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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Space Specks[edit]

Space Specks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable film per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be a no- to low-budget effort screened at fan conventions. Lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, and does not seem to meet any other possible criteria under WP:NFO. It existed, but that's not enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Bakazaka (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable sources, and the article resembles me like a fansite. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kokoro: The Heart Within[edit]

Kokoro: The Heart Within (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find a single source to substantiate any of the claims made on this article about awards won or nominated for, and I did everything I could think of to do so. I searched the Emmy Awards site for Kokoro, Heart Within, Scott Featherstone, and just Featherstone, and came up with utterly nothing. Rotten Tomatoes has nothing for the box set, or for the series as a whole on a search. Newspapers.com and Google produce TV schedules and sales listings, but no reviews or critical commentary. JSTOR results are muddied by the fact that "kokoro" exists as a Shinto concept outside of this title, but even adding Featherstone just produced false positives. Zero reliable results for searching " kokoro "gold medal" "new york film festival" " - the only thing that comes up is LDSFilm.com which borrows substantially from the author's own site. There's not even an IMDB page for it.

Tldr; this exists but isn't as notable or award-winning as it claims to be, and in the absence of reliable in-depth independent sources, we can't maintain an article - especially considering the inflated claims of noteworthiness. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I haven't really tried to evaluate whether this meets the inclusion bar, but the Emmy nomination (which is probably not sufficient in and of itself) is real. Art Wilder and Scott Featherstone received a 1994 News & Documentary Emmy Award nomination for Outstanding Individual Achievement in a Craft: Cinematographers for their work on Kokoro, as noted in the press release (p. 20) announcing that year's nominees. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's so bizarre. I tried like a dozen different searches on the Emmy website and came up with nothing. I guess it doesn't take the smaller Emmies into account, only the Primetime ones? In any case, I don't think one lesser-known Emmy nom for cinematography can really salvage the notability claim. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A list item in an AP Wire story on PBS nominees: [1], otherwise generally mentioned as Scott Featherstone's sole claim to fame in discussions of his other work, e.g. "this trite melodrama from local filmmaker Scott Featherstone (the Emmy-nominated documentary "Kokoro: The Heart Within")" [2]. There is a recommendation to use the documentary in teaching, but it's at a think tank's site: [3]. Overall it doesn't add up to sufficient notability to keep, but willing to reconsider if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I think even if we want to say that minor emmys nominations shouldn't confer notability (which I don't personally agree with), I would say that a minor emmy nomination coupled with prizes at film festivals would. matt91486 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: How did you verify those prizes? Bakazaka (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I haven't been able to find any reliable list of 1995ish New York Film Festival awards. There are several different types of awards that the NYFF gives out; assuming good faith that this film received the claimed awards, what kind of award they were would make a big difference in determining whether they contribute directly to notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShareNow[edit]

ShareNow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability, poorly written and the contributors seem to have a personal connection to the topic Abcmaxx (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see how the nominator reached the conclusion that the contributors have a personal connection to the topic. Regardless, I agree that the article fails the test of notability. A really paranoid android (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was started by Davidingram (talk · contribs) and according to this website "David Ingram" was a co-founder. Џ 04:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Note This nomination was not transcluded for discussion and was missing the AfD Template. I have corrected both, please use the time of this comment as the listing time when closing. Monty₈₄₅ 02:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG for nowMgbo120 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. 3 out of 4 sources are reliable enough for it to exist. However, I would move it userspace and copyedit. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:45, 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. No real consensus to keep but also no strong consensus for deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeway[edit]

Lifeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I haven't been able to find any sources that would allow this to be expanded to any more than a dictionary definition. The term seems to be relatively frequently used in anthropological and archaeological scholarship, but I haven't been able to find any significant coverage that discusses the concept rather than simply using the term. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If we could find evidence in reliable sources that this is genuinely used to any real degree to mean 'way of life' as the article claims, then the most appropriate redirect may be to Lifestyle (sociology) – I didn't find such evidence but it may be out there. Otherwise we're left with an unsourced dictionary definition for a word that other dictionaries don't yet include. --Michig (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Basically makes its own case for deletion, but yeah, absent sources there's nothing to keep here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: temporarily struck !vote. The article is completely different now and demands closer examination (which I cannot do now). Certainly merits a relist at least. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:NEO. While this is definitely a term that is seeing some minimal use, I wasn't able to find anyone talking about the term itself, rather than merely using it. If it gains traction, then it might be suitable for an article at some point in the future, but for now it's pretty much impossible for it to be more than a dictionary definition. Lowercaserho (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to neutral based on RebeccaGreen's findings. Not enough yet to make me switch to keep, but enough that I no longer feel confident supporting delete. Lowercaserho (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's not that new, actually. The earliest use I have found so far is in the book An Apache Life-Way: The Economic, Social, and Religious Institutions of the Chiricahua Indians by Morris Edward Opler, first published in 1941. I can't see anything in this book to indicate whether the author used an existing term, or coined it. I have found an explanation in the Encyclopedia of Bioethics (in the Gale Reference Library), which, in an entry on ' Native American Religions, Bioethics in', says "In contrast [to religion], the term lifeway emphasizes the road of life as indigenous people see it. Such a perspective can be associated with the concept "worldview," a distinct way of thinking about the cosmos and of evaluating life's actions in terms of those views. The Dakota/Sioux lawyer and professor of history Vine Deloria, Jr., speaks thus of an Indian ethical view of the universe: "In the moral universe all activities, events, and entities are related, and consequently it does not matter what kind of existence an entity enjoys, for the responsibility is always there for it to participate in the continuing creation of reality" (Deloria, p. 63). This view understands all life forms as having purpose, as being related, and as being cocreators of the world they occupy." Later, it says "Thus, the terms lifeway, synthetic ethics, and bioethics are used in this entry to suggest the wholeness or totality of a good life that is lived in thoughtful relationship to the seasons and the living bioregion." [4] There's also an explanation in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology, pages 286-289 especially.[5] I will keep looking. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Userify. Still requires more work and proper citations. Nevertheless, it appears interesting and wiki-worthyMgbo120 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, I have had a go at revising the article based on the sources I mentioned above, and some others. I will leave it to others to assess it now. Pinging Arms & Hearts, Michig, Rhododendrites, Lowercaserho, Mgbo120. I will not be offended if you still consider that it should be deleted or userfied. It could still use input from specialists in the fields of anthropology, sociology, archaeology, etc - not my areas of expertise. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, RebeccaGreen, for your work on the article. I think it's a more marginal case than I'd realised, but ultimately I'm still not convinced it's notable. The sources you've added show that the term is used somewhat frequently in reliable sources, but using a term does not amount to the reliable coverage we require. The two most promising sources, the Encyclopedia of Bioethics and Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology, do contain some discussion of the concept and its valences, but do so mostly as a precursor to discussions of specific forms of lifeways and don't really discuss the concept on its own terms beyond a couple of sentences in each. They're also both by the same author (John Grim) and per WP:GNG "Multiple publications from the same author [...] are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability," so we're left with a single source that contains something approaching significant coverage – which in my view is just not enough. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still seems to be synonymous with Way of life to me, and an article about a term for a concept that we already have covered rather than about a distinct concept. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Salunkhe[edit]

Subhash Salunkhe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet biographical or academic notability guidelines. He was cited in a BBC News article about a child mortality spike, but the coverage was not primarily about him. The other two sources display error messages for me so I cannot analyse them. Opting for AFD over PROD as I have tried searching in Marathi and Hindi but I am in no way an expert in those languages so input community would be appreciated. SITH (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it very difficult to believe that someone who has been director general of health services of a state with a population of over 100 million would not be notable. In English I can only find sources that do little more than verify his position, but I don't read Marathi or Hindi. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of coverage. While Director General is an important post in many civil service departments, I am not finding any reports about the person. He is quoted in many places of course, but nothing in detail seems to be available. In general, civil servants do not get the same media limelight as elected representatives in India, as they usually work behind the scenes.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Sarnoi[edit]

Walter Sarnoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. PRehse (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment PRehse (talk · contribs). Latino title handed out by the World Boxing Organization wouldn't qualify as notable? As I read NBOX, a WBO titlist is notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE Competeting for a world title sure and there is also a list of regional titles were winning can infer notability. But in this case the Latino WBO title is too minor to be on that list (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment).PRehse (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that title assessment page. Therefore I say Delete per WP:NBOX....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The "interim Latino Silver" title is not enough to meet WP:NBOX and the coverage is typical sports reporting.Sandals1 (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like a duck to me[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 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Individual event[edit]

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Individual event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't need to create or separate the individual and team events from the main page 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. As you can see this articles only cited the draw on the external link, and doesn't have secondary sources. Stvbastian (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Redirect to 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships and per WP:TOOSOON. There is no need for both this article and also 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Team event. No previous years tournaments have separate articles for each event. Ajf773 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, Yes i agree when there is 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships why shoul have another the same, Also it is [[WP:TOOSOON] Alex-h (talk) 23:06, 30 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA Intercontinental Cup Decisive Game Top Scorer[edit]

