article by merging with Sarvam Thaala Mayam--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the film article where the tracklists can be in collapsed tables Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on Sarvam Thaala Mayam, a film yet to be released and, as it happens, also of dubious independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Action[edit]

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

I have done several searches to see if I could find any significant independent coverage in reliable sources, bu I have no found anything. Sources in the article only help establish existence, not notability MPJ-DK (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Negligible IRS that I could find. Aoziwe (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found coverage of her in Australian newspapers which I've added to the article. The article should be redirected to her actual name: "Amy Crawford" or "Amy 'Action' Crawford." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found coverage of the subject as well, under 2 stage names - ~~AC Jazz,~~ Amy "Action" Crawford, and Kombat Karl. The subject has had significant media coverage and a noteworthy female professional wrestling career ~~in the U.S.~~ and as one of the first women to wrestle in the men's division in Australia. Meets WP:GNG and easily passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Amy Action and AC Jazz are not the same person - all sources on "Amy Action" state that she's a wrestler and born in Australia, "AC Jazz" souces states that he was born in the US and a cheerleader/Nitro girl. Apparently in 1998 she was both a dancer in the US and a very talented wrestler in Australia based on the sources. They are not the same person, they may share the same birth name but that's it as far as I can tell. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Already made one correction. Will go in tomorrow and fix a couple more remaining and remove refs. It does not change the subject's notability. Thank you for catching it. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the rest since it's a BLP we cannot have wrong info in there. It removed your additions, so please double check that you really think it has notabilty without the sources for a different person. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject holds four women's championship wrestling titles, the totality of which meet guidelines for notability, added to one of the first women to wrestle in the men's divisions in Australia, all of which are sourced. The subject passes WP:GNG, and my !vote remains Keep. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorAuthor What guideline counts number of professional wrestling championships won for notability? I've never seen it but think that's very useful information to have for future article work. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the number of championships as an accomplishment. Of course there is not a guideline count for notability - which is quite a leap you made from what I stated when I merely pointed out here on the AfD page that the subject had won more than one championship title. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the leap from this comment - the totality of which meet guidelines for notability - to my question" you mention "Totality of which" = "Number" and "meet guidelines for notability", leading to my question what that number is. I don't see a leap, sorry, not trying to be an ass, I am genuinely trying to find something that would allow us to keep this, I just don't personally see enough Significant Third party coverage in reliable sources to prove it. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources listed that could be said to meet the RS guideline, the newspaper articles, one she's mentioned as an aside almost (not significant coverage) and the second is part interview, part coverage. Honestly if there was some other third party coverage, even if it was not that significant I would flip my vote to keep as an argument can be made for WP:GNG then. Unfortunately I have not found that myself, maybe you or someone else can. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Four titles and only one is actually sourced, but more importantly none of the titles are notable. I removed a source that was unreliable according to the source list at WP:PW. No sign of any major show appearances and the SMH link is wrong as Sherrie Sinatra was active in Melbourne at the time with Amy travelling to Melbourne to wrestle her. I think Princess Tara was active as well. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 08:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The titles she's won don't really matter since pro wrestlers fall under the notability standards for entertainers and not athletes, but it does seem like they're minor. I don't think the coverage is enough to meet the GNG and I see no evidence that WP:ENTERTAINER is met.Sandals1 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:52, 20 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dopsy Flow[edit]

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

Non notable musician lacking significant non trivial support. Extensive reseach online emphasises non-notability. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. The person is notable and made many works.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolute lack of reliable source talking about the subject. fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. User:Path slopu Please provide the reliable sources that you think makes this person notable. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:I saw some pages regarding this person in google and I think it passes WP:ARTIST. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 01:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all of the cited sources do not cover DF in enough depth or are unreliable. My source searches show nothing further that would cement notability per WP:MUSICBIO, although I'm open to reconsidering if Path slopu provides me with a link to the source they consider compelling. SITH (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising for 20-year-old musician. Zero independent, reliable sources to support notability, offered or found. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't yield any positive results. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:11, 20 January 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) 20:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy O'Rahilly[edit]

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

There's are little bits and pieces about her,[17][18] but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Her husband, The O'Rahilly is notable, not her. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~Keep - High ranking committee members of Cumann na mBan don't seem automatically encyclopedic. I could be convinced otherwise, but I didn't find much more than what is already presented to that effect. Outside of that, mention of her seems more focused on her husband. That role is encyclopedic and is mentioned on her husband's page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote, see below. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the subject of this article was a founder of Ireland’s first political organisation for women and was at the forefront of women’s political activity for a number of years during the critical period in which Ireland gained independence. The article is very thin on her political activities so may give the impression that she was not very important. The article needs more work but it’s really not a good candidate for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me more that she was a founding member. I don't see any information about the organization that led to the first meeting. Also, I don't see in the sources that she was elected to its founding committee or that she became vice-president (or when). I would put more weight on the encyclopedic nature of the subject if either/both of those elections were discussed in sources. Also, the paragraph in the article: "They lived in New York until 1909, returned to Ireland near sisters Nell and Anna Humphreys. Rahilly assisted on Sinn Fein Daily newspapers. They joined Gaelic League and learnt to speak fluent gaelic. In November 1911, Nannie Maolmire (Myles). O'Rahilly contributed to Irish Freedom, editor of An Claidheanih Soluis, the Gaelic League paper, including the article The North Began that inspired volunteers in November 1913." I think uses O'Rahilly to refer to her husband, The O'Rahilly, but naively read seems to be referring to her. If it is referring to her husband, could it be made more clear? Was she an editor of newspapers, etc? Also, the paragraph seems to attribute "The North Began" to him/them - when it was written by Eoin MacNeill.

If the subject is encyclopedic, and I do hope she is, could you (or someone familiar with the period) make that a bit clearer in the content and citations? Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I've now added the following references
Nic Dhaibheid, C. (2016). "'Schooling the National Orphans': the Education of the Children of the Easter Rising Leaders" (PDF). Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth. 9 (2). doi:10.1353/hcy.2016.0027. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
"WBTM-18 Madame O'Rahilly". dublincity.ie. Dublin City Council. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
"Papers of the O'Rahilly" (PDF). ucd.ie. University College Dublin. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
"Statement by witness Miss Aine O'Rahilly" (PDF). bureauofmilitaryhistory.ie. Bureau of Military History. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
"Cumann na mBan leaflets and circulars, 1917". catalogue.nli.ie. National Library of Ireland. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
Joseph McKenna (2017-06-09). Voices from the Easter Rising: Firsthand Accounts of Ireland’s 1916 Rebellion. McFarland. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-1-4766-2916-2.
Ann Matthews (2010). Renegades: Irish Republican Women 1900-1922. Mercier Press Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85635-684-8.
"Sean Nunan to Michael Collins (Dublin)". difp.ie. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade/National Archives of Ireland/Royal Irish Academy. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
"Domiciliary Searches". Hansard. House of Commons. Retrieved 14 January 2019.

Are we there yet? Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the sources match the statements, but looking through the sources, for instance, I do find that she was elected vice-president in 1915 and was re-elected until resigning in 1922. Her activities during that period were often quite important. I think the page is somewhat misleading still, but I agree that she is encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that’s all I was trying to establish. The article is not well written and still needs more work but in the space of an hour or so I was able to find multiple reliable sources showing that she was notable.Mccapra (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the usual challenges of attitude and time, I think there is enough evidence to justify an article. And having reviewed and rated thousands of WP Ireland articles, and noting that the approach for Ireland is pretty inclusive, at least for some sectors of society, the subject here seems more notable than very large numbers of others we do have already. I also agree, mind you, that the article needs work. SeoR (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with similar notes from other contributors, while the article does need work (to bulk up the refs, temper the "by association" content, and generally improve readability/etc), I am seeing enough reliable refs to establish independent notability. Guliolopez (talk) 02:26, 16 January 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 Music West Records. Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Nash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources and WP:MUSIC (nothing on charting, tours, albums, awards). The sources in the article are AllMusic listing and a passing one sentence mention. In my WP:BEFORE search I found this, which is not a WP:SIGCOV source. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and Merge with Music West Records.~~--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you clarify what you mean here, Path slopu? You cannot keep and merge the article at the same time. Or you mean keep the content but merge? While I always support a good WP:ATD, problem is that Music West Records does not have any detailed info about their artists, and it does not really make sense to integrate just Nash into it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with merge @Jovanmilic97: I mean that keep the content by merging the article with Music West Records. Because Kenneth Nash worked for it. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Path slopu's sensible suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 20 January 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 and redirect to The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein. RL0919 (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Lauritsen[edit]

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

This is an article which was first submitted by a banned sockpuppet, and so likely should have been speedied, but since then a lot of work has been done to clean it up. An extensive discussion on WP:FTN has happened about whether this person is notable and, so far, in spite of asking for third-party WP:Independent sources on which to create an article, nothing has emerged. There is a two-page autobiography that Lauritsen published of himself in Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, and there is mention of his existence in various sources that seek to cast judgment on his two WP:FRINGE beliefs, but this means that we have to consider what makes this person notable enough for a self-standing Wikipedia article. WP:GNG doesn't do it because there are not in-depth sources about the person. WP:AUTHOR and WP:FRINGEBLP both to me seem to indicate we would be better off not having an article on the individual. Note that none of the sources currently used in the article provide any biographical information about the person that we would normally want to see in a WP:BLP. jps (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There doesn't seem to be much really written about him, but quite a lot of sources that pick up on his claims, e.g. the Greer piece already cited, and on the Frankenstein claim Wired, ABC (Australia) (which also states that Camille Paglia wrote a favourable review of his book for Salon), The Independent, Huffington Post, the book Frankenstein 200: The Birth, Life, and Resurrection of Mary Shelley's Monster (calling his book "insultingly titled"), The Times, ABC (Spain)", and on his HIV-related claims the book Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge, and The Independent. As in a lot of these sources, he may merit a mention in articles on Frankenstein and HIV/AIDS, but whether a number of largely dismissive mentions in reliable sources makes him of encyclopedic interest is questionable. --Michig (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that particular book could be covered at Frankenstein authorship question. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is irrelevant whether mentions of Lauritsen in reliable sources are dismissive or not. We have plenty of articles about people who are discussed in reliable sources in a very negative light indeed - the existence of an article about a person is not some kind of stamp of approval on their views. All commentary on and discussion about a person in reliable sources helps to establish their notability, including negative commentary and discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - But is there any "commentary on and discussion about" the person (as opposed to a book)? That would seem to be the nub here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am simply trying to keep debate rational. Michig's comment seems to imply that only approving discussion of a person and their views shows that they are notable. That just isn't the case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I wasn't implying that, either would count towards GNG, but judging him as any sort of expert would need sources to back that up. --Michig (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As an example, if were to judge him as an academic, which is how at least one of the sources refers to him (though incorrectly I believe), the first criterion of WP:NACADEMICS is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", for which the nature of any coverage is clearly relevant. Apologies for not making this clearer. --Michig (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' fringe wackos require a lot of deep good sourcing to show notability, which is lacking in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment could be considered a violation of WP:BLP. Someone might suggest to John Pack Lambert that he revise it. I think it's quite wrong to suggest that articles about people who hold "fringe" views require a different level of sourcing from any other kind of biographical article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that WP:FRINGEBLPs require a different level of sourcing -- it's that, in the context of fringe theories, there are often sensationalist sources which go out of their way to make mention of weird ideas and those who cling to them thus inflating the profile of obscure believers in ways that make it difficult to align with WP:NPOV. When people are argued to be notable because of their fringe beliefs, it is important that there be in-depth independent sources that explore the biographies of such individuals. In situations where WP:FRINGEBLP does not come into play, it is not so problematic because it's generally easier to find reliable sourcing for the biography. jps (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lauritsen is discussed in the book Denying AIDS by Seth Kalichman. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioned, indeed, as a part of an omnibus exploration of people who are AIDS denialists. But this book does not appear to be offering biographical information. Rather it's just an annotated list of those who have been entranced by the AIDS denial arguments many of whom do not (and I would argue should not) have Wikipedia articles. jps (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, which appears to be sufficiently notable from the article itself and the coverage I found and detailed above. I'm not yet convinced that any of his other work justifies more than this. --Michig (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - there doesn't seem to be sufficient material to establish notability. It's almost all fringe or self-published, and almost everything else is incidental mentions. --tronvillain (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep if necessary for WP:IAR reasons. Lauritsen is a major scholar and Wikipedia needs an article about him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What establishes him as a "major scholar" but somehow doesn't meet notability criteria? --tronvillain (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauritsen has played an important role in controversies related to both AIDS and Frankenstein authorship issues, as those familiar with his work would know. So yes, I consider him a major scholar. If that doesn't make him notable per Wikipedia's policies about notability, so much the worse for them. Rewrite them if need be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, as per the convincing arguments of User:Michig and User:Tronvillain, although a simple Delete would be an appropriate alternative. Based on the available evidence I am unconvinced that the subject is a "major scholar." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Insufficiently notable for a standalone article. Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 17 January 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. If a subject lacks the coverage needed to show notability, then the reason for that lack of coverage is immaterial. RL0919 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Patcher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An undisclosed paid article on a mobile app that fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Plenty of mentions, but no in-depth coverage as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Ping @MER-C, 404House, Galobtter, Ifnord, and SchmuckyTheCat: as participants of prev AfD(s). GSS (talk|c|em) 17:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what I said last time "Sources are not reliable or don't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews, as they are narrowly focused or not published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications. Fails to meet WP:N."

Justifying that, the sources in the article are:

Their own website
Medium (unreliable due to being a blog)
GadgetHacks Assuming the site is reliable, not indepth, a short how to that fails Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context per WP:PRODUCTREV
Droid Panic Looks to be a blog, and similarily fails being in-depth.
Hack Read again, similarily fails being indepth. A one paragraph how to.
Malavida no indication from the site that it has an editorial staff or is reliable in any way.

There's a shedload of similar blogy "how-to" coverage and PR coverage, but no independant in-depth (and reliable) coverage that allows us to write a reasonable neutral article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Article also fails notability guidelines at WP:PRODUCT. This is the second go-around in a short time, the third if you count the procedural close. I advocate salting to prevent recreation. Ifnord (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

srz, you want to salt something because it was speedy deleted once? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not what I wrote. Ifnord (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you wrote..Mosaicberry (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has "added some references" which consist of..some youtube videos and a wiki. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no significant recognition from news or other 'reliable' sites because it's illegal and they can get in serious trouble for promoting it, something you editors don't seem to understand...

And WHAT EVIDENCE do you have that it is paid?? I'm waiting for an answer lol. If you would take a few minutes you can find out it is extremely popular, just with almost no 'official' recognition. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One good reason to keep the page is that when you search for Lucky Patcher, you won't be able to tell what is the correct site, making the Wikipedia sidebar or result very helpful to find out more about it. Mosaicberry (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This page is very well referenced compared to Kingo Root, which is also highly suspected of being malware. I think that page should be considered for deletion first being similar. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.17.51 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC) — 190.58.17.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Yes lots of concerns. The attempt to use user generated refs is not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Doesn't matter what the reason is that the sources don't exist; if there are no sources there is no notability. --bonadea contributions talk 21:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted in the last AfD, the sources exist at the bare minimum.

The standard for notability is not whether the sources used are in-depth coverage, but whether the sources exist to show notability and future use bringing the article up to standards. As it sits on :en the article is poor - but the sources exist to make it better. Search Google's news, books, scholar, etc and there are many good cites, many which aren't in English. Several book sources on Google show significant coverage but don't have a live preview. Particularly would be Android developer books that have sections on using Lucky Patcher as a test against your own code. WP:DEADLINE, eventually, blah blah blah.

[19]

[20]

[21]

The software isn't illegal itself, but it does allow things that would be considered illegal.
The article has at least two dozen editors, unless GSS wants to identify one as being a paid contributor and the other two dozen as flunkeys, stop making this claim because it is insulting to the good faith contributions of everyone involved.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all two dozen editors, 12 are single purpose registered accounts +23 IPs who made no or a couple of edits outside this topic and rest of the users made some maintenance edits excluding you. There is no doubt that user Godisthebestone was paid to create this article and was blocked for abusing multiple accounts so, I don't see anything "insulting" here. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying who the paid editor was. I've re-written or removed any text they added to the page. This is the first time you've identified that user despite being asked multiple times. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James and some others claimed I have been paid to write some of the page, I have no clue why they think this, also don't you think if ChelpuS or someone else from Lucky Patcher wanted a page for it they would pay an admin or at least someone who had many edits, rather than someone like us who have very few edits? Mosaicberry (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By "someone like us" who do you mean by "us"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean some of the other editors like me who have few edits outside of Lucky Patcher. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One book ([22]) appears to be self-published and I can't see any evidence that they other two book hits are reliable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just from Google Scholar I have found several more books that appear to be decently reliable. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like nothing more than a passing mention. Could you select one or two of these titles with rather more in-depth coverage? Pavlor (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously, there is no significant coverage because it is illegal and sites can get into trouble for anything to do with it. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. FitIndia ^Talk 05:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously, there is no significant coverage because it is illegal and sites can get into trouble for anything to do with it. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't significant coverage on this article. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously, there is no significant coverage because it is illegal and sites can get into trouble for anything to do with it. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosaicberry: Please see Bonadea's comment above that reads Doesn't matter what the reason is that the sources don't exist; if there are no sources there is no notability. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 04:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According To Google, the definition of notability is “the fact or quality of being notable.”, and the definition of notable is “worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.” As stated before the program Lucky Patcher is very popular and worthy of attention as one can see if one takes a few seconds to check, so either you or Google have something wrong. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.186.249 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia refers to WP:N. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aware of that, just stating maybe you should change it to something like ‘Reliability’ since the definition is wrong :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.186.249 (talk) 15:44, 13 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gainer Donnelly LLP[edit]

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

A search of references suggests that this firm was not notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in a reliable/independent source that really was sufficient to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Certainly far off meeting WP:NCORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The additional time I gave for this discussion has only resulted in indication that the sources claimed to show GNG are actually merely routine. Fenix down (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok City F.C.[edit]

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

No claim or evidence of notability, nor of meeting the standards of WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bangkok City F.C. has appeared in Khaosod newspaper, Manager newspapers and Matichon newspapers Media of Thailand. It is national public news. Amateur teams of Amateur league, which there is team history, have team wiki articles. Amateur teams of Amateur league don't team history in public news. they haven't wiki articles. You may not all teams in Amateur league haven't any articles Aquaelfin (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's as confused as Aquaelfin's other amateur team articles - a professional team in an amateur league? A press conference announcing that there will be a team is not WP:SIGCOV, nor is it a "History". Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why Pualand F.C. articles pass ? This teams don't appeared in national public news but join in 2018 Thai FA Cup. This teams has wiki articles !!!!!!! It doesn't make sent and fail Ameteur club standard which can or cannot wiki articles. Thailand Amateur League started after Thai FA Cup. I don't know each team which join or don't join Thailand Amateur League. I think to changes WP:FOOTYN defination teams which has wiki articles to must play in national level of the league structure. It prevents to create teams don't join Thailand Amateur League and more. Teams in Thailand Amateur League which have wiki articles must appeared team history in National public news. Aquaelfin (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It doesn't true if you fix national cups to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles. You see teams which isn't Amateur teams in national leagues but this teams have wiki articles ? Why do you fix Amateur teams in national leagues to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles ? For Amateur teams in national leagues which have wiki articles standard. I introduce see history teams of Amateur teams in national leagues to get standard. If you choose any way to Amateur teams in national leagues which have wiki articles standard, I don't problem. I would like to fix Amateur teams in national leagues to base for determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles.

such as *England: Clubs that play or have played at step 6 (level 10), or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup or FA Vase generally meet WP:GNG criteria. I accept this example.

for *Thailand: Clubs that don't play or haven't played T1 to T5 generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Aquaelfin (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don`t see any reason to delete articles as long as the info added is correct. SveinFalk (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The online coverage in Khaosod, Manager and Matichon Online seems quite significant for its level. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the keep votes here actually, provide evidence of notability, but there is no strong consensus. More time should be given to expand on @Paul 012: comments, namely why is the coverage significant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Club have history of clubs national scoop and catching up with the national news feed. Do Fenix down know Thailand national news ? Aquaelfin (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2019(UTC)

Aquaelfin, is your English really so bad that you don't understand when someone's given you another week to make your case? Cabayi (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi I think you don't understand my interpretive meaning. I explain Paul_012 significant for this article. I think his use same defination but you think its doesn't true.