FIBA Intercontinental Cup Decisive Game Top Scorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:LISTN as independent reliable sources do not discuss this group. —Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does have independent sources in it. There are multiple sources from news sites and websites that have absolutely nothing to do with FIBA.Bluesangrel (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the independent, reliable sources that talk about this grouping? Otherwise, the list is WP:OR about an undefined term—"Decisive Game", an unsourced claim that "Top Scorer" is an actual award, and a group of people collected from individual box scores and not prose about the grouping itself.—Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Certainly no indication that it is a real "award" as claimed. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely a real award. All through the history of FIBA the top scorer of finals game has been an award. It predates all MVP awards. And even at FIBA's official site, it lists the award for recent tournaments ---> [6] and [7] This is the most standard and original award for all FIBA events, including this one. In fact, FIBA's archive used to list all the top scorers of the tournament, but somehow it seems that page got deleted, and now just the recent tournaments are listed. However, the award always existed, just as it did with all FIBA awards, and predates any MVP awards from FIBA.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA listing a leader of a stat does not automatically make it an award. Is there a trophy? A certificate? Ceremony? And where is the independent coverage that talks about multiple "winners" at the same time, as WP:LISTN requires?—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an award. For decades FIBA gives the award for top scorer of finals. OK, you won't let it be a separate article because of multiple winners being listed somewhere - it used to be there were some, I guess they got deleted. Anyway, now you should not change that to argue it isn't a real award. Just delete this, and I will merge it back into the article.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't demonstrated that its a real award, rather than just an interesting statistic. It's difficult to make a better decision about this until we know the answer. Nigej (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:01, 28 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Robinson (reporter)[edit]

David Robinson (reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Irrelevant guy from tv Billycleaner (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Robinson is a reporter on a morning TV program. Article is sourced almost entirely to his bio on the program's webbpage. Since David Robinson is a pretty common name, I searched "david robinson" + "studio 10", which turned up a few, routine mentions [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 22 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Counter (album)[edit]

Over the Counter (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has previously been deleted: once on 4 April 2010 and again on 29 July 2013 Article consists of 4 sources [9] [10] and [11] are from Discogs which is not a reliable source and [12] is a fan made blog which is not a reliable source User:Mysticair667537 (talk 10:18, 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} 10:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest speedy deletion - Do we really need another discussion? It has been deleted twice before and there's no new indication of notability in the article currently. Pretty sure this should be a speedy candidate.--NØ 07:30, 25 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Edmonds[edit]

Bob Edmonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

He was only known for a single event. Any useful information could be moved to the article on the corporation he sued. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even back in 2005 at the height of inclusionist power on Wikipedia this article was deleted. With more stringent inclusion standards now there is even less reason to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the 2005 discussion was about a different person with the same name, so it's irrelevant to whether this should be kept or deleted now. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The notability claim here just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who's earned permanent coverage in an encyclopedia by his own accomplishments. In theory, our article about lottery fraud could be expanded to include content about this particular variant (it currently covers only the "advance-fee e-mail spam" version, while not even touching on the "retailer theft" kind), which could thus briefly mention his case as an example of it — and there's already a bit about the case in Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation itself as it is — but none of this is a reason why a victim of this type of fraud would warrant a standalone biography of him as a person. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objection to this content being merged into the lottery fraud article, or the OLC one. DS (talk) 18:16, 28 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 02:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biopharm Australia[edit]

Biopharm Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable per WP:ORG. I couldn't find any unrelated sources to add to the article to support the statements made in it. There are passing mentions online related to the Cartrophen brand of product that the company sells, but no significant coverage of the company itself. DferDaisy (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My search has confirmed the nominator's concerns. Results are insignificant (e.g. location listings, brief mentions on Linkedin-type websites). – Teratix ₵ 13:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Promotional article started by a single-purpose user about a private company, no independent sources provided, no good sources to be found, no assertion of notability. --Lockley (talk) 01:07, 31 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of cats[edit]

Media coverage of cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a WP:SYNTH article by definition. No source looks at media coverage of cats as a subject except for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Not sure about this, I am going for keep as it is clear there is media coverage of cats, I am just not sure how much of a subject it is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this were cats, then the sources at this article would go towards the notability of cats (though not very much given the source quality). This title is specifically about media coverage of cats though, and none of the sources discuss that topic at all. It's a pretty clear WP:SYNTH and not really a useful redirect either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Media coverage of cats" is the wrong title for this article - it's actually a List of media that provides news to cat lovers, as its second sentence reveals. "Media coverage of cats" might be notable - there is an article about it in the journal Journalism, called 'Taking animal news seriously: Cat tales in The New York Times' [13], and there is a book called Cats in the News by Martyn Lewis [14]. But this article is not about media coverage of cats, so sources about that topic don't help establish whether the subject of the article is notable. I will search again for "media that provides news to cat lovers". RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has just been demonstrated, there are sources, including ap ublished book. The list of media is a useful part of the article, but I'd suggest keeping the present title. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is essentially an "in popular culture" list elevated to its own article. For this reason, I am against merging into cats. This needs an additional discussion of how media coverage of cats has made an impact on anything in order to be notable in its own right. In its current form, it is just a list and is of no added value to the Encyclopedia. I recommend deletion - an interested user can recreate at a later date based on the sources discussed above if they so desire. Bensci54 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable article. Maybe the title is not the right title. Cats are covered in the medias and it's a happening thing. Karl Twist (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above in my delete comment, your comment would apply to whether cats is notable, not this article. To make this article notable, there needs to be significant media coverage of the media coverage of cats. As of this reply, nothing has really been brought forward with sources that really demonstrate that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the title is inaccurate, and the content is largely bad and promotional. I think List of pet magazines may cover the subject enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NOTSYNTH, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". What we have here is more of a listicle. That's ok because others have looked at the topic in a similar way. For example, here's some current events at the British Library:- Cats in Western literature, Cats on the Internet, Cats on the page. And here's some coverage of developments of periodicals about cats in New York: Who killed Cat Fancy?. Andrew D. (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not the same as Cats and the Internet. Perhaps rename it List of cat media. It has reliable sources talking about it so passes notability requirements. Dream Focus 02:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a) because this page is promotional, and b) if any of the listed magazines published or publishes noteworthy articles, they can be referenced in the resp. wiki page on the cat species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the Colonel and Dream. Id also say the article no more violates WP:NOTPROMO for mentioning specific publications on cats, than ride sharing does for mentioning specific companies like Uber & Lyft. It would be un-encyclopaedic to take our laudable anti promotional concerns to the extreme. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cat lover culture[edit]

Cat lover culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:SYNTH. Sources do not discuss "cat lover culture" as a distinct phenomenon. In the past we would have called this WP:CRUFT. jps (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify This is actually a real thing. It just needs to be sourced correctly. Trillfendi (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletenot seeing a lot of notability, looks a bit made up (do any of the sources actually discus a cat lover culture?).Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete delete delete, oh wow. I dare say that all beloved species have "people" (dog people, bird people, horse people, mole people, etc.), and I would argue that combining an "[animal] people" phrase with the sexist cat lady stereotype does not prove a distinct "culture" by any stretch of the imagination. Neither do cat-themed shirts and coffee mugs. I also fail to see how cat people having distinct personalities (supposedly) from dog people counts as a culture. Sure, furry culture might be a thing, but that is much more well-documented than a few cute words used by cat fans on instagram. If this wishy washy topic did stick, I think it would need to have sourcing so hefty and immaculate that the harshest deletionist would agree with keeping it. Perhaps some of the material would work on a cats in film and media page/list, or even the cat lady page. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely cruft. A few sentences could be included at Human interaction with cats but this is not a notable encyclopedic topic. Reywas92^Talk 03:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is indeed a culture that surrounds people and their interaction with cats. Karl Twist (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I gotta go with Karl Twist here. There is plenty to be said on this topic, beyond what's in Human interaction with cats. Here's another cite pointing out an economic angle. Bondegezou (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sources for this. For example, here's a book on the topic. Other books covering it include The Lion in the Living Room: How House Cats Tamed Us and Took Over the World and Cat World. Andrew D. (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I read part of the CNN article referenced in the article, that clearly a reliable source giving significant coverage to this subject. Other sources about as well. Dream Focus 02:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge. The article is largely supported by crap sources ("pawesome," gag me) and does not make a strong case for a discrete topic of "cat lover culture". However, our current article on Human interaction with cats is very statistical and clinical in a way that may benefit from sources on humans' affinity for cats. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Roscelese. Hi there. There would better sources around if we all work to find them. Please just take a moment to think of this. While Human Interaction with cats may seem a place to merge this with, it doesn't represent what's going on in the world today. Believe me when I tell you this, there is an actual almost cat religion going on out there with many people. There are cat-fanatics out there. There are people who's life revolves around cats, as well as those people who just enjoy belonging to the cat scene. There is indeed a cat lover culture going on. No matter how strange it may seem to some of us or how we can't fathom the fanaticism that exists, there's the reality of what exists and to those people on the extreme end of the scale and the others at the milder end, it's real and they are part of the culture! BTW: This is a just a brief mention in The Travel, Jan 25, 2019 here but it may give an idea. Cat themed cruises where people "can meet fellow cat lovers and join a bunch of cat parties". Also in CNN, December 19, 2016: There is a "Cat culture" that flourishes online. See, it's more than human interaction with cats, it's interaction with other cat lovers / fanatics. There's a part of the culture. Karl Twist (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my last post above, There is a game called Cat-Opoly which is based on the board game Monopoly. With this game, cat lovers can buy cats instead of properties. See Bustle, Apr 12 2018 - Cat-Opoly, A Cat-Themed Monopoly Game, Is So Adorable That You Might Not Be Able To Finish The Game By Megan Grant, Metro, Friday 18 Dec 2015 - Cat-Opoly is like Monopoly, but better because you buy cats instead of houses - Francesca Kentish and OK!, Tuesday, January 02, 2018 - Cat Monopoly is now a thing - and it's the perfect board game for animal lovers By Miranda Knox At present there are 480 reviews for the game on Amazon. How can there not be a cat lover culture ??? Karl Twist (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and integrate selected parts into other pages, as suggested above. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion has gone on long enough, many harsh words have been thrown about, and essentially we're not going to get agreement on a course of action for this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Paternoster Gang (audio drama)[edit]