For you, A lot of news are draw or results of Thai FA Cup only. don't have clubs webpage. don't have history of clubs. don't have any national news report clubs to scoop. while some T5-club only has played in T5 but have clubs webpage, history of clubs scoop, catching up with the national news feed. Do you think what team have wiki article ?

For Wiki football moderator such as Cabayi, Many Wiki football moderator have good english language but don't have football league knowledge Aquaelfin (talk) 4:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment translating the sources show there's at least some claim of notability here. Two of them discuss a partnership with South Korea and the other discusses a youth tournament the club puts on. I just don't know if they're enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could you be more specific? NFOOTY refers exclusively to players not clubs so I am not sure what you are saying here. Fenix down (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm. Looking again at the sources, they all seem to be covering the press event announcing the club's establishment. Could probably be considered WP:ROUTINE. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of numerous non-notable amateur teams for which this editor has attempted to create articles. Deb (talk) 14:55, 14 January 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 and redirect to Media coverage of cats. Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Purrington Post[edit]

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

Most claims for notability are mentions in lists of blogs by other blogs. Alleged awards are not major or significant and effectively badges given by individual peers without any coverage themselves. Therefore failing GNG and WEB. The mentioned books appear to be cross-marketing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above. Firstly it doesn't surprise me that this has been nominated for deletion. Not because I doubt its notability but because at first glance it appears that it's an area that the mainstream hasn't embraced yet. Actaully it is beginning now. I could see if there was no article for the seemingly obscure Garage rock band, The Bees and tomorrow someone created it, it could very well be up for deletion. Take an organization like the Tuvalu Media Corporation. If it wasn't already established I could see someone recommending it for deletion because they've never heard of Tuvalu and being such a small country in the Pacific with a small population, they wouldn't consider it notable. The online magazine, The Purrington Post is notable as it is a source of news for cat lovers. It is one of the most prominent. (There's a whole other world out there, a dimension some folks may not be aware of). The article is not relying on blogs for notability as you say. It's already mentioned and quoted in Austin Macauley Publishers and MarketWatch. Also news website Romper quoted Purrington in their article, "Do Cats Smile? Here's How To Tell Your Cat Is Happy, At Least On The Inside".
Romper, June 1 2018 - Do Cats Smile? Here's How To Tell Your Cat Is Happy, At Least On The Inside By Shari Maurer - 3.They Meow — A Lot.
Also, news website Eva.ro has used the Post's own article to reference in Daniel Dumitrescu's article about Thor a Bengali, "Tigrișorul de casă: Thor, pisica bengaleză care face senzație pe Instagram".
Eva.ro, 19 Septembrie 2017 - Tigrișorul de casă: Thor, pisica bengaleză care face senzație pe Instagram de Daniel Dumitrescu,
The referenced article used by Daniel Dumitrescu was in The Purrington Post, Sep 9, 2017 - A Bengal Beauty from Belgium.
They appeared in Google News. There were other mentions there in four other articles. Remember, we are also talking about the world of the cat lover and enthusiast. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable news source and definitely prominent in the world of the cat lover and enthusiast. Karl Twist (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going into a review of other articles. Your example of Tuvalu Media Corp does not stand. This company is widely covered, including by reputable outlets such as the BBC and in scholarly articles. AFC discussions are about the nominated article and WP:OSE is in this case not valid. It may be used if a pattern amongst peers can be identified (e.g. a pattern of "keep" discussions that may establish some kind of threshold). As for the claims of notability, Romper mentions Purrington Post once and in passing. The Eva.ro article is along the same line. I cannot comment if this site is a blog or respected news site. The Google News link you provided gives 6 results: Romper and Eva (already discussed), two on the Japanese web portal Biglobe that are apparently translations of other articles and the Computer Bild article that talks about cat toys in general (no mention of PP whatsoever) and just seems to have plastered the article with cat picture tweets, one of which happens to be PP. Not sure about TCPalm. This is a "contributor" article. Those tend to be "bloggy" with questions about independence or reliability. Don't get me wrong: I had cats for most of my life. But looking at this beyond emotions, this does look a lot like "cat sphere" blogs without individual notability quoting each other and thus giving the impression of wider coverage. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jake Brockman earlier post - One of them you're right about. Yes with Computer Bild, someone connected with the Purrington Post seems to have put in a post about cats. You're wrong about the books appearing to be cross-marketing. One relationship between the Purrington Post and with the book Petula, Circus Cat, it is mentioned by a major website (Austin Macauley Publishers). Another book, Strays: The True Story of a Lost Cat, a Homeless Man, and Their Journey Across America by Britt Collins - ISBN-10: 1501125621 has the comments by the Post in the praise section, alongside comments by * Library Journal, * The Conscious Cat, * Booklist, * Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, * Claire Bessant the CEO of International Cat Care, * Lead singer of The Pogues, Shane MacGowan, * Caroline Paul, and * Scott Carney etc.. Book got good reviews On Amazon too.
Now the latest post at 10:56, 30 December 2018 - I merely used the Tuvalu Media Corporation as an example of a noteworthy article that some users could nominate for deletion because of their unfamiliarity of Tuvalu and that it is a small country. When you commented at 10:56, 30 December 2018, there were 6 results of the Purrington Post. Now there are 8.
1. Business 2 Community, 28 Oct 2014 - 24 Cats More Likely To Vote On Election Day Than Most Americans
2. TCPalm, 20 Jan 2017 - Catty Comments: Cats have been popular White House pets
3. BIGLOBE, 15 Jul 2017 - 同じニャーでも意味が違うんだからおまえら覚えておくように。猫の11種の鳴き方とその意味、対処法
4. BIGLOBE, 20 Jul 2017 - ギリシャにある猫島。白と青の美しいコントラストの中で優雅に暮らす、サントリーニ島の猫たち
5. BIGLOBE, 26 Jul 2017 - 茶トラ猫についての9つのオモシロ豆知識
6. Eva.ro, 13 Sep 2017 - Tigrișorul de casă: Thor, pisica bengaleză care face senzație pe Instagram
7 Romper, 31 May 2018 - Do Cats Smile? Here's How To Tell Your Cat Is Happy, At Least On The Inside
8. COMPUTER BILD, 10.10.2018 - Kratzbaum, Trinkbrunnen & Co.: Katzenerstausstattung – alles für die Katz!

Now take away the 2 or 3 blogs from the article and it still stands!~ I only included them to give a bit more breadth to the article to show that in the world of the cat lover, cat culture, cat religion (if you like) what the site means to people out there in cat land. Not in an emotional kind of thing, but as a news source! Karl Twist (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion about the sources posted from others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch has not brought up any useable sources ie. other blogs, nothing listed above by the article creator contributes notability, rather a reading of what they have listed reinforces the lack of notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above - It may be inconceivable to some that there would one day be a news website that covers cat news. First of all I need to reinforce the fact that this, The Purrington Post is not a news website for cats, because cats as far as we are aware are unable to read. I do believe that they understand and know a lot more than we give them credit for. So then what is it? Well, The Purrington Post is a news source for cat lovers and enthusiasts. We have notable motorbike news for the bike enthusiast community as we do for the electronic enthusiast community and others. I have already established that It's already mentioned and quoted in notable sites such as Austin Macauley Publishers. It was referred to in September 2018 as an award-winning cat blog by the Dow Jones & Company owned financial information service MarketWatch, which did an article, "Canadian Brand Natural Pet Science New Product Launch Receives Media Recognition for Pet Treats Made from Hemp and Crickets". And in the endorsement of the product, The Purrington Post was mentioned. [23]
Looking at Sandy Lerner’s 2017 Book, Caticons: 4,000 Years of Art Imitating Cats which was reviewed in (Middleburg's only locally owned and operated newspaper), Middleburg Eccentric, November 3, 2017, - [24] and written about on Fauquier Now, July, 10, 2018 - [25], The San Francisco Chronicle, July 26, 2018 - [26], and San Francisco Magazine, [27] On Page 27 of Catworld magazine, there's an ad for the book Caticons. The only review quoted there is from The Purrington Post. See - Catworld, December 2017, Issue 477, Page 27 [28] BTW, Catworld has been going for 37 years and retails for £4.99.
The author's own website mentions the interview conducted by The Purrington Post, and provides a link to it. [29] So the book isn't some self-published book for cat lovers that was written by some some cat lady, the book is by a notable person and the news site that interviewed the author was The Purrington Post. Karl Twist (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Film reviewer, the PP also reviewed the award winning short film, Aeris.FilmFreeway: Aeris. It also interviewed the film makers. Purrington Post: The Story of Aeris: A Legacy Inspired by Love, Pop Dust, 10/11/17 - FILM | Aeris: The Unlikely Story of a Cat and Unconditional Love - By Megan Christopher Karl Twist (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The Purrington Post like many other news sites comes up in its own searches. I have looked at some more books and The Purrington Post is referenced in, or has appeared in the publication as an endorser. A similar cat-news site, The Catnip Times also appears in Google News a fair bit. But The Purrington Post has more hits than the Catnip Times. Two weeks ago there were 7 hits in Google News. Now there are now 9 hits in Google news and I'd say in a few weeks there'll be more. There are some inaccuracies given here in supporting a deletion of this article. Again, what needs to be looked at is The Purrington's prominence in Cat news. When another cat-oriented film gets released in the US, I am confident that they'll be interviewing the film makers as they did with Aeris. As strange as it seems, believe it or not, "Cat Media" is here. It still stand by my statement that the subject here is notable!
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin - I still stand by what I said about the article being notable and it should stay! It is a respected news source among the cat lover community and used as such for things that are very real to them. I just ask that if it gets to the point where deletion becomes a consideration, you might look at the possibility of redirecting it to Media coverage of cats or Cat lover culture.
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB. jps (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few sources, many of which are not independent or enough to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have pointed out, I'm just not seeing any sources that would really satisfy our notability requirements. Anything mentioned about it is pretty low-tier or non-independent sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and despite the admiration one may feel about the genuinely passionate effort that must have gone into the project. The suggestion by Karl Twist for a Redirect should be entertained. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 20 January 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. Michig (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Barsukova[edit]