The Paternoster Gang (audio drama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, and it has little coverage outside of fan sites. Simple announcement of its planned production is not sufficient. Fails WP:GNG, and it's WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps a redirect to Big Finish Productions is appropriate until more sources become available. Hzh (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Big Finish is most certainly not a fan site, and it has been reported on by outside sources. Big Finish articles are typically always created early, especially when multiple series have been announced, as are the tables for future series Full content is already available for the first series, and all four tables are transcluded to List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish; note how all future releases already have tables included, the same applies at List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish. If more sources are needed, then tag the article, don't delete the content. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that I initially added the content at Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax here; it was TardisTybort that removed it from that article and R2Mar that created the separate audio series article. A discussion exists at Talk:Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax#The Paternoster Gang Big Finish series. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that official sites are automatically disregarded, since independent sources are required to satisfy notability per WP:GNG. The article has been redirected and prodded/deprodded, but still we only see one official and one TV site as sources, and I can't see any others apart from fan sites in search. Wikipedia is not a fan site, what fans chose to decide is entirely irrelevant, you are required to satisfy the basic criteria for notability. Fans of Doctor Who (and you declared yourself to be one) cannot trump the policies of guidelines of Wikipedia, you cannot set your own special rules just for yourselves. Also we cannot assume that there will be coverage even when it is released. If there is no significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, then it fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a more civil tone, and perhaps you'll find others willing to do the same. I see no tagging of the article to add more sources. Do you? Instead, people go directly to redirecting and deletion, without any proposition or discussion on what to do with the article's current content. Seems very bad faith. If you only thing that is needed is more "coverage from multiple independent reliable sources", then the article should be tagged accordingly. (Also, WP:GNG is not a policy; try again.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wrote "policies of guidelines", the "of" is a typo for "or". The guidelines of WP:GNG and policy of WP:V. It was made clear by Rosguill why it was redirected (lack of multiple reliable, independent sources), and it was entirely your decision not to improve the article when you restored it even though you are aware of the issue, tag or no tag (and the prod is a tag). I'm the third reviewer who saw a problem with the article. Hzh (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline is just that, and the article is sourced per WP:V; no unsourced content is listed within the article. It was made clear, and there was no discussion or tagging on their part to help improve the article, no contribution to the already-existing discussion; they went straight to blanking content, not even moving it anywhere and redirecting it to an article when a more valid option existed. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you argument is that WP:GNG should be ignored? WP:SOURCE of WP:V indicates that third party RS are required, which the official site is not (and the only one there when you restored it, even though you were aware of the issue with sourcing). Hzh (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Articles without third-party sources: An article that currently is without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance. Consider asking for help with sources at the article's talk page, or at the relevant WikiProject. Also consider tagging the article with an appropriate template, such as ((Third-party)) or ((unreferenced)). -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a systemic problem with all the audio plays articles, not just this one. I have already performed a WP:BEFORE can't see significant independent coverage. Hzh (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the above quote. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More over I added OUTSIDE references to The Paternoster Gang page including an article published by Digital Spy. I endeavour more often than not to source news broken by other online media outlets rather than just the official press release. Also from a journalistic stand point. If the main publisher issues a press release. Which Big Finish essentially does. This is a first hand source, reputable source. If it was rumor or hear'say then 3 verifiable sources would be required. R2Mar (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We get a lot of articles popping up on Wikipedia which are not necessarily notable, but which have official press releases. An official press release might be a great place to source evidence about what the creator of a topic has to say about it, but it doesn't do anything to prove that a topic is notable. Notability is demonstrated by people other than those who stand to make money off it writing about it, and not just on self-published media. --Slashme (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, have been unable to find any WP:RS for a standalone article, (a redirect to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish may be appropriate although that doesnt look too strong reference-wise), this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish be deleted due to lack of references too? If anything happened from this, then the best course of action would be to restore the edits listed in my second reply here: restore the content to the character's article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems worst now that I have seen the other articles on the audio plays by Big Finish. Many are sourced only to the official sites. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're going to have an issue with the thousands of television articles through WP:TV, where episode tables use minimal sources and use only themselves as a primary source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of television articles don't qualify on notability ground, particularly season and episode articles. We will eventually get round to them. Hzh (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already tagged the problematic audio plays, someone will eventually start a mass deletion discussion if they are not fixed. Hzh (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass delete. Very disruptive and disappointing indeed. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletions are a normal part of the cleanup of Wikipedia when non-notable topics are created en masse. It's unreasonable to expect that every non-notable article needs its own deletion discussion when there are scores of similar articles with the same problems. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But I'm not seeing any backup plan to preserve the tables at the two "List of audio release" articles, where they are transcluded from the articles. However, I guess that's a discussion to have later, as we're only talking about the TPG audio series article right now. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's a simple matter of moving the transcluded parts to the right places and adjust the articles accordingly? You should be aware of the issues raised already, given that you edited in some of the articles already marked as failing notability criteria (or lacking sources, primary source, etc.) for years, perhaps you can start by trying to find sources so you can save these articles from deletion. Hzh (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Do you intend to do that? All I've seen are declarations of deletion. I'll look into the sources; I recommend you do the same, given that you're the editor with the concern. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the editors thinking it's notable enough for an article, not the other way round. There's no guarantee that it won't be a wild goose chase. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed true, we are only required to perform a check that these articles can qualify on notability ground. It is a greater problem here as there are a couple of hundred articles on radio plays that rely only on the official site as source. These articles were created before the system for checking newly created articles was implemented, therefore most have not been actively checked for notability. I think some of the articles can be saved (those that cover a series of audio plays), for individual plays it would be a lot harder, though not impossible as there may be sources not available online. I would recommend putting individual plays into a series to ensure that that the series article can survive. Hzh (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This issue popped up a few years ago. I don't remember what came of it (didn't involve myself in the discussion at that time), but the same points were raised. Whilst the entire series of works might be notable to a general encyclopaedia, each individual audio play might not be, particularly if there's really no real-world information to speak of. DonQuixote (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Independent sources almost always draw from the official sources be it network or studios. If there's an official source stating something and two independent sources stating the same, why should the official source be disregarded? With TV shows a lot of TV media websites get much of their general information from network/studio press releases, or Nielsen releases for ratings. Why would the official source be less valid than a third party one repeating the same thing? I would think the official source would supersede the third party one in almost every case for reliability. In this case Big Finish appear to be producing & distributing the audio dramas, to say they're not reliable or notable seems nonsensical to me. Esuka (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can propose to rewrite WP:GNG and all the notability guidelines. But for now, arguing against the guidelines is not a valid argument in this discussion. Hzh (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to believe that, it also doesn't make my argument any less valid. The articles have enough notability to stay and I'll support them. Esuka (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Have enough notability" based on what criteria? Hzh (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my initial statement, you know the one you quickly dismissed as not valid. That's my argument, you can dismiss all you want, but again, that's just your opinion. It's not exactly good etiquette to do that. I'll also take my leave from this discussion now, since my vote has been cast. Esuka (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you said, but which Wikipedia policy or guideline are you basing it on? Which notability guideline supports your assertion that it is notable? This discussion is not a vote, please read WP:DISCUSSAFD, you are required to explain how the article meets/violates policy. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Will you be replying to every "keep" decision? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but the reason for this keep needs to be countered. It is the oddest reason to keep I have ever seen, given that it attacks the very basis of the notability criteria, yet claiming notability. Hzh (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The GNG is perfectly clear: a topic needs to be discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. The "official" website is not an independent source. --Slashme (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notability is contextual, these are certainly notable within the context of science fiction media, audio plays of a major series such as Doctor Who are reported on, reviewed, and written about in the relevant publications such as Doctor Who Magazine and other genre/science fiction magazines and sites.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Wikipedia sees notability guidelines within the context of a subject: the GNG says that subject-specific guidelines are also applicable. However, the only subject-specific guideline that I can see that would be relevant is WP:NALBUM which starts off by saying "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Slashme (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if Doctor Who Magazine can be considered an independent source given that it is licensed by the BBC and tied in to the show? It does not appear to be independent of the subject, and might not be what we consider third party. Few of the radio play articles actually cited it, I'm just wondering about its validity as a source. Nearly all of the radio play articles rely exclusively on the official website, there is therefore a whiff of WP:PROMOTION, where Wikipedia is used to promote the products of a company that received little independent coverage. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although DWM is a reliable source, they don't go too much into the individual audio plays, not as much as the television episodes where they go into full detail in terms of history, production, analysis, etc. The most they have done with individual audio plays are Rotten Tomatoes-type reviews. DonQuixote (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being licensed doesn't make it not an independent company or source. It's published by Panini Comics, and was originally published by Marvel comics. Marvel comics certainly isn't the BBC. Nor is Virgin who produced licenced novels for some time. The audios in question aren't produced by the BBC either, but by Big Finish. I really think this is a much broader discussion that should be raised in the specific Doctor Who Wikiproject, it's exceedingly bold to have gone ahead and unilaterally mass deleted multiple articles with no consensus or attempt to have the issues addressed or discussed in the appropriate way, especially when it seems you lack sufficient familiarity of the subject. It also seems bad faith when the discussion here is not even completed to have just gone ahead with that. (addressing Hzh there). DWM has covered audio plays extensively over the years so I'd say that was a mischaracterisation, and other magazines such as SFX also cover and report on them.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is this mass deletion you talked of that has apparently been started? No one has done that yet as far as I know. The articles have been tagged for problems found with the articles, and you are free to improve those articles so that they won't get nominated for deletion. Doctor Who articles aren't exempted from normal Wikipedia guidelines on notability. Also what is it with the accusation of bad faith? Hzh (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm yes they have, 'they' meaning 'you' specifically; you've done more than just tag some articles as you're fully aware and can easily be seen in your recent edit history, you've deleted multiple pages of content, i.e. a mass deletion, so I'm not sure why'd you'd be misleading about that fact. And the observation that those actions were in bad faith is exceedingly straight forward. There is an ongoing conversation, you chose to ignore this.219.88.68.195 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is right. I count 22 content deletions since this discussion started. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean those redirected articles, no, those aren't deletions (only admins can delete them). Heavens, those pages have been tagged with notability issue for over 5 years, how much time do you expect to be given before you do anything about them? At the start of this, you complained about not tagging the article (and bad faith!), but when the articles have been tagged for so long, you did nothing about them. And I chose to redirect rather than delete, yet still the complaint! Hzh (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete: To remove, get rid of or erase, especially written or printed material. The content was removed from those articles and they were deleted, hence: deletion. You appear to be assuming that I'd noticed those tags. I had not. So, why is everything "you", "you", "you"? "You" seem to be doing a lot of finger-pointing and little contribution here. Unfortunate. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have no interest in semantics and how you might want the word defined, please read the various deletion guides (e.g. Wikipedia:How to delete a page - Note that removing all text from a page does not delete it) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and how Wikipedia use these words. I think you can better spend your time improving those articles rather than making irrelevant arguments here. Hzh (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly request you don't put words in my mouth. I never said the page was deleted. I said the content was. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed with the IP editor that those articles had been deleted and there had been mass deletion (you said The IP is right when he or she claimed that I unilaterally mass deleted multiple articles). If you want to argue that only the content had been removed, then you should not agree with him or her, and explain that content blanking (that is the term used when removing content) is not deletion (it is a deliberate misuse of the word in a deletion discussion). Note also that you had edited the articles tagged for notability concerns, it is therefore reasonable to assume that knew that the tags exist in those articles. Hzh (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking is content deletion. On a side note, it's always good to think through and preview your replies to prevent edit conflicts - seven edits? Just a handy note. Always nice to assume, never safe. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting into sophistry here. The IP argued that I mass deleted many articles, then complained that I was misleading about that fact when I explained that redirects are not deletions. Do you agree with the IP there? If not, can we stop this silly argument? Hzh (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 'sophistry' at all, it's dissembling and bad faith on your part; replacing an article with a redirect is absolutely deleting the article. -Is the article there? No. An article is its content; a page with a redirect is not an article. There's no argument to be had, that's an objective fact, and the only thing 'silly' is this ridiculous attempted denial of that.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are refusing to accept what the Wikipedia guides and guidelines say, in which case there is nothing more to discuss since we have no interest in discussing something that you defined yourself and has nothing to do with accepted Wikipedia usage and guidelines. Hzh (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what utter rubbish, I've defined nothing; your 'accepted wikipedia usage' is nothing of the kind, you deleted the articles, replacing them with redirects, and were misleading about that, trying unconvincingly to conflate that with not deleting the page itself, and putting on this transparent pretense. Entirely inappropriate in the context of an ongoing discussion. You're the one acting outside guidelines no matter how you choose to dissemble. Weird use of the royal 'we' there as well.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We" are the community of editors who have discussed and decided on the various issues affecting Wikipedia, including guidelines. There are guidelines in deletion discussion, and thus far you have avoided citing any of them, and ignored those I've cited, so what you said is largely irrelevant because we can only decide based on what's in the guidelines. Hzh (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If DWM, SFX and other magazines have covered the audio plays extensively, then please cite them as this will help determine the plays' notabilities. Otherwise if it's just release announcements and such, that's not much real-world information to base articles on. As to Hzh's deletion of articles, they've only deleted articles that already have had notability tags for 4+ years. Those are within the boundaries of good faith. Most of the other edits have been adding notability tags. DonQuixote (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That could have been a point to argue in an ongoing discussion DonQuixote, and certainly something that could be proposed in the appropriate place such as the relevant wikiproject, as has already been suggested, rather than circumventing that with a unilateral mass deletion and mass tagging with the explicit goal of mass deleting. And no, I disagree that is within the boundaries of good faith when they know full well that it they are currently involved in an ongoing discussion relating to the matter. Treating each of those articles individually is inappropriate in a case like this where it is a wider point relating to a group of articles. As per WP:NEXIST, The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable., such sources do exist, and could be sourced given sufficient time. Considering these will be in printed publications over a large span of time, and sourcing such requires specialised and considerable effort to effect over multiple articles, reasonable time should be given once the issue is raised with the relevant wikiproject who will be a much better position to assess the question. Being fans I assume some will have collections of relevant publications from which to source material, there's also guidebooks and the like.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are retained in the article histories. If you can find the sources that establish the notabilities of the individual audio plays, then it'll be easy to restore the articles and add the proper citations.