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

Model may meet NModel but there is no GNG at all. The closest thing to a source I could find was from Teen Vogue in 2007. Trillfendi (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article stops in 2008, as did her modeling career, but she gets coverage more recently for the health food/beverage business she founded after retiring from modeling and getting a business degree, and for her personal life. See this 2015 profile in the Russian edition of Tatler [30] or this "success story" profile from her school [31] for more current information and leads on an improved WP:BEFORE. Also please remember that sources in Russian (or any other language) are explicitly allowed on enwiki, as WP:N makes clear. Bakazaka (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: I tried to find Russian sources but couldn’t so I assumed one of you could do it better than me.Trillfendi (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: I encourage you to ask for help at a relevant WikiProject talk page, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia, while doing your WP:BEFORE for a deletion nomination. Many WikiProjects are quite helpful, and you might find that an article is a candidate for improvement rather than deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated on the basis of verifiability for her modeling career. For that, I saw no means of improvement. If she meets notability for business then I guess the article could be rescued, but I don’t think that’s possible at this time.Trillfendi (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The article in Vogue, plus the coverage as a model, rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[You mean this Teen Vogue article (if one could even call it that) where they ask her random questions like her favorite cds? No that does not substantiate significant coverage or notability. No sources given and none found do, that’s the problem here. Supermodels.nl is a blog, FMD and defunct NYMag profiles are databases, they don’t give notability. Please show me other sources you’re talking about. Trillfendi (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, are you saying that the Tatler article linked above does not count toward notability, in your opinion? Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I forgot to take a look at that one.) It appears to give a hint of notability to her business endeavors, unfortunately they don’t go in depth, but at the same time it seems to stand on her brief modeling career. The title itself is “Anna Barsukova: the new girlfriend of the oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev” which really makes no sense IMO because the article only mentions him twice and he isn’t an investor in her business. In my eyes it’s their attempt to expand on gossip, because I don’t see much else about their relationship if it’s still going on. So I think that one is a toss-up.Trillfendi (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so other editors driving by know what we're talking about here, the Tatler article is a 1000+ word magazine profile [32] directly on the subject, covering her modeling history, her educational trajectory, her multiple business startups, her personal life, etc. By itself it is not enough to establish notability under WP:BASIC, given the need for multiple sources. But it is significant coverage, and if there are editors who actually want to improve the article, it's a good pointer to things she did after her modeling career ended, which the nomination did not take into account. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BMW 335 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page only has 2 entries and is therefore not required per WP:2DABS. (The page also has a number of style errors per MOS:DAB). The primary topic (the first entry, a redirect to BMW 335) already has a hatnote to the other use (the second entry, a redirect to BMW 3 Series (E90)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You would have done us all a favo(u)r of you had entered this bit before you put a deletion flag on the article in question rather than waiting till I had reverted it. But thank you for belatedly sharing your logic. I think the key is your assertion that the page is "not required". You can make the case that the whole of wikipedia is "not required". However, I think the page is potentially helpful. That is a more important test than whether or not something is "required". Wikipedia's most important customers are not the nerdy types - you and me - who contribute to it in our spare moments. We are compiling this thing for the interested generalist who finds he or she knows less than he or she wishes to know about a given topic. For that most important customer, I think this disambiguation page may be more helpful - user-friendly and welcoming - than another tiresome little distracting note at the top of the "wrong" wiki-entry. If you don't like the style, feel free to improve on it. That would be a more constructive use of your skill and judgment, I dare, respectfully, to suggest. But you are, of course, very welcome to think differently. Maybe you do. Success Charles01 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A run-of-the-mill TWODABS candidate. Also, Charles01, a snarky attitude doesn't help your argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't like my attitude. I wonder if you could bring yourself to address the issues? And please, sir! (I still think our friend would have done us all a favo(u)r of he or she had entered his explanation before dumping a deletion application rather than waiting till I had reverted it. I'm sorry if you find that odd. It's an issue of basic courtesy, but it's also an issue of practicality.) Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now looked over the recent edit history. You reverted Shhhnotsoloud's prod for no legitimate reason that I can see; the same rationales were given there as are reiterated here. Claiming that WP:2DABS is "private jargon", especially when it was linked and you are an editor of long standing, seems rather disingenuous to me. And I did address the issues, referring to the same guideline as the nominator. You, on the other hand, have not. Your main arguments seem to be it's WP:HARMLESS and "potentially" WP:USEFUL. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mindlessly and selectively citing wiki-guidelines is not a substitute for thinking for yourself. There are plenty of lawyers who get paid to do that which is fine. But these are guide-lines intended to help you make wikipedia better - more "fit for purpose" - if you are keen to keep up with contemporary jargon. One can certainly go too far with Jimmy Wales' provocative mantra (I think it was originally he, but the point needs to be made even if it was not) that one should ignore all rules. And yet ... taken together the wikipedia guidelines are stuffed with mutual contradictions and ambiguities that could keep a top lawyer happy for a lifetime (except no one would pay him or her to do it - maybe a top theologian). By all means invoke wiki-guidelines. They're mostly excellent statements of good sense according to the perspective of the helpful person or persons who compiled them. But these are a means, and not things you should ever wish to treat as ends for their own sake. Wikipedia is not a dictator-state with a simple book of rules, and if you try and turn it into that you will - to the extent you succeed - stiffle the thing and, ultimately hasten its demise. Well, nothing lasts for ever ... But please step back, take a deep breath, engage brain and THINK for yourself. Thank you. And sorry (up to a point) to bang on. (I appreciate I may be wrong in this particular example: but simply invoking wiki-guidelines without further discussion doesn't begin to explain why - which you seem to - you think I am wrong.) Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now you insult me too. I had to check WP:MOSTEDITS to confirm your background, because your behaviour suggests otherwise. Seriously? This isn't a vital, top-importance article. This is a simple dab page and a simple situation which has consistently been handled the same way all the time, e.g. Santorum (disambiguation), which is also undergoing Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Charles01. --Doncram (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a useful TWODABs page since the BMW 3 Series (E90) page mentions BMW models named 335is, 335xi, 335d, which would lead to confusion about how many 335 models there might be. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphan disambiguation page whose navigational function is handled by the hatnote on BMW 335. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per standard procedure with TWODABS. Not needed. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Disambiguation helps orient users. Here we have two (2) items with a similar name. The purpose of orientation can be served, as per typical practice, by placing at the top of each of the two articles a WP:SIMILAR template. -The Gnome (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. Tone 16:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Bits[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable and impossible to source self-published fan site. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY - R9tgokunks ⭕ 09:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have a professional and qualified staff so it is not a fan site Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so after a more in-depth look at their site and elsewhere, it does not appear to (clearly) be a fan site. Their about page has a list of news sources that have talked of them. Some links would have been nice. In any case, after a standard BEFORE check plus a source by source sweep of those mentioned here's the results: a couple of 2 line mentions, 1 interview and a bunch I couldn't find. From what I can find, there just isn't sufficient material to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 12:10, 20 January 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 - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hu-manity.co[edit]

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

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)).

Non-notable company which fails WP:Notability. Tinton5 (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Too soon as they're only formed this year, so not significant enough coverage yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The company was formed just this year and currently lacks enough coverage for passing WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning 17:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company is notable due to the amount of press coverage it has received. Per the company's Crunchbase entry, Hu-manity.co has been covered in TechCrunch, Forbes, NPR, Inc., the Washington Post, and others. 01:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)JimMacLeod (talk)— JimMacLeod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This user has an undisclosed financial conflict of interest regarding this topic. As such, I have terminated his editing privileges under WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 12:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow discussion of the coverage alleged by JimMacLeod. Please link to these articles so that they can be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about Hu-manity.co TechCrunch 1, TechCrunch 2, Forbes, NPR, Inc., VentureBeat 1, VentureBeat 2, The Washington Post, and others. JimMacLeod (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jim MacLeod is listed as "Associated Founder: Brand Excellence" at https://hu-manity.co/who-we-are/ Џ 05:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: typical startup coverage -- Forbes.com/sites, TechCrunch, VentureBeat -- along with passing mentions do not establish notability under WP:NCORP / WP:ORGIND. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NPR, The Washington Post, television coverage, invite to the UN, deal with Liberia, IBM partnership, and a deal with Syracuse University are not “typical" of startup coverage JimMacLeod (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) NPR: "Hu-manity.co is also trying to establish a system in which people can sell their medical data to pharmaceutical companies." - Just a mention, not significant coverage. 2) Washington Post: Two sentences about the company and two sentences about the co-founder's opinion, Richie Etwaru. It's one of six interview bits included in the article amongst the names Adam Tanner, Jodi Daniel, Roger Wilson, Jennifer Miller, and Steven Joffe. 3) Television coverage: An interview with the co-founder on a local ABC channel - not independent coverage. 4) Invite to the UN: A Business Wire press release. 5) Deal with Liberia: It's on the AP News website but it isn't from an AP writer, it's labeled as a Business Wire press release. 6) IBM partnership: Is "according to the press release" from IMB. 7) Deal with Syracuse University: Straight from the University website. Џ 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the coverage displayed within the reliable sources (note, for a couple of interviews there's significant non-interview bits in the latter half) is well beyond that of WP:ROUTINE in enough of the sources to allow WP:NORG to be satisfied. n.b. This !vote is made in awareness that my sole fellow keep !voter is certainly a COI. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Џ 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [I am the activist behind the 31st human right & CEO of the company] Lots of comments here about validity. This is a movement/company that has thousands of customers, relationships with Fortune 500, relationship with academic institutions globally, contracts with governments, and a team of dedicated and passionate people from all over the globe. By all means delete if this is the general consensus, but wanted to address validity. As a data point, we have one of the lowest CrunchBase scores of most startups (currently 785). We have applications in both Apple and Android stores, users in over 70 countries, and have presented at the UN.Richieetwaru (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)— Richieetwaru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep very important company. Book luver36 (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)— Book luver36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Though voting my way, I feel I should point out that Book luver36's vote is both non-justified, and also the only edit made by this account. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team, I do not know who Book luver36 is although he/she voted in our favor.67.88.213.2 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for notability Hu-manity.co was mentioned on Fox Business on 17 January 2019 during a segment focused on Apple CEO Tim Cook's commentary on data privacy. The analyst stated that Cook's views do not go far enough to protect users. He mentioned that Hu-manity.co is working to solve the issue of data ownership. JimMacLeod (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That mention is no good "R. 'Ray' Wang, MPH, CEO at Constellation Research, Inc., and Hu-manity.co Advisory Board member"[33] Џ 01:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for user Џ with questionable motive It should be noted that the user Џ is anonymous, has only posited negatively on other blockchain companies, and positively on one. For the group's consideration. First post from Џ after the Hu-manity.co post was created, and most of the "activity" are highly easy to make - deletes.50.29.194.50 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC) — 50.29.194.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Besides being completely wrong, it should be noted that this IP is from New Jersey, which is where the company is located. Џ 02:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this is Richie Etwaru. Not sure why it does not show my name. Here is my address and phone number. I stand behind the entry, and the claims made my others. I live at 22 Crown view, court, Sparta, NJ, 07871. I can be reached at 1.917.403.0642. And if it makes sense, richie@hu-manity.co. I want to reiterate, if the entry does not meet policy, lets delete. But we CANNOT be trolled by biased Џ. Richieetwaru (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. User Џ is acting on what they think is best to protect and grow the encyclopedia, so words like "trolled" and "biased" should be used sparingly. You seem to have the makings of a good editor if you are not a one-issue (or one company) user. And you may want to nix the personal data above. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep, (EDIT: although not if the page was started by someone who gets a paycheck from the company) seems to have established sourced notability. And per above comments. Would urge the main editor to take the UN declaration edits to its talk page and not revert (see Wikipedia bold, revert, discuss guidelines). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 20 January 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) 13:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral Slake[edit]

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

Filled up with forums, unreliable blogs, fansites as sources. No sign of independent coverage online. Reading the article doesn't highlight a significant career either. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He won some minor radio contests that are themselves non-notable and there is no evidence that any of his own songs were noticed by the public. The nominator is correct on how the article is dependent upon blogs and streaming sites that only prove the existence of him and his tracks, and no other sources can be found to show notability for either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand is a not more information but why deleted it? User:Lucifero4
Delete, I went through all the sources given, they are all trivial mentions and announcements, twitter, forum posts, blogs, the only one source with three paragraphs of text gets duplicated three times. Tried to search but nothing significant turned up. With the absence of multiple independent reliable sources that give in-depth coverage, it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Hzh (talk) 21:10, 18 January 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 because the discussion indicates a likelihood of notability developing in the not-too-distant future. Although I would more-or-less strongly suggest that a restoration would be to user space until such time as it is no longer TOOSOON. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Carrasco (Chilean footballer)[edit]

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

The subject never played in a fully professional leadue. Whereas the article is unsourced, the Spanish Wikipedia article has sources, for example this is Sokkerway here: [34], it only shows Primera B. Thereby the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He played a lot for the second division winners and transferred to a top three team in the premier division and is likely to become notable soon. That being said, I have no issues with deleting this without prejudice and recreating it when the time comes. It's not even worth draftifying at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 19:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Carrasco is the subject of at least one article that would be significant coverage at El Mercurio, but I don't see quite enough to satisfy the GNG. It's very likely Carrasco will make an appearance for U. de Chile soon, but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 15:34, 14 January 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) 09:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Bassett[edit]

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

She hasn't played in an WP:FPL and fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant independent coverage. Article was created by Cbassett13 who's only edits are to the article. Dougal18 (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the nominator that this is probably a self-promotion article and that it is very poorly sourced. I also agree that there is no evidence of her having played at the top level in a club. But.... she has played for her country in an international which is confirmed by UEFA here which should make her notable. This is also probably her as reported by the BBC. I suspect that more searches would provide adequate sourcing. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I was mistaken about her playing for Wales then I will change my vote to Delete - which I have now done. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Trillfendi (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The UEFA page [35] only serves to confirm her date of birth and that she's Welsh, not that she's played for her country. That BBC page (Google archive) merely says she scored a goal for Plymouth Argyle L.F.C., so is not significant coverage. The nearest I could find to significant coverage is [36], five sentences in the Tavistock Times Gazette, which doesn't seem sufficient to meet WP:BASIC by itself. --Qwfp (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bit more coverage around her being named Welsh Premier League Player of the Year in 2012: [37], [38] Whether being named the season's best player in a national top level league amounts to a "well-known and significant award or honor" for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON purposes is open to question. You're correct that she hasn't played for the Wales national team, but she has scored (and been player of the match) in a national top level league final, scored in a national Cup final and played in the UEFA Women's Champions League. In these sort of cases the tendency in the past has been towards keeping, see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilia Appelqvist. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Can be recreated if she plays for the Wales national team or in WSL1. We wouldn't consider a male player who had made an appearance in the Welsh Premier League notable for it, so the same is applicable here (I don't think playing in the Welsh top division is comparable to playing in the Swedish top division for obvious reason that like in men's football, the top Welsh clubs actually play in the English league system). Number 57 23:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Velella: The UEFA link refers to a club competition, not the Wales national team. Number 5 7 23:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable sportswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:49, 14 January 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) 17:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Cause[edit]

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

Not notable, fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. — Jeff G. ツ 08:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jbonapar (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. I disagree that this does not meet Music/Band Guidelines. I will update references to help improve this, it is my first major article (Non-medicine releated) and thus I am still learning. This band is getting large in Canada, they have made national charts (which according to Wikipedia guidelines is a criteria). The band is releasing music with Sune Rose Wagner of The Raveonettes, an international music star which in itself is something that should allow this information to stay as this will likely appear on his page. This band has also toured internationally, in Both Canada and the USA.

According to Wikipedia Guidlines, this band, apart from the above, has met the following and I will update referances to reflect this.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

3. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

4. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

5. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. - On National CBC Radio.

Jbonapar (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more piece of information that was added, their music appears on international radio stations associated with Corus Radio, a collection of Major Radio Stations in Canada. The band does music for The Nighttime Podcast, which has a show on this network. ^[1]Jbonapar (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Corus Radio".

Delete. Regarding the claims above that they meet the NMUSIC criteria, note that:
(1) the references here are not reliable sources for the purposes of getting the band over NMUSIC #1, but are almost entirely blogs and podcasts and social networking posts;
(2) earshot is not a notability-making record chart for the purposes of NMUSIC #2, a status which only attaches to IFPI-certified charts on the order of Billboard and not just to any record chart that exists;
(3) they have not released two albums on a major record label for the purposes of NMUSIC #5: they released one album independently, and then reissued an expanded version of the same album once they signed to a minor record label;
(4) passage of NMUSIC #7 is not being demonstrated by the substance or sourcing on offer here; it's a criterion that any artist who exists at all can simply claim to pass it if all they have to do is say they pass it, so it requires a much high burden of sourcing and substance to actually pass than you've shown, and is not on the table just because you say it is; and
(5) getting into the Searchlight competition is not the same thing as getting placed into rotation on CBC Music. If you want to show rotation for the purposes of NMUSIC #11, what you need to show is that Raina, Tom, Rich, Odario and/or Angeline actually played Paragon Cause in the regular daily playlist multiple times, not just that the song was a Searchlight entry — and even then, the only surefire way that actually exists to demonstrate that the song had been played enough to be considered "in rotation", and not just "played once or twice", is to show that the song charted in the CBC Music Top 20. Fact of the matter is, even most actual Searchlight winners don't actually have Wikipedia articles yet — only one actually does, and even she didn't get it because Searchlight per se, but because she did other notability-building stuff after Searchlight. So merely being a Searchlight entrant is not a notability clincher, when even winning Searchlight isn't enough.
So no, neither the substance nor the sourcing here are cutting it yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The band's music is played on The Night Time Podcast, which has 200,000 downloads a month. It is also on Global radio stations (National) through Corus Radio. As Wikipedia mentioned for music, they released one album on a European Indie Label that has been around longer than "a few years." Many bands will release an indie album then follow up with a major, re-mixed/re-mastered version on a label (See the Suuns first EP and their first album). Comeherefloyd is noted as one of the top100 music review sites in North America, they were featured on that site. Music blogs, unpaid ones Like Comeherefloyd, Spill Magazine, New Noise Magazine should be considered quality sites as they are not for pay and in todays digital music world, they are one of the primary methods in which artist become notable. I agree with the CBC Searchlight, but the whole is the sum of its parts. I do respectfully disagree with the notion it should be deleted. Also, as mentioned, the band is releasing an album with Sune Rose Wagner, an international music star, who has recorded/written a large number of albums with multiple accolades including doing the soundtrack for an oscar nominated film, Netflix series and of course, the Raveonettes. This also increases the notability. Of course, this is all my opinion and like everything in art, there is alot of objectiveness. But, I disagree that if someone doesnt have The NEw York times or a major newspaper writting about them, they not considered notable. As mentioned early, the band has been featured, in regular rotation on multiple collage radio stations in Canada, the US and Europe. Jbonapar (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasts do nothing to support notability, not even if they get broadcast on commercial radio stations as radio shows. Getting into rotation on multiple college radio stations counts for nothing toward our notability criteria — our notability criteria require getting into rotation a national radio network before radio airplay becomes notability. (And again, in Canada that means CBC Music or nothing.)
We have a substantial list of reasons why blogs and other user-generated sources do not constitute valid support for notability — for one thing, people who don't actually have any real media coverage regularly try to sneak around our rules by self-publishing their own "sources" about themselves to blogs and press release distribution platforms so that the content is technically citing "references", which is precisely why we test for whether a reference is a reliable media outlet or not before counting it as a notability-supporting source. And no, disallowing blogs does not make it difficult for a band to clear our notability bar, either — because there are lots of perfectly reliable sources out there that write about bands who haven't exactly gotten into The New York Times yet: Exclaim, BeatRoute, Now, The Georgia Straight, Cult MTL, Voir, Rolling Stone, Paste, Noisey, Pitchfork, and on and on.
An album has to already be released before it counts toward the number of albums criterion, so the fact that they're working on one doesn't count for anything — and notability is not inherited, so who they're working on it with is also not an inclusion freebie that exempts them from still having to be sourced properly. The notability test is not what the article says, it's how well the article references what it says — no matter what a band claims about itself, they're still not notable until those claims have translated into the band receiving coverage from reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NBAND. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 20 January 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 based on coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CryptoNote[edit]