Also, right above WP:NEXIST it states The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability...The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition...[and not] a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity.... Hate to break it to you, but most of the audio plays have not received any significant attention. DonQuixote (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The articles are retained in the article histories." They're retained in the histories because they've been deleted. They should not have been preemptively deleted and replaced with redirects when there is an ongoing related discussion, and the issue has not been raised for appropriate discussion with the relevant project. Your assertion is not an established fact, nor does what you quoted contradict the portion I did. DWM is perfectly sufficient to establish notability in the context of Doctor Who specific Audio Plays.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the bottom line is that if you can cite sources showing that the audio plays are notable, then that would be helpful. As to the ones that have been deleted, they already have had notification tags for 4+ years. Those were justified considering the length of time involved. The rest have been tagged just recently.

As to WP:NEXIST, it only applies if there are a plethora of reliable sources that just haven't been cited yet. From my own experience with DWM, there aren't any. The most DWM has done is promotions and Rotten Tomatoes-type reviews, which isn't any significant attention (ie things that aren't promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity). If you can prove me wrong, I invite you to do so by citing reliable sources that show the plays' notabilities--which would be very helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, using any pre-existing tags does not circumvent that there is an on-going conversation on the subject, it was pre-emptive and inappropriate to go ahead with edits, they were quite happy sitting there for that time, they will be fine waiting until a course of action has been discussed. Since the conversation and question covers multiple articles it is not appropriate to treat them individually. 'Rotten Tomatoes-type' doesn't convey any particular meaning, the fact is there are reviews is because they are notable. Release information and the like is presented primarily because they relate to the subject the magazine covers, and are of interest to the readership, not for the sake of being promotional.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NRV: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition.

That is to say, one review from DWM isn't enough--each audio play has to have gained significant coverage. That means more than one review. DonQuixote (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact,significant means sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy., a review is attention and evidence of noteworthiness, since, it's noting it. There are also reference books such as Benjamin Cook's The New Audio Adventures, and Mad Norwegian Press's I, Who range.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reviews is evidence of noteworthiness--a single review isn't. Significant means both quantity and prominence. DWM itself doesn't have much prominence in and of itself so we would need more sources from other prominent sources such as the Times or the Telegraph. However, if they were to do an in-depth article featuring research and interviews, then that article would hold much more weight because it's what they're known for.

As to Benjamin Cook's book or the Norwegian Press books--why didn't you point to those when you were asked to do so? Those are the kinds of sources that add weight to notability. In fact, if you were to cite those in the respective articles, that would start to help in resolving the notability issue. DonQuixote (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having been made a note of is evidence of noteworthiness, by definition. DWM is a prominent publication in the relevant field and context, that's sufficient. A prominent sports magazine doesn't have much prominence outside the field of sports, but can still be referred to in the context of sports articles. Just as a piece on something in the top chess publication would indicate notability within that field. Something doesn't need to have universal notability to have notability. They've also published special thicker editions on each Doctor that go into their audio stories as well.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to why I didn't point to them, I'm pointing to them now, that is the point of saying preemptive editing is inappropriate while there is still ongoing discussion (and the fact that they do exist adds weight to the earlier point regarding the Notability guidelines). Especially when it hasn't been raised with the relevant wikiproject; Where these types of print resources will be more likely to be available, and as this issue has spread beyond the discussion of just this audio and applies to broad category of articles, it's also inappropriate to be treating this one-by-one on an individual basis. There is a broader solution that could be applied with time and resources, and a consensus agreement on how to tackle it.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DWM is prominent in its relative field--such as when they publish well-researched articles and interviews. When they do a Rotten Tomatoes-type review, there needs to be more than one source giving such a review in order for it to be notable. That's the point. If DWM ever publishes a well-researched article on, say, The Hunting Ground, then there's no question that the audio play is notable. However, if they're the only one reviewing it, then that's not notable since no one else feels the need to review it.