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

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

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

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

Declined PROD. Reason was: "Main source is original research, other two sources barely mention it, final source is non-reputable." I concur. Monero's probably notable, but this protocol it's built on shows little sign of independent notability outside the crypto blogs. David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ADVOCACY for a nn topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ruffing, Tim; Moreno-Sanchez, Pedro (2017). "ValueShuffle: Mixing Confidential Transactions for Comprehensive Transaction Privacy in Bitcoin". In Brenner, Michael; Rohloff, Kurt; Bonneau, Joseph; Miller, Andrew; Ryan, Peter; Teague, Vanessa; Bracciali, Andrea; Sala, Massimiliano; Pintore, Federico; Jakobsson, Markus (eds.). Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2017 International Workshops, WAHC, BITCOIN, VOTING, WTSC, and TA, Sliema, Malta, April 7, 2017, Revised Selected Papers. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. pp. 137–138. ISBN 978-3-319-70277-3. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  The book notes:
  
  CryptoNote. The CryptoNote [35] design is the closest to our work in terms of provided privacy guarantees. CryptoNote relies on ring signatures to provide anonymity for the sender of a transaction. An extension of CryptoNote is fully compatible with CT [27] and has been implemented in the cryptocurrency Monero [28]. In contrast to ValueShuffle, an online mixing protocol is not required, and a sufficient anonymity set can be created using funds of users currently offline.
  However, CryptoNote’s use of ring signatures comes with two important drawbacks for scalability. First, CryptoNote essentially performs mixing on the blockchain and requires each transaction to contain a ring signature of size O(n), where n is the size of the anonymity set. Storing the ring signatures requires a lot of precious space in the blockchain, and verifying them puts a large burden on all nodes in the currency network. In contrast, ValueShuffle performs the actual mixing off-chain and stores only the result on the blockchain.
  Second, CryptoNote is not compatible with pruning, a feature supported, e.g., by the Bitcoin Core client [29]. Pruning reduces the storage requirements of nodes drastically by deleting old blocks and spent transactions once verified. This is impossible in CryptoNote because its use of ring signatures prevents clients from determining whether an transaction output has been spent and can be pruned. A CoinJoin-based approach such as ValueShuffle does not have this problem and is compatible with pruning.
2. Möser, Malte; Soska, Kyle; Heilman, Ethan; Lee, Kevin; Heffan, Henry; Srivastava, Shashvat; Hogan, Kyle; Hennessey, Jason; Miller, Andrew; Narayanan, Arvind; Christin, Nicolas (2018-04-28). "An Empirical Analysis of Traceability in the Monero Blockchain". Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 2018 (3). De Gruyter Open: 143–163. doi:10.1515/popets-2018-0025. ISSN 2299-0984. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Cryptonote: Non-interactive mixing with ring signatures
  
  The Cryptonote protocol [30] introduces a technique for users to obscure their transaction graph, in principle preventing transaction traceability. Instead of explicitly identifying the TXO being spent, a Cryptonote transaction input identifies a set of possible TXOs, including both the real TXO along with several chaff TXOs, called mixins (as illustrated in Figure 1). Instead of an ordinary digital signature, each Cryptonote transaction comes with a ring signature (a form of zero-knowledge proof) that is valid for one of the indicated TXOs, but that does not reveal any information about which one is real. To prevent double-spending, every input must provide a key image that is unique to the output being spent, and the network must check whether this key image has ever been revealed before.
  Several cryptocurrencies are based on the Cryptonote protocol, including Monero, Boolberry, Dashcoin, Bytecoin, and more. We focus our empirical analysis on Monero, since it is currently the largest and most popular, e.g. it has the 12th largest market cap of all cryptocurrencies, over $750M. However, our results are also applicable to other Cryptonote-based protocols (as we show for Bytecoin in Appendix C).
  The article further notes:
  Choosing mixin values in Cryptonote
  
  The Cryptonote protocol does not provide an explicit recommendation on how the “mixins” should be chosen. However, the original Cryptonote reference implementation included a “uniform” selection policy, which has been adopted (at least initially) by most implementations, including Monero. Since all the TXOs referenced in a transaction input must have the same denomination (i.e., a 0.01 XMR input can only refer to an 0.01 XMR output), the client software maintains a database of available TXOs, indexed by denomination. Mixins are sampled from this ordered list of available TXOs, disregarding any temporal information except for their relative order in the blockchain.
3. Noether, Shen; Mackenzie, Adam (2016). "Ring Confidential Transactions". Ledger. 1. doi:10.5195/ledger.2016.34. ISSN 2379-5980. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  Author Shen Noether is a cryptography researcher at the Monero Research Lab.
  The article notes:
  
  CryptoNote and Ring Coin advance the digital signature part of Bitcoin by using “ring signatures” which were originally described by Rivest et al. as a “digital signature that specifies a group of possible signers such that the verifier can’t tell which member actually produced the signature.” The idea, therefore, is to have the origin pubkey of a transaction hidden in a group of pubkeys all of which contain the same amount of coins, so that no one can tell which user actually sent the coins.
  The original CryptoNote protocol implements a slight modification of this to prevent double spends. Namely, CryptoNote employs a “traceable ring signature,” which is a slight modification of those described by Fujisaki and Suzuki. ...
  One possible attack against the original CryptoNote or ring-coin protocol is blockchain analysis based on the amounts sent in a given transaction. For example, if an adversary knows that .9 coins have been sent at a certain time, then they may be able to narrow down the possibilities of the sender by looking for transactions containing .9 coins. This is somewhat negated by the use of the one-time keys used in van Saberhangen’s CryptoNote protocol since the sender can include a number of change addresses in a transaction, thus obfuscating the amount which has been sent with a type of “knapsack mixing.” However this technique has the downside that it can create a large amount of “dust” transactions on the blockchain, i.e. transactions of small amounts that take up proportionately more space than their importance. Additionally, the receiver of the coins may have to “sweep” all this dust when they want to send it, possibly allowing for a smart adversary to keep track of which keys go together in some manner. Furthermore, it is easy to establish an upper and lower bound on the amounts sent.
  Another downside to the original CryptoNote set-up is that it requires a given pair of (P,A) of pubkey P and amount A to be used in a ring signature with other pubkeys having the same amount. For less common amounts, this means there may be a smaller number of potential pairs (P′,A′) available on the blockchain with A′ = A to ring signature with. Thus, in the original CryptoNote protocol, the potential anonymity set is perhaps smaller than may be desired. Analysis of the above weaknesses is covered in Noether et al.
4. Han, Runchao; Yu, Jiangshan; Liu, Joseph; Zhang, Peng (2018). "Evaluating CryptoNote-Style blockchains" (PDF). International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  From https://web.archive.org/web/20190105092134/http://xxhb.fjnu.edu.cn/inscrypt2018/ (after clicking the "Program" link):
  Section 1A (Room 1): Blockchain and Crypto
  Currency Session Chair: Jin Li
  10:50-12:20 (15 Dec)
  