As to the other sources, please keep bringing more sources as that would help more. The point is that you'll add more weight to keeping the relevant articles if you bring reliable sources that other people can check. DonQuixote (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they're noting it by way of a review then it is, ipso facto, notable. Again 'Rotten Tomatoes-type' is not a meaningful phrase, a review is a review. And as mentioned they are not the only source, so the repeated references to 'only one' are moot.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is meaningful in that I specifically chose that phrase to emphasise the fact that you would need a handful of those types of reviews in order for the subject to be notable (even Rotten Tomatoes admits as much in terms significant coverage--ie, the number of reviews required in their scores being meaningful). That is, "significant coverage" specifically means that the subject is discussed by a good number of reliable sources. One source by itself is definitely not "significant coverage". Overstating the significance of a single source is seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel. DonQuixote (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it isn't meaningful because 'rotten tomatoes-type' doesn't mean anything specific afaics. And again, if they're noting it by way of a review then it is, ipso facto, notable. 'Significant' by definition means, sufficiently important enough to be worthy of attention; noteworthy. A demonstration that attention was given to it and it was considered worth being noted, in the context which it is specific to, isn't overstating anything. Other sources have already been raised, so any point about it being a single source is moot. The point is there's sufficient reason to operate on the premise that multiple sources exist, and as per the notability guideline, the criteria is that such do exist not that they are present in the article, so it that counter-acts that being the rationale for deletion. Going forward, the correct course would be to raise a discussion at the wikiproject on moving forward with adding these sources in an organised way to the articles, with an appeal for project participants with access to collections of the print resources necessary.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a definition of "significant", but that's not the definition of "significant coverage", which is the key phrase. A single reporter showing up at a press conference is not significant coverage. Ten reporters showing up is better coverage and probably significant. Fifty reporters showing up is definitely significant coverage. It's as simple as that. So WP:NEXIST isn't about assuming such coverage exists and starting from there but about such coverage existing in the first place but not being present in the article in question. DonQuixote (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that, significant coverage can be and is also contextual, if the recognised top official magazine of the international chess organisation runs a review of a specific chess match, that can considered significant coverage within the context of chess related coverage for that match. Chess matches may not garner much in the way of mainstream media coverage, but within the context of the chess field of interest the recognised top chess magazine would be a significant enough publication to confer that. If only one media source gains an interview with a reclusive author, it's not insignificant because the only source of information related in that interview is the only interview with that person. And this is still beside the point, as you appear to be side-stepping the point that this is not a single source, others have already been pointed out, and there's sufficient to demonstrate equivalent coverage in such reference works will exist or be produced for these audios. Such is the nature of popular science fiction media. That is what satisfies the criteria of WP:NEXIST.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand that this is a general encyclopaedia. Individual chess matches aren't notable for an encyclopaedia unless a significant amount of mainstream media covers it. Individual authors aren't notable unless a significant amount of mainstream media covers them. Yes, the interview itself might be significant in terms of the author, but if the author himself isn't notable in terms of receiving significant coverage, then he's not going to appear in an encyclopaedia.

And WP:NEXIST is not about what may come in future but what exists now. At present, there isn't enough coverage at all. You have to start with significant coverage and not expect everyone else to wait for it--if it even comes. If Memory Lane ever builds up enough coverage to warrant an article in a general encyclopaedia, then ideally that's when the article should be created. If it doesn't, there's always tardis wikia. DonQuixote (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or not, you keep to asserting something isn't 'significant coverage' if there's only one source, I have pointed out multiple times, explicitly and with emphasis, that this line of argument is moot since other sources for coverage of the audios have been raised, that aspect of 'significance' has been answered; individual sources can still be considered significant or not in of themselves, you could have multiple sources that do not rise to the level of being significant, and some a lot more significant than others. Arguing that DWM isn't 'significant coverage' because it's only one source, isn't a valid argument in the latter context. Nor was any part of my point about what may come to exist in the future, those reference books exist now, in the present, and I'm sure more will exist right now, in the present. The tense is a bit ambiguous there granted, but it was an additional point either way.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a valid argument when it comes to an encyclopaedia and especially considering the type of coverage in DWM of the topic in question. Seriously, the only one here being obtuse is you. One review in a magazine for fans isn't enough coverage for an encyclopaedia article. A few more sources can help, but not just a review in DWM in-and-of-itself. It's the most simplest concept possible. If a movie came out and it only had one review on Rotten Tomatoes, even if the review was published in the Guardian, it would not be enough coverage to be considered notable for an encyclopaedia article. The Guardian has more prominence than DWM and even it's not enough if there's one-and-only one review. It's that simple. To be clear, if the article itself was more than a review, like a well-researched article, then that would be sufficient, but a Rotten Tomatoes-type review isn't.

As for the reference books. It's fine if they exist now, but you can't argue that they may exist in future. That is to say, please keep finding more sources but don't expect other people to wait for you to do so. If an article lacks sources for 4+ years, then other people have justifiable waited enough time. DonQuixote (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for agf, but you literally just repeated the exact arguments I just refuted, and even started with "actually". No, it's not a valid argument because that aspect of 'significance' has already been repeatedly dealt with, it isn't the only source, so dismissing it as insignificant for that reason is not a valid argument. It is a significant source within the context of the subject of Doctor Who media, which is the point. And you're still repeating the meaningless phrase 'rotten tomatoes-type'; a review is a review. There's no basis for asserting a review in a major publication within the context of the field is insignificant. And while you might've argued ambiguous tense in the first post, I couldn't have been clearer that I was not arguing anything about the future. I don't know if you're being disingenuous or not, but simply repeating the same arguments when they've already been answered is not helpful. The point "but don't expect other people to wait for you to do so" is also not relevant when the proposal is that the on-going conversation be moved to the relevant project group so that a solution for the broad range of articles this discussion affects can be worked on, and the print resources available to the group be utilised. We do know those resources exist though, which is why that part of WP:NEXIST is relevant.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you didn't refute anything. You're failing to accept that reviews hold the lowest weight. Significant coverage in terms of reviews is that you would need more than one. What holds more weight are well-researched articles. And you're failing to understand WP:NEXIST--no one has to assume that significant coverage exists when there is none. The point is, no we don't know that such sources exist. You continually saying that they do doesn't prove that they do. What would be better is if you can cite those sources so that everyone else can verify that such sources exist. DonQuixote (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, those points were refuted. Repeating that more than one source is needed doesn't change the fact that more than one source has been presented, not merely asserted, specific examples that are readily verifiable have been cited in this exchange, so we do know those sources exist. Reviews in a significant source in the context of the relevant field do hold weight and are not insignificant, again when taken as one of multiple sources. There's no grounds for claiming that a review is too insignificant to contribute to this because it's only a review, it is coverage and in an appropriate source for this sort of content, and for that matter even the lowest weight by whatever metric of 'weight' you're applying, is weight. In the context of coverage of a fictional stories a review is adequate to demonstrate noteworthiness, since it directly demonstrates in of itself that the story was considered worthy of attention, and again, not taken alone but as one of multiple sources that cover audio stories, including those examples of reference works already cited. This satisfies NP:EXIST. There's also the point that this discussion has become broader than merely the specific audio stories in question and that a discussion should be raised at the appropriate project so that more in-depth investigation into what sources applicable to the multiple articles this affects can be had and a plan formed to apply those sources.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for providing more sources. That's a starting point. Providing more sources would give more weight to the topic being notable. And that's the point--it's better than a single source. Please provide more so that everyone else can verify that there's an unquestionably significant coverage of the topic. DonQuixote (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate course of action has been proposed to that end, we have sufficient sources to demonstrate coverage exists, not just 'a single source', we should move forward on creating a discussion in the appropriate place so a plan of action can be formed with those and other resources available to those in the project. There's no point continuing to repeat that more sources are better than a single source when we already have more than a single source.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. I am not convinced that DWM counts as an independent source. That may have been true at times in the past, but its editorial actions are currently policed by the BBC. Bondegezou (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DWM is an independent source, the BBC do not publish it, the publisher Panini Comics are an independent company.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DWM is not given in the article (and in very few articles on audio plays), so it is a moot point as far as this article goes. The only non-official source given here is Digital Spy which is just a routine announcement which really contributes very little to notability, and Digital Spy is not a high quality source. Hzh (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a moot point, it is one example of extraneous sources existing, as per the notability guideline it doesn't matter if they're in the article at present. Your subjective opinion of their notability isn't relevant, that they are notable is demonstrated by their being sufficiently worthy of attention. Also Digital Spy is one of the 150 largest websites in the UK, largest digital property of Hearst UK.219.88.68.195 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are far larger websites in the UK (e.g. Mail, Sun, Express) that are not considered reliable by the Wikipedia community and should not be used as sources in Wikipedia. Should Digital Spy becomes an issue, then we can decide on whether it can be used as a source. Hzh (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no indication that DS is an unreliable source, under Hearst they've both won and been nominated for multiple media awards, if it's your contention that they should not be considered reliable for some reason, strangely for information that is easily confirmable, you would need to present a compelling argument with supporting evidence.219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Spy piece is essentially an advertisement masquerading as journalism, and directly copies multiple paragraphs from the Big Finish announcement, starting with "the trio's adventures will see them face the first electronic automated cars in London (very ahead of their time), hordes of zombies, and ghost-like figures which are haunting Greenwich before their former selves have died..." That means that it's not independent reporting, and can't be counted towards the subject's notability. --Slashme (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'is essentially' is an opinion, and they are literally an independent source reporting it, so yes they can and do.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish or List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish, for now. I am convinced the topic will warrant its own topic quite soon, likely when reviews start coming in in June, but until then I was only able to find a small handful of additional topics to prove that notability is met. With three fairly decent articles, it could be argued it is currently notable, but the content is so brief at this point, I think it would be perfectly sensible to merge that content into a section on upcoming projects on the list page mentioned above. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article are press releases and not WP:RS (Gizmodo might be borderline reliable, but, again, the article is merely a press release). Furthermore, I searched Google, -News,

-Newspapers, -Books, Newspapers.com and all I found were fan based sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of in depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. On a side note, I do not appreciate the walls of text, most of which appear to add little of substance to the discussion and at times seem to border on WP:BLUDGEON. As an administrator who occasionally closes AfDs this sort of thing is highly irritating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dolni Debar[edit]

Battle of Dolni Debar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is highly inaccurate and badly referenced. Also, the title is misleading. Nothing in the article describes any actual battle. The leader of the perpetrator side is mentioned as Moises the Great, actually referring to Moisi Golemi of Dibra, an Albanian leader. The article is purely a propagandistic and nationalist one. The intentional avoidance of the Albanians and Bulgarians whilst pushing the modern Macedonians term is a probable cause of a new mini Balkan war between wikipedians. The author seems to be highly unfamiliar with new article policies and best practices -Mondiad (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -Mondiad (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is this a POVFORK of Battle of Torvioll? (details seem a bit off in terms of date, but similar otherwise). If so, a redirect might be worthwhile.Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Bits of our text (possibly a copyvio) seem to be coming from these (possible non-RS) sources: [15][16] (including "Moses the great"). I'll note that since those texts (and our article) mention this as one of two battles near Debar in two years (one in 1446 - Battle of Otonetë) - I really suspect this is a recasting of Battle of Torvioll in 1444. Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - TNT + POVFORK of Battle of Torvioll.Icewhiz (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TNT. "Because of the victories around the town of Debar [April 29, 1444], Scanderbeg decided to renounce his allegiance to the Sultan and began to raise a rebellion." In fact, Skanderbeg (who defined himself as Albanian) deserted the Ottomans in November 1443. The Battle of Dolni Debar was a consequence of Skanderbeg's rebellion, not a cause of it. Modern Macedonian nationalism, hopelessly WP:POV. Narky Blert (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned by Icewhiz this seems to be POVFORK of Battle of Torvioll also known as Battle of Lower Dibra. Bes-ARTTalk 20:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley Magic Circle[edit]

Paisley Magic Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Local club with no wider claim to fame. All references are primary sources with all but one to the club website. A search here has produced nothing worthwhile. Fails WP:ORG. Finally, there are generous chunks copied from the club website so also a copyvio issue. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Just Chilling:

I think you are wrong wanting to delete our page based on a search in the news section of Google and because a lot of the text comes from our website. It seems to imply that in order to have a page in wikipedia is not enough to be one of the oldest clubs in United Kingdom, be one of the founding clubs of the Scottish Association for Magical Societies, have more than 20 members in the London Magic Circle and the International Brotherhood of Magicians -one of them is even a FISM Champion-, as well as be extremely active in Charities and events (like the Paisley Spree which appears in your search), or by being the entertainers for many children charity events like the Variety Club Christmas Party or the Variety Club Outting Day were we entertain thousands of handicapped kids for free. Also, we are part of the last 80 years of the history of the City of Paisley, even some members entertaining the allied troops waiting in Greenock for D-day during World War II.

I think your search is flawed, as it just show news which have been properly positioned, which require proper SEO skills, something you usually find in paid businesses that have not a lot to gain for following a magic club but not in enthusiasts or amateur pages. Actually, if you do other searches like this one here you will find hundreds of references to us and our members, some in our facebook page, and many others on other pages like this one in the Daily Record about one of our older members, as members usually get more news coverage than the club itself, even if we all keep telling reporters about our club.

Regarding the content, is quite normal that a lot is copied from our website, as they have mainly been written by one of the more important historians of magic of the last century: Jim Cuthbert, who has been a member of PMC since the fifties. Now is in a Nursing home with dementia, but when he was diagnosed -and was still lucid- donated his more than 500 booklets on the history of Magic in Scotland to the National Library of Scotland, as you can read here.

So, Do you really want to close our page because a flawed search and your own opinion that we are 'just' a local club?

We are one of the most important magic clubs in Scotland and United Kingdom, which attract visits of the most famous magicians in the world, who come to visit when they attend BlackPool Magic Convention. We are an important part of the history of magic in Scotland and United Kingdom, so we have to be in Wikipedia so historians can document themselves about us, and enthusiast of magic can do too. Also for people wanting to learn magic to find us, read about us and wanting to join!

I hope you understand that you made a mistake wanting to close it.

Thanks. Guilleamodeo (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guilleamodeo (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked about my affiliation and interest I responded the below message:

Dear Just Chilling,

Like you ask about my employer and afffilitaion, let me tell you that I am not employed or paid by anyone to do this. My name is Guillermo Amodeo, I am this one here, a member of Paisley Magic Circle who has been Secretary and member of the Committee, and from today also a former enthusiast of Wikipedia and a former donor.

To respond to you, let me tell you that I am the only one in the club with skills to mantain the wikipedia page, and we do not have the resources to pay anyone else to do it. I would understand that there was a conflict of interest if it was an article about my businesses, but the article is written about a non-profit club so people interested on it will find information quickly and easily, which is the use that one does to an Encyclopedia, Isn't Wikipedia one of them? This is not a website, nor an advertisement platform, is the encyclopedia page of a club whose committee's decides what goes on it, so I cannot possibly think what is written there that would be of interest to me personally and not in the interest of people wanting to know about the club. Actually, Would not it be also a conflict of interest to pay someone to write the page? I could influence him or her by firing them if they do not write what I like.

You are hiding behind a nick, finding reasons one after another to delete our page, one more absurd than the next, so I am now convinced that this is an exercise of 'we have too many pages and need to delete some' and we happen to be just one of the smallest fish in the tank, so we are doomed for you to keep the pages about people that become famous in a reality show or for behaving bad in television, at the expense of those who contribute to culture or history like we do. Go ahead and delete the page, that way you can keep your pages about TV personalities growing, but with these policies all you are doing is killing the credibility of Wikipedia, as it is as good as gone for me and for the many like us whose pages will share fate with ours. Of course I will publish in our Facebook page and website why we do not have a Wikipedia page anymore -people have the right to know what happened to it-. You can also delete the page I wrote about my film director brother -another conflict of interest I guess, even if he is a famous person in Spain-, you can also delete my account as I do not want to be part of a cynical organization that accuses me of conflict of interest when is acting on their own interest, rather than the interest of history and culture. This is not an encyclopedia anymore.

P.S. Will you also delete my public domain logo of Paisley Magic Circle from wikimedia?

Regards, Guilleamodeo (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by the person who wants to delete our page that he/she -I am not sure Just is a girl or a boy name- that cannot delete the logo becuase is nto an admin in wikimedia. I answered this.

Dear Just Chilling,

I have not interest whatsoever in deleting the image, as is not mine anymore. I donated it to the public -in case you have not noticed it-. The club has a right on saying how people can use the logo, but anyone in need of it can get it from there because I made that drawing public domain.

What I would like is for you to tell me when the page would be deleted to say to everyone in the club. I would also like to tell you that this policy will kill Wikipedia pretty quickly, and when Wikipedia is gone for lack of donations and interest, our club will still be alive. And even after the club disappears -If it does in lets say 20 years-, it will still exist in the history books and the Cuthbert Collection in the National Library of Scotland.

P.S.- If you are asking yourself about it, the decline you are seeing on funding is the result of asking for money with the argument of keep being free -as in freedom- but not extending that freedom or fairness to your users.

Have a good day.Guilleamodeo (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Copyright violations. Fails WP:GNG. I searched Google, -News, -Newspapers, NYT, and also the archives of The Herald and The Scotsmen, reliable newspapers from Scotland. No mentions "Paisley Magic Circle". Sources mentioned above are mentions only of the club (in several cases, Mr. so-and-so, who is a member of The Paisley Magic Circle) Please read WP:RS to find out what kind of sources are needed to keep an article. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete anytime now. I have already announced that you are closing our page in our Facebook pages here and here

Have a nice day and good luck keeping wikipedia alive. Guilleamodeo (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No doubt it's a wonderful club but it does not meet basic criteria for notability. Quoting from WP:ORG, "No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it".Glendoremus (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable organization, with the article created and expanded by one of its members, with resulting COI issues. --Lockley (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 24th Hong Kong Film Awards. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star of the Century Award[edit]

Star of the Century Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A special one-time award, fails even WP:NEWSEVENT. No evidence of independent notability or long-lasting importance. I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason applies: Timmyshin (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless Artistic Achievement Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Special Commemoration Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chinese Opera Film Century Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Century Achievement Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

People's Choice Hong Kong Film Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all of these one-time awards to the standalone articles about the ceremony at which they were presented. Leave an anchored redirect in each case. 24th Hong Kong Film Awards, for example, is quite short anyway. I disagree with the notion that these awards lack independent notability, but there isn't much content at the moment so the special awards don't need separate articles. Deryck C. 18:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Clearly fails WP:NEWSEVENT. Qualitist (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Below are source search templates for the articles listed above lacking search options. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Timeless Artistic Achievement Award

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Chinese Opera Film Century Award

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – People's Choice Hong Kong Film Award

• Merge as above with redirects as there is not enough content for seperate articles, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hatter[edit]

Nick Hatter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Largely (self?)promotional article that does not pass WP:BIO about a life coach full of non-independent sources and passing mentions in the context of a now defunct companies fundraising announcements. AlasdairEdits (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Response from theNickHatter

I am the subject of this article.

This article is factual as far as I can see and backed up 16 secondary sources consisting of very credible sources.

Please, can you identify which statements, in particular, are self-promotional? If so, I think it would be best if we delete/rephrase those rather than deleting the whole article. What do you think?

In addition, there are interviews on me on national television:

Channel 4's 4Music (where I was a special guest on a popular TV show, Trending Live): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAQbuF2DZY

Cambridge TV (where I was interviewed about in-game advertising and entrepreneurship): https://insight.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2016/cambridge-tv-cambridge-entrepreneurs-giftgaming/

Please see Talk page for suggested additional sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Hatter

In addition, just because giftgaming is now defunct, does not mean it was not noteworthy. It was incredibly popular with equity crowdfunding, one of the most oversubscribed projects in 2014, it won TechCrunch Awards and featured on TechCrunch Disrupt Battlefield 2014,

My page has been the subject of much vandalism- if I was un-noteworthy, I don't think it would've been targeted as much :-) Just my two cents though.