  10:50-11:05: Evaluating CryptoNote-Style blockchains
  Runchao Han, Jiangshan Yu, Joseph Liu and Peng Zhang
  Here is more information about the Inscrypt 2018 conference:
  The 14th International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology will be held in Fuzhou, Fujian, from December 14 to 17, 2018, organized by the State Key Laboratry of Information Security of the Institute of Information Engineering of Chinese Academy of Science and the Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Network Security and Cryptology, Fujian Normal University. It is an annual conference targeting the top research results in the related area. Topics of interest encompass research advances in ALL areas of information security, cryptology, and their applications. Inscrypt 2018 seeks high-quality research contributions in the form of well-developed papers. The conference proceedings will be published by Springer-Verlag in LNCS series.
  The article notes:
  CryptoNote [13] has been proposed to improve the anonymity of Bitcoin. In particular, it uses a modified version of traceable ring signatures [3], called One- time Ring Signature, to hide both the payer and payee of a transaction. However, CryptoNote cannot hide the amount of a transaction. Monero4 proposed Ring Confidential Transactions [10] (RingCT), to further hide the amount by using Pedersen Commitment [11].
  ...
  One-time Ring Signature in CryptoNote: CryptoNote utilizes a modified version of Traceable Ring Signature [3], called One-time Ring Signature. In One- time Ring Signature, a public key Pπ and a Key Image I are derived from a private key x. The private key x and its key image Pπ are used to prove that the signer knows at least one pair of public and private keys, while I aims at preventing against the creation of multiple signatures using the same key. Thus, it prevents the double spending attack. The detailed process of One-time Ring Signature is shown in Fig. 1.
  ...
  This section compares the performance-related metrics between CryptoNote and RingCT at the protocol-level, including the core ring signature algorithm and the approaches of achieving anonymity.
5. Maurer, Felix Konstantin (2016). Mayr, Heinrich C.; Pinzger, Martin (eds.). "A survey on approaches to anonymity in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies" (PDF). Lecture Notes in Informatics. 259. Gesellschaft für Informatik: 2145–2150. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  More citation information available on page 80 of the book Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business: 14th International Conference, TrustBus 2017, Lyon, France, August 30-31, 2017, Proceedings at here.
  The article notes:
  
  CryptoNote [vS13] describes a new crypto currency concept. While the basic structure of transactions and the block-chain is the same as in Bitcoin, address derivation and signature generation make use of new cryptographic methods. When transferring coins, the sender A calculates a new receiver address based on the public key B of the receiving party. The matching private key can only be calculated by the owner of the private key B. To spent coins, the transaction output is signed with a one-time ring signatures. These signatures can be veri®ed against a set of public keys without revealing the actually used private key. The most successful implementation to date is Monero.
  CryptoNote provides anonymity for the sender and the receiver. As it is not a mixing service but a completely new currency, it is not susceptible to DoS attacks. However, it is not compatible with Bitcoin without introducing breaking changes. Furthermore, it relies on new cryptographic methods like one-time key pairs and one-time ring signatures.
6. Choi, Wong Seok; Kim, Hyoungshick; Lee, Daehwa Rayer (June 2018). "크립토재킹 연구 동향". Review of KIISC (in Korean). 28 (3). Korea Institute Of Information Security And Cryptology: 33–37. Retrieved 2019-01-05 – via Nurimedia.
  The article notes:
  
  3.1. CryptoNote Protocol
  
  CryptoNote[4]는 개인 정보 보호를 지향하는 암호 화폐 프로토콜로 발신자의 공개키를 여러 다른 공개키 와 그룹화 하여 함께 보내는 방식을 통해 익명성을 보장한다. CryptoNote는 CryptoNight라는 알고리즘으로 Proof of Work를 수행하여 새로운 블록을 생성한다. CryptoNight 알고리즘은 Proof-of -Work를 수행할 때 64바이트의 새 블록을 만들기 위해서 이전의 모든 블록 에 대한 정보가 있어야하기 때문에 메모리가 중점적으 로 사용될 수밖에 없다. CryptoNight 는 한번 알고리즘 이 실행될 때 2Mb 크기의 용량을 필요로 한다[5]. 메가 바이트의 메모리 사용은 ASIC pipeline에 맞지 않기 때 문에 ASIC 방식보다는 Memory-on-chip 방식을 갖춘 CPU에서 높은 성능을 보인다. CryptoNote 프로토콜 기반의 대표적인 암호 화폐는 2014년 개발된 모네로이 다[6].
7. Singh, Aarti; Chawla, Nidhi Kataria (June 2016). "A Review on Strategies for growing E-commerce in India" (PDF). Asian Journal of Technology & Management Research. 6 (1). ISSN 2249-0892. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  2011: Cryptonote Protocol. Inspired by the idea of the blockchain, a group of developers invented a non- Bitcoin technology that theoretically could eliminate the need of trusted webservers for processing transactions, by providing unbelievably strong cryptography through the distributed network
8. Burniske, Chris; Tatar, Jack (2018). Cryptoassets: The Innovative Investor's Guide to Bitcoin and Beyond. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978-1-26-002668-9. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  The book notes:
  
  Monero is a descendent of a lesser-known cryptocurrency called Bytecoin. Bytecoin was crafted quite differently from Bitcoin, using technology known as CryptoNote. Similar to Litecoin's scrypt, CryptoNote's block hashing algorithm aims to avoid the specialization and therefore centralization of the miners supporting the network by requiring an order of operations that favors general purpose chips like the CPUs found in PCs. Beyond a focus on more egalitarian proof-of-work, CryptoNote provided untraceable payments, unlinkable transactions, and blockchain analysis resistance.49 Adam Back is considered the inspiration for Satoshi’s proof-of-work algorithm and is president of Blockstream, one of the most important companies in the Bitcoin space. In March 2014, he tweeted about CryptoNote, saying it was one of the few ideas in the cryptocurrency space outside of Bitcoin that held a “defensible rationale for existence.”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow CryptoNote to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for creation reviewer The Herald (talk · contribs) who accepted the article.
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

^[1].
CryptoNote is Monero. That bell can't be unrung.
How is a protocol that currently has a multi-billion dollar amount of value running on top of it somehow not noteworthy ?
What exactly are the references or sources you are expecting to see that are not yet there and why would you not just add them ?
This is absurd.

Aejontargaryen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC) — Aejontargaryen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

_{Being an editor of multiple topics doesn't make you an expert. It makes you an editor, just the same as a single topic editor. Having contributors who are knowledgeable on the topic is a good thing. I have mainly contributed to this topic because of the apparent lack of understanding of the significance to the technology being discussed.}

Any discussion to be had regarding the swath of additional references and/or logical questions added so far? Aejontargaryen (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cunard

Keep per Cunard. While reviewing, I've thoroughly gone through the citations provided and found all of it acceptable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I initially proposed this article for deletion, I was unaware of the publications as cited above. Dr-Bracket (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Balkywrest (talk) 04:53, 16 January 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 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

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

I became very curious to see whether a random amateur university soccer tournament actually passed WP:GNG as a result of another ongoing AfD, picked this one, and tried to source it better, since the only sources in the article are primary back to the league's webpage. The one source I found that would contribute to WP:GNG: [39]. There are a number of other sources, but all of them are connected to one of the universities participating, and are routine and not independent. Therefore this article fails WP:GNG and doesn't pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. I'm happy with a general redirect if a good target is found. SportingFlyer talk 09:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament seems like a reasonable redirect target if this article is not kept. Not going to comment yet on whether it should be. Smartyllama (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament. Vorbee (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament per the most recent consensus on this that was closed as a no consensus. I maintain that a general discussion discussing the inherent notability on these tournaments needs to be had, and like the last AfD, this article requires additional citation to meet WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 23:07, 12 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Suaid[edit]

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

Largely unsourced, appears to be non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some trivial coverage but lack of WP:SIGCOV. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 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) 17:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows[edit]

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

Two-day tour which seems to fail both WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG N Ø 11:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC) And before someone else brings this up yes there are a few sources covering it [40][41][42] but none of it is in-detail coverage which could help expand this beyond a stub.--N Ø 11:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that this article has been expanded a bit since this nom was started and I'd say its slightly bigger than a stub now. Still not a notable tour in my opinion and all the information that is currently in the article could easily be condensed into a paragraph on This Is What the Truth Feels Like. This "tour" is just a set of two shows that are being labelled as such for the sake of having an article. Wikipedia's very own article on concert tours gives the definition as "a series of concerts by an artist or group of artists in different cities, countries or locations", this "tour" consists of two shows at the same venue on a one day gap. I'm also not seeing any indication that Stefani or any primary source promoted this as a "concert tour". Update: It has also come to my attention that this show has almost the same set list as this. It could actually be merged there too.--N Ø 10:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that is a really a good rationale for deletion though. If a set of performances receive enough third-party coverage from reliable sources, then they should be deemed notable enough for an article. Even a single performance can have an article if there is enough coverage (just see The Beatles' rooftop concert as an example of this). Your disagreement over the definition of what constitutes a "concert" is not a valid argument for deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not a concert tour and is only covered by a few sources then these performances would fit in a small section on the album article. In fact is there any primary source that actually referred to this as "Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows"? The argument about the Beatles concert is WP:Otherstuffexists, I'm sure you know that so I have no idea why you're bringing that up. And even if we were to consider that comparison, these two Stefani shows are nowhere as much covered as the other concert you mentioned.--N Ø 18:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you are understanding my point. It was not a direct comparison by any means, rather I was pointing out the flaw in your argument. I do not believe your argument on what can be considered a "concert tour" is a strong case for deletion. It is a completely fair point to question whether or not the recent expansion fulfills notability requirements, but I wanted to use the comparison to represent how the other argument used for deletion was not good. Either way, I'm going to stop participating in this discussion as I am clearly not adding anything. I do not mean to sound rude, but I just wanted to comment on the whole "concert" definition thing that was recently brought up in this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan – LiveNation refers to "Irvine Meadows Final Shows" while the official press release poster uses "Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows" as the concerts' title. Classifying this article as just "slightly bigger than a stub" is undermining the situation. I'm having a very hard time agreeing with your idea of condensing this into a single paragraph on TIWTTFL when your very own MTrain Tour contains even less text than this article and recently achieved GA status. Carbrera (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know why we need to keep going back and forth. Notability is about coverage, not about text size. MTrain Tour is ten times more covered by sources based off of Trainor's vocal cord hemorrhage alone, but that's again an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument anyway. (I'm trying to assume good faith here even though your argument is highly flawed, and you're doing it so I would back off). I'm not withdrawing this no matter how many paragraphs you add to the article if I don't agree there's enough coverage in the first place. You're demonstrating a lacking knowledge of core Wiki policies such as Otherstuffexists, I have no idea why you're bringing up the Trainor tour, which at the very least was an actual tour. This Gwen "tour" wasn't even being promoted on her official website five days before it happened. [43]--N Ø 02:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan – In advance, I'm stating that this is the last time I'm replying on here. You've made it very clear that regardless of what occurs to the article, you are against its existence, despite a decently written and lengthy article and several highly reputable sources. I only replied to your last comment as you seemed to hint at that there wasn't a single source that mentioned the name of these two shows. I provided you with a source in hopes that you would stop suggesting that I contributed to an article based off of non-existent concert series. I am very well aware of WP:OSE; I was not at all comparing this article to the MTrain tour article, I was just surprised that you referred to this one as "slightly bigger than a stub" when the Trainor article contained even less text but somehow had more sources used (ten more sources, not ten times more). I'm not here to argue, I'm not even offended that this was nominated for AfD, but I am offended that you are seemingly insinuating that I just took two promotional shows from Gwen's touring history, slapped a name on them, and called it a Wikipedia article. That is not what happened so stop implying that this isn't a tour. Carbrera (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You’re taking it way too personally. For context, I also supported deleting the article about a recent Ariana Grande “tour” of a similar length. (Which had even more coverage than this one btw.) [44]. Besides, this back and forth argument is accomplishing nothing so it’s probably better that we both back off and wait for more people to weigh in. I request not to be tagged here again, or have any more responses directly under this comment. Hope that will be respected. Please add new comments under the relisting notice and refraining from clouding up the nom.—N Ø 12:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – "a few" is a bit of an understatement. A large amount of sources discuss the article beyond what you mentioned. This is what I discovered from a simple Google search:

Not to mention that both dates of the concert were sold out and the concert series itself marked a significant end to a historic structure's existence, I cannot wrap my head around why this article should be deleted. Carbrera (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And I cannot wrap my head around why anyone would think that this is worth an article: a lot of local passing mentions/listings/press releases, supporting a single paragraph of prose that's press-release-style quote about the closing of the arena. --Calton | Talk 06:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carbrera's sources above as they point to some degree of notability, particularly the amount of reviews. Aoba47 (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shows get reviews: that's routine coverage, like reports on ball games, and counts little towards notability. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A review does count toward notability as it shows that an event received coverage from a notable source. Aoba47 (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calton and Aoba47 – just a head's up that the article has been decently expanded. Carbrera (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now it's TWO paragraphs of trivia. Vote stands. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can be more summed up as 'a local well-known artist closed a local concert venue' (with said artist hardly in their prime), and a venue not well-known outside the OC. At best, this is a paragraph at the end of the IMA article; as it is, it's definite Stefani-cruft with an overspam of ROUTINE articles (most from the same writer) with the artist's standard concert playlist, and no definite news value outside the OC (to me, it would be only notable if there was a No Doubt reunion during the show). At Budokan this ain't, and the IMA looks like every other amphitheater constructed in the 80s, so there's no historical value to it. Nate • (chatter) 12:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Despite the gallant effort to proffer sources, sources there came none in adequate support of independent notability. The best one can hope for is a merge onto the article about the artist. And there's a strong aroma of promotion all around, which really doesn't help. -The Gnome (talk) 12:40, 20 January 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. Withdrawing my nomination. Thanks everyone! ~Anachronist (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broomhill Pool, Ipswich[edit]

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

Article about a public swimming pool having only local historic notability, with no evidence of non-local significant coverage. Created by blocked COI editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AD ^Talk 07:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage from the Heritage Lottery Fund [45], BBC News [46], the Twentieth Century Society [47], and in a book published by English Heritage [48], all independent reliable sources. --Qwfp (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also the Pastscap ref has significant coverage on it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - between the sources provided by Owfp there is sufficient notability established. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page as it now stands is reasonably well-written and supported by solid sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 13 January 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) 05:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NewsThump[edit]

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

Satire website failing WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. No significant coverage in the one reliable source cited (HuffPo), and a Google search didn't turn any additional citations. Citrivescence (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NewsThump might be one of the least google friendly topics I've hunted sources for - because it's a site that is always in the news, so their stories fill so many google results. Actually hunting for the few on itself could take a while, but I'm pretty confident they're there. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the site meets the GNG and it and its peers are starting to get academic attention too due to the interest in the intersection between satire and fake news. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like the article has been expanded sufficiently to show good coverage in multiple sources as a well-documented satire site. I added a bit too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now passes, as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 18:40, 17 January 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) 03:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National basketball games of Kirgiziya[edit]

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

Unsourced and incomplete (no dates provided for matches) Mccapra (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely incomplete. Kyrgyzstan isn't even ranked by FIBA, anyway, so this is not worth the energy to maintain it. Zagalejo^^^ 04:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely worthless article. The games listed have no dates or even years attached, so there is no way to know when these games took place, although they must have been some time between 1992 (when Kyrgyzstan joined FIBA) and 2008 (when the last game result was added to the article). Not even the title is worth keeping, since the common name of the country is Kyrgyzstan and it used to be known as "Kirghizia" (note that the title even misspells the old name). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced and not worth keeping in its present form. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content worth keeping. Probably not encyclopedic to list every match even if there is enough sourcing, and it seems unlikely that there is sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the article is mis-titled, it's not even worth a redirect. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:14, 18 January 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 Germany national basketball team. RL0919 (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National basketball games of Germany[edit]

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

Unsourced. Mccapra (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has seen little activity since 2008, and the scope was never clearly defined to begin with. (Should this include women's games? Youth team games?) Even if you limit the scope to the men's senior team, the article was always incomplete. (It also ignored the arbitrary date cut-off that it did establish in the lead.) An unsourced mishmash of indiscriminate facts. Zagalejo^^^ 04:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Germany national basketball team; a completely worthless article (per above) but a redirect target exists and this is (barely) a search term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Germany national basketball team per Power~enwiki, as a plausible search term. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Germany national basketball team. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:11, 18 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Burbano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While there's lots of citations provided, they aren't to independent, reliable sources, and thus this does not meet WP:GNG. Searching online didn't turn up anything better. Since the last nomination and deletion, the subject appears to have won an award at "Headwaters New Play Festival at Creede Repertory", which I don't think is enough for WP:ANYBIO. I chose to bring this to AfD instead of CSD because this was written as part of a university course, and thus is likely to be a substantially different article than the article previously deleted, although it ultimately seems to suffer from the same problems. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find much either, unfortunately. She certainly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, as she's had no significant roles in notable shows. Whether she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC would depend on if the sources where coverage is found are considered WP:RELIABLE, and I'm not sure that any are. Here's what I could find that is more than just "by Diana Burbano" or "Lullabelle (Diana Burbano)":

a one para review of a short play called Fancy (not in the article) which the reviewer "would love to see a fuller version of" [49]
a review of a play/performance piece called Señor Plummer’s Final Fiesta by Burbano and two others (also not in the article), which says "the writing by Diana Burbano, Tom Jacobson, and Chelsea Sutton is positively sophomoric, as if being made up on the spot (expect to hear “You see…” as the precursor to a lot of sentences). What’s troubling is that most of the segments are rarely funny and, worse, usually difficult to follow (to say the least), while others are knowingly illogical." [50]
a review of Silueta, which Burbano co-wrote with two others, in which the review was "enthralled by a story as provocative as [character] Ana Mendieta’s cutting edge work" [51]
a review of a performance of a Spanish version of Menopause the Musical, which just says all four actresses (one of whom was Burbano) did an excellent job [52].

I also found a source (the Hartford Courant) reporting the four winning women playwrights (Burbano was one) whose work would be presented in Festival51 in 2016 [53]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet either WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 15 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Baddo[edit]

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

The only reason why the subject of this article can pass the notability guideline for entertainers is if we can find a source that show that he actually won The Headies award for Best DJ in The Headies 2014. Sources online show otherwise, and to the best of my knowledge Headies have never given awards for best DJ. Fails GNG. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The awards listed are questionable, particularly the Headies, where sources list Olamide Baddo, but not DJ Baddo (Geoffrey Egbe). What he appeared to have gotten at the Gbedu awards was a participation certificate?![54] Has released a number of tracks/mixtapes remixing Olamide (which makes searching messy). Most popular song on Youtube has 40000 views, but that features Skales, and the remainder are much much lower.[55]. Probably has some recognition among affectionados[56], but doesn't appear to meet GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The artist has not won the Headies award and a Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:20, 20 January 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. No prejudice against creating an article about the related book. RL0919 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of geniuses (Catharine Cox Miles)[edit]

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

It's possible the book that contains this is notable, but the details of the table aren't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-name to something like "List of geniuses from history" - this would make it clearer what this list is. Vorbee (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one person's ranking in a single article. Maybe the ranking system is notable - I don't know - but the actual listing isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Einstein?!? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the omission of Einstein is a problem with this list. I don't know the lifespans of all of these people, but none of the ones I have checked were alive at the end of 1926 (the publication year). Miles may have intentionally excluded people who were alive and active from her list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic. A list of notable "geniuses" is also a no-go; what would be the inclusion criteria? b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what possible inclusion criteria could we include that could function? And all but the most insanely strict would give us a functionally endless list. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria here is being in this person's book from the 1920s. I agree that a generic "List of geniuses" is impossible. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this list may be of interest to wikireaders (i am surprised that we dont appear to have a general list of geniuses article or even a category covering this, although i acknowledge the difficulties that would arise from such), but without appropriate references this is a delete, btw, agree with nom that the book Genetic Studies of Genius: The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses is notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a list of geniuses from history as selected by one author and retrospectively assigned IQ scores. However, nothing here indicates that these IQs could ever be validated, that the author's method is reliable enough that other psychometricians would give similar scores to the same historical people, or even that the author's calculations are considered notable under WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a list taken out of one person's work, not notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:31, 13 January 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.