Note I did not publish the majority of the information on the article.

--TheNickHatter (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Interviews are not independent coverage. "one of the most oversubscribed projects in 2014" They asked for £10,000 and got over £30,000 instead. Џ 05:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What’s the difference between independent coverage and interviews? Is it not possible to have both? The only difference seems whether it’s written or not. In any case appearing on talk shows is pretty notable imho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.14.251.229 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — 31.14.251.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete interviews do not count as indepdent coverage because they do not go through the same level of oversight and debate in formation. Wikipedia is not meant to create notability, only cover those who are already notable, which Hatter is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. No WP:RS. Notability does not equal popularity. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, interviews are not independent coverage. @TheNickHatter I highly recommend you read WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, and WP:NOTPROMO. I'd also like note that 31.14.251.229 is an IP that's only contributions are to this article and so its "keep" vote could very well be a case of WP:SOCK. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• ‘’’Delete’’’ - I the subject am actually now in favour of deletion FWIW. I do find it interesting that it only got nominated for deletion because I challenged an editor’s decision regarding notability. In any case: It’s all ego and I don’t need Wikipedia to validate my achievements. I was honoured when my page was created however it’s cost me enough time and effort to ensure my info is correct and monitor my page against vandalism and all the email notifications about this thread. I have better things to do with my life - like serving others. I’ll agree with you that it should be deleted for not meeting Wikipedia’s standards of notability. Please do go ahead and take it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNickHatter (talk • contribs) 10:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Mr. Hatter himself rightly says Wikipedia is not meant to validate anyone's achievements, but to serve as an encyclopedia. BrightSide (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bd2412 T 19:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Sebring, Florida, shooting[edit]

2019 Sebring, Florida, shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To steal the nomination rationale from a different mass shooting that was recently deleted at AfD: "With due respect to the victims, this event doesn't seem to be notable. While it is a bit early to tell, it seems that there's only routine coverage, and not every mass shooting is automatically notable." GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to the unusually extremely impactful nature of the incident: "Highlands County Sheriff Paul Blackman said the shooting will have a lasting impact on Highlands County. 'I have been in law enforcement all of my adult life and this horrific incident shocks and angers me more than anything I have encountered in my career,' Blackman said in a statement." MW131tester (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It happened at a major location, i can’t recall there being any bank mass shootings, seems like everyone who targets a bank is there to rob it and then a shootout follows, 5 deaths is kind of a lot for this situtaton plus it happened in another small community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8880:19B6:5123:ABE3:3A1:40FF (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is Seabring Florida a major location. It is less than 100 miles from where I live but I have never been there. Also- Here is another bank robbery[17] with five people killed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, I don't believe that this was a bank robbery. It was "just" a mass murder. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per sources, per coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Page meets notability guidelines and has a long lasting impact on community. Plenty of sources to provide significant coverage. Also, this page should be renamed to "2019 Sebring, Florida shooting", without the second comma. Tinton5 (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Notable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:52, 27 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 per WP:NOTSTATS; usefulness is not an accepted "keep" rationale for articles. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of current fast bowlers in international cricket[edit]

List of current fast bowlers in international cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not needed for an encyclopedia, WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I created this article in order to split this information from Fast bowling, and agree it is not encyclopedic, as it require huge amount of WP:OR to maintain. Spike 'em (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I created the article following this discussion, in case this of use. Spike 'em (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't keep lists of current sportspeople. Plus the whole list is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - impossible to maintain etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS. StickyWicket (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Its an excellent source of information that is with verifiable links and has been kept up to date quite regularly. 38.122.7.210 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Please keep, its the only reliable composite source of this information. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The process of researching and maintaining this list seems to be original research which is not allowed, and Wikipedia is not a web host. If you want to maintain the list then you'll need to find another site to host it. Spike 'em (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be original research if it were not backed by data. Also there are lists of current sports persons that is maintained every week such as ATP Rankings and WTA Rankings for tennis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.136 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those lists require no research, they are reproducing lists available elsewhere on the web. Maintaining this list requires editors to search out and compile information. There is no guarantee that it is either up to date or correct, as it is relying on the competency / diligence of people who are not shown to be experts at performing this sort of task. If you want to maintain the list, create your own website to do so. Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page also has lists of Strike Rate, Average and Total Wickets that are taken as it is from CricInfo. They are like ATP Rankings and WTA Rankings. So that stays?

You are the person who put the effort to create this document. why did you feel the need?

Because the list that was in Fast bowling was even worse (using subjective inclusion criteria) and I said at the time of creation that I'd happily ditch it. Spike 'em (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article does have use as it shows up first when you search for fast bowlers. I dont really see any advantage of deleting it. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without this list according to cricinfo's outdated data, a few months back Oshane Thomas would be a Medium Fast bowler (so would be Usman Shinwari), Jasprit Bumrah would be a medium bowler, Mohammed Amir, Rubel Hossain, Kemar Roach, Lasith Malinga and Jhye Richardson would be the fast bowlers whereas the truth is while the first two may currently be the fastest in the world and latter ones hardly ever bowl even 135kph average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.136 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what? we are not here to correct cricinfo. Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are not here to correct cricinfo, but for information. which is what this page provides in a verifiable way. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you google for current fastest bowlers, this is the list that pops up, and so brings in a lot of traffic, instead of an outdated list that showed up a few months back containing names of players who haven't been playing for years such as Fidel Edwards, Mohammad Sami, etc, or players who do not bowl fast at all such as James Anderson, Lasith Malinga etc. Even sites such as sporteology have updated their lists and data from this one since this is more accurate and reliable.

Again, so what? WP:NOTEVERYTHING states : "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well not solely because it is true or useful but because it clarifies doubt about what is.. which is what an encyclopedia does.

• Comment Are 38.122.7.210 and 69.181.193.136 the same person? Both addressees geo-locate to the same area (which is not a traditional cricketing hotpsot), and both spend most of their time editing this article. As per WP:DISCUSSAFD: Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely Spike 'em (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This mainly feels like original research which isn't allowed here on Wikipedia without a valued reference there. Also as its WP:NOTSTATS that will also make it invalid. Not Homura (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bidarids[edit]

Bidarids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the sources I have checked seem to be talking about some movement or unit. This looks made up. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with Slatersteven. It seems to be a made up name. None of the four sources used in the article mention this name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hoax - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bidar Dil appears to have been an actual prince who remained in hiding when some wanted to place him on the throne when Farrukhsiyar was deposed. See, e.g. The Mughal Empire, Part 1, Volume 5 ("regarded as most able of the Timurid princes"). I am not, however, finding anything substantiating the claims that he founded a dynasty or ruled vast lands in the Punjab under the title of Nawab-Azem. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong, but I agree that this article fails V/NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berserker (1987 film)[edit]

Berserker (1987 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think this fails notability films. There are refs but as a fairly bad "B" film it didn't get any significant coverage. Few edits over the years and tagged for notability since 2014. Szzuk (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found a couple of examples of coverage: [18], [19] (scroll down a bit), but I'm not convinced either is a sufficiently reliable source. Given the date of release, there may be print coverage that isn't available online. --Michig (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it does have coverage in reliable sources such as the book mentioned above and the one referenced in the article, horror news is possibly reliable, and there are a lot of reviews and coverage listed here page of links where the English ones do not stand out as reliable but some of the non-English ones look more reliable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found a good little description in this book here [20]. I have to imagine certain databases could also dig up some news coverage.For the Damaged (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Struck sock vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 28 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 List of airlines in the United Kingdom. (non-admin closure) Ajf773 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_airlines_of_Guernsey[edit]

List_of_airlines_of_Guernsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Partial copy of List of airlines of the United Kingdom Article Thameslinkrail (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecting it to the parent list would be a good solution. Thameslinkrail, you can always WP:BEBOLD and try that yourself, or at least raise the question on an article talk page, and this should really be done first instead of starting a deletion discussion for issues like this. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT to Guernsey Airport#Airlines and destinations. That article has the same information (perhaps more) and the article is not so large it needs to be split. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont redirect to the airport article, they are not the same thing, dont have a problem with a redirect to the UK article as suggested. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone happy with merging with the List of UK airlines page? Thameslinkrail (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per early consensus and speedy close. Ajf773 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merged with Uk airlines article Thameslinkrail (talk) 07:20, 27 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. Regardless of whether this is the best title, the subject seems to be notable. RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epizootiology[edit]

Epizootiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are numerous books entirely devoted to the subject of veterinary epidemiology, which seems to be the more common term.--Pontificalibus 12:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep Clearly a very widely used term in the academic literature, as even a cursory WP:BEFORE search of PubMed or Google Scholar would reveal. Even "epizootiology" returns 1,257 results in PubMed. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• So can we agree what the article is to be called? If veterinary epidemiology is the commoner term let's move this article to that title for a start. Rathfelder (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Rathfelder Per https://tools.wmflabs.org/redirectviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&page=Epizootiology Veterinary epidemiology pales in comparision to Epizoology, at least as a redirect search term, so I would advise Epizoology here. Which is a shortened and easier term than the one right now.v On the other side, more search hits comes from google for the one you and Poni mentioned. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow the sources, which indicate that veterinary epidemiology is now the preferred term (e.g. 1 , 2). This is likely why the textbooks on the subject use that term, whereas Epizootiology/Epizoology tend to be used by authors talking about specific cases rather than the subject as a whole.--Pontificalibus 16:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep, and then we can decide which term to use for the article name. Bondegezou (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaunak Chakraborty[edit]

Shaunak Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, at least two of the cited references are blog sites, which are generally unreliable sources. Was previously deleted via AfD, was recreated as draft and then moved to main space by the creator without any independent review. Dan arndt (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At least one source is reliable that means the article is notable. It should not be delete. 2405:205:1085:1054:E47A:D82E:4B9:4603 (talk)

Comment, actually in order to be considered notable there should be significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - blogs, advertorials and routine announcements do not establish notability. WP:TOOSOON promotional article. GermanJoe (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK if it is too soon to create this article then it should be reversed to draft. Give more time to establish notability. 2405:205:1085:1054:E47A:D82E:4B9:4603 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was previously created as a draft but the article’s creator moved it into the mainspace without any independent reviews/assessment, probably because they knew it wasn’t notable and was unlikely to be supported. Dan arndt (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think if it is too soon then this article may stay for a month or a couple of month for proving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:1085:1054:E47A:D82E:4B9:4603 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is no webhost to popularize young authors until they may become eventually notable, but to cover topics that are already notable by our standards. Please use other Internet venues to promote this author - there are really enough possibilities out there (social media, PR platforms, blogs, etc.). Please also disclose a possible conflict of interest if you have a personal or professional connection with this topic. GermanJoe (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Minimum how many reliable sources are required to established the notability? 2405:205:1085:1054:E47A:D82E:4B9:4603 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of numbers, so stop adding references to user generated blogs. It is the reliability and independence of the sources added. 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as there is not enough coverage. In addition, this link used as a reference is not reliable. Although the website shares its name with a TV Channel (Times Now), a closer look indicates that the website itself is self published. For example, the privacy page gives the contact email ending in "gmail.com". The poem in Amar Ujala is a submission that was published in the newspaper - not an article about the author. While I am not sure, I am suspicious that this is a bad faith attempt to create a page and is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Theatre Calcutta. I have posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shaunak_Chakraborty/Archive#31_January_2019 to let admins investigate.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for informing now I am undoing the move action, move it back to draft and request Wikipedia to give some more time. If any error occurred then I request any administrator to do it for me. 2405:205:120C:754E:2F95:EF42:A240:E4BA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I request the administrator note to delete this page but move back to draft and give some more time. Thank you 2405:205:120C:754E:2F95:EF42:A240:E4BA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhav Shrivastava[edit]

Anubhav Shrivastava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable author and consultant. The currently used blogs and thinly-veiled promotional interviews on PR platforms do not establish notability (per WP:GNG). A Google search just showed more PR activities and passing mentions, but no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, first result on Google search shows a link to his book on Google reads, which may be significant. However, the second & third are all to LinkedIn. The fourth shows his Facebook page where he has 16K followers. Nothing shows him meeting WP:Notability in reliable independent sources Loved150 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR - self promotional sources. Dan arndt (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost certainly a case of either WP:AUTOBIO or WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:15, 31 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Williams (entrepreneur)[edit]

Taryn Williams (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unwisely accepted from AfC. A combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism . The awards are relatively trivial--among the many such awards that are not recognized for ntoability and serve only for PR The Huff. Post is unreliable for notability , especially of blps. DGG ( talk ) 10:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question- where is the policy or consensus that Huffpost is unreliable for notability? I was under the impression that opinion articles are not reliable, but if they are written by staff writers as is the case here (Andrea Beattie, Small Business Writer, HuffPost Australia), they can be is considered as reliable. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there's too much close paraphrasing from the sources for my liking. Quite a few of the choicest puffy phrases ('turnover in the millions', 'two-sided marketplace for creative talent', 'over 6,500 talent on the platform') are directly copied from [onyamagazine.com/australian-affairs/onyapreneurs/onyapreneur-taryn-williams-founder-of-wink-models-theright-fit here] according to Earwig's copyvio tool, and a lot of the rest of the content too close for comfort. If this is kept, it needs a severe pruning to remove puffery and copyvio. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see a problem with this. There is significant and sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources: The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, and the Huffington Post staff Small Business Writer. In addition, there is coverage in Marie-Claire [21] and Business News Australia [22]. Definitely meets WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems like a clear violation of WP:PROMO. Subject does not pass WP:GNG. I think it's also an obvious COI problem we need to address, at least. Skirts89 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article only exists to promote its subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have removed promotional content.Ha.Mark.De (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Ha.Mark.De had already removed most of the puff, I did a bit more pruning. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for WP:SOAP. Not enough significant sources to have a page, possibly COI. PlotHelpful (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Not notable enough and promotional. scope_creep^Talk 00:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging ShunDream who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

(I think you meant WP:AfC) GirthSummit _(blether) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I did. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 31 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Anton[edit]

James Anton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An article created in 2007. All of the sources (Allmusic, Discogs, IMDb) are user-generated content and none is WP:RS. A search turned up nothing RS. WP:AGF, but I could find no evidence that he has worked with any of the musicians named in the article. Non-notable session musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician, no claim to notability other than by association.--Pontificalibus 12:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons stated.Vmavanti (talk) 21:52, 26 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome version history[edit]

Google Chrome version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod. WP:NOTCHANGELOG explictly states Wikipedia is not a repository for software change logs and similar items. All the sourcing is primary - there is no secondary discussion of the significance of each version. Wtshymanski (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This provides a very useful source of information which would take considerably more time to find elsewhere
• Keep There may not be any secondary sources in the article, but they certainly WP:NEXIST. I just searched Newspapers.com for ' "Google Chrome" version', and over 1200 results came up, from 2008-2018. Some are syndicated stories published in multiple outlets, but even taking duplicates out, there is plenty of SIGCOV just in ordinary newspapers, let alone reviews in computer magazines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:IINFO, where extensive logs of software updates are explicitly included in this criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as one of the things that Wikipedia is not, by policy, as indicated in bold type at WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Bakazaka (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just because sources exist about something, doesn't mean we must have an article.--Pontificalibus 08:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Google Chrome. Vorbee (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Google Chrome where readers will reasonably expect a summary of its history in the relevant section but currently that has been spun off into this page. That's our editing policy per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a mimimized table to not be a giant eyesore by default for people who aren't interested. -Pmffl (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The table is excessive detail. Some prose describing major milestones would be more appropriate.--Pontificalibus 18:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but in practice it can become too bloated, like the Chromium history. Having a table that's hidden by default is better than a giant wall of text. -Pmffl (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since this and the Firefox history page were nominated at the same time, it's worth considering other browser articles too. I took a quick look at some of these. The Microsoft Edge and Vivaldi pages have changelog tables that are a similar copy-paste of release notes. As stated above, I advocate for keeping these tables but making them minimized (collapsed) by default. I also agree with others that the info can be pared down to major releases, rather than a copy-paste of vendor's release notes.

The Pale Moon article also has a table. Today I changed it to collapsed by default. Here's a permalink in case it changes. (I would prefer to integrate the legend and possibly some other changes to the table, but I haven't made any edits to it besides the collapsing default. The content can be trimmed as well.) For now, I just wanted to share this for discussion purposes. That way it can be more consistent for browser articles. -Pmffl (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:COLLAPSE says content should not be collapsed by default as it creates accessibility problems. I don't believe collapsing these tables is a viable alternative to deleting them.-Pontificalibus 07:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. From that MOS: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats)." So a collapsed version history table could supplement a brief prose section of browser history. The Pale Moon article is a good example of this. -Pmffl (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:IINFO. I too searched Newspapers.com for the search listed above. Of the first 5 articles, only one briefly mentions new features but they are basic things like opening tabs and security fixes, nothing along the lines of the list (from the Owensburg, KY Messenger - Inquirer 19 Dec, 2011). Aurornisxui (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should be kept as it is notable softwere and merging it with the Google Chrome article would be a eyesore for most people who read that article Abote2 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abote2 Do you have any non primary references that deal specifically with what this article is about - Google Chrome version history? Aurornisxui (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Abote2. Google Chrome itself is notable, but software editions are unlikely to be, especially if the only sourcing is from Google itself. Ajf773 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I love these version history charts, please don't delete them. Especially the Chrome one because there is simply not another source to get all the information in one place like this. Google does not really publish one !! !0I0000100110010101101110! !! (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Google Chrome. Vulphere 15:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a reminder..."delete and merge" is not a valid voting option. If content is merged the source page cannot be deleted, as doing so removes the contribution history and renders the merged content a copyright violation under Wikipedia's licensing. Merging is followed by redirecting (by default, so "redirect and merge"/"merge and redirect" is redundant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable software; Google Chrome would become difficult to scroll if merged.  samee  converse  09:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is really just a "sub-article" of Google Chrome, rather than an independent topic in its own right. I think if the primary topic is notable, spin-out articles on aspects of that topic should be treated leniently. This is useful factual information, and Wikipedia is not Paper. SJK (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would support merging if the article was not this long. Separate article would be needed. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator If any particular change was significant, and marked a major milestone of the product development, then it should be desscribed in the main article. But themonthly bug fixes releases are just a change log and out of the mandate for the Wikipedia. We don't have bus schedules, either, and those are far more important that change logs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:08, 30 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) 16:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woodmeister Master Builders[edit]

Woodmeister Master Builders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT.--Pontificalibus 11:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even throwing in this Worcester Telegram piece [23] there just isn't the level of coverage required by WP:CORPDEPTH to justify keeping this article. Lots of local and well-regarded businesses aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. This appears to be one of them. Bakazaka (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hambledon Club. There appears to be a rough consensus against keeping this. Unfortunately the consensus ends there. In such circumstances WP:ATD applies and I typically go with the least extreme course. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Land (cricketer)[edit]