< 28 March	30 March >

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slinky Wizard[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced stub about a musical group with no apparent significant achievements. No indication of sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luieville[edit]

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

Another promo feature by Ziggy 2milli constructed from search engine dribs and drabs. In a dazzling departure from convention, moved into mainspace not with the usual revealing "I want it it to show on Google", but with "This article has independent sources and also sources that clearly talks about it." Let's have a look:

promotional article, a press release by their promotion management firm. Meagre as it is, it's the best source present - which is probably why it appears in no less than three versions in this sorry list.
passing mention
passing mention
passing mention
advertorial
same as #1
same as #1
[1], [2] - passing mentions
IMDB entry
[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] - passing mentions
commentary- and criteria-less listing in non-notable "Music videos of the year" list

In other words, the editor still has no idea what constitutes sufficient biographical coverage, and continues to throw out what appear to be commissioned advertorials, hoping that one sticks. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before I start writing a biography I do go through other Wikipedia biography article and see how it is written and the type of references they use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessy_Terrero

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Shale https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renan_Faccini https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_AD

And my articles is better than all this with reliable sources too but an article like Jessy Terrero couldn't figure out any reliable source but still, yet it wasn't tagged for deletion. Luieville name is already on Wikipedia in some wiki page of artists he worked with and you still say he is not notable. Elmadae what's your aim do you want me to stop writing articles or do you want to correct and help me.(Ziggy 2milli (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The way you are going - horking up one abysmally sourced promo feature after the other - I'd honestly settle for you to just stop. You do not seem to take anything on board from the numerous deletion discussions that your articles have engendered so far. - As for your role model articles, the sourcing of Christopher Shale is miles above anything you have ever provided (and if you can't see the difference that's an obvious problem), and some of the others (especially Victor AD) might well have to come in for some additional scrutiny. If you aim for the lowest acceptable standard, you are bound to run into issues. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Elmidae's analysis shows none of these sources add up to N. --Theredproject (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Its about the quality and reliability of sourcing, not how many are used in the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has been moved to Draft:Luieville by its creator. ansh 666 20:52, 1 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choo Choo Bar[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE reveals a few mentions in passing but no in-depth, independent, reliable coverage. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG - I can't find any sources. Apparently there is a bar in Wisconsin called the Choo Choo Bar, though. I would say redirect to company, but it doesn't seem to have a page, so... ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a WP:BEFORE search using only search engines was difficult. I did find: [14]. Nothing from newspapers.com though, but it's very possible this product was covered in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 02:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Many reliable references and cultural importance:

The subject is referred to in arts and literature:

The subject is considered to be part of Australian folklife by academia and Government enquiries:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/192871116 https://monash.figshare.com/ndownloader/files/7682386
https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/32660202?q&versionId=39806601 Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia, 1987, p. 110
"Saving the intangible heritage". The Canberra Times. Vol. 62, no. 19, 192. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 23 April 1988. p. 23. Retrieved 25 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.

The subject is formally held in state library image collections:

http://purl.slwa.wa.gov.au/slwa_b3096450_1

The subject is described iconically andis used as a cultural reference point:

"SWITCHING CHANNELS". The Canberra Times. Vol. 65, no. 20, 275. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 15 October 1990. p. 26. Retrieved 25 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
"What the sweets rated". The Canberra Times. Vol. 62, no. 19, 135. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 25 February 1988. p. 26. Retrieved 25 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
"Sweet dreams of you". The Canberra Times. Vol. 62, no. 19, 135. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 25 February 1988. p. 26. Retrieved 25 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.

And more here.

Broad ranging sustained coverage in highly reliable sources. Aoziwe (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's impressive research, but please note we need in-depth coverage. What you have shown is that the subject is mentioned in passing in few literary pieces. Your first set of links seems to be about an "Essay by Larissa Hjorth." That essay is not even about the bar, it mentions it in passing (in a single sentence of the poem-essay, it mentions the bar: "Memory has left a Choo-choo bar flavour in her mouth." [15] mentions in the subject in passing, just listing it with some other products; it is not even clear if the subject is considered to be really important or if it is a joke. That the candy bar is displayed in a museum [16] to illustrate, among with a bunch of other products, sample "Plaistowe's confectionery, October 1972", is not that helpful - the company that makes it may be notable, but the bar is not. If the bar is notable than it itself would be the subject of the exhibition. Not everything in museums is uniquely notable. And all of your other mentions are similar mentions in passing. To quote from one: "The request evoked a lot of memories: of'old-fashioned fruit and nut chocolate", a penchant for "chewers rather than suck ers", "four-a-penny aniseed balls, Choo Choo Bars which made your tongue go dark blue, Fan tales which rip out a filling in one bite" and "Jaffas, especially at the pictures when the old Capitol at Manuka had wooden floors"." I am sorry, but Choo Choo bar seems no more notable than concepts of ear sucking, aniseed balls, and such, and likely less so as at least those are more generalized concepts, but it is just a single product. Bottom line, your list of refs is impressive, but they all fail as they are not in-depth. Sorry, but that's as good as a google-hit count confirming that the subject exists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that any one reference or any reference has to be in-depth. Notability and verifiabilty just require that sufficient independent reliable material exists so that a sufficiently in-depth article can be written. The above demonstrates that a sufficiently in-depth article can be written. Aoziwe (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG. In-depth means significant. None of the refs you provided is a significant treatment of the topic, in fact they all fall square under passing (trivial) mentions. How are we supposed to use the fiction-line that some character felt "a Choo-choo bar flavour in her mouth" as a source for this article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a perfect reference for use in a section such as "In literature'. It also indicates a cultural focal point used by an author. Aoziwe (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that they are not passing mentions, brief certainly, but the authors have gone to specific effort to refer to the subject, and to actually make a point using the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly perfect WP:OR (to say that the subject has cultural significance; no source says this) or at least the use of WP:PRIMARY (to say that the subject has been mentioned in a single literary work). It's one thing if the poem or essay would be about the subject. But it isn't, the subject is just mention in passing. How more in passing can you get? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Aoziwe's research. SportingFlyer T·C 15:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at my rebuttal of those sources? Do you consider them to constitute significant coverage of the subject? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not all of them, but keep in mind they did post a link showing a number of mentions in reliable Australian newspapers just in this decade alone, which I couldn't find in my before search. SportingFlyer T·C 08:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you point to a single source that offers in-depth/significant coverage of the topic? I couldn't find a single one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a popular chocolate bar in Australia. I found couple of additional reference and have added them.

https://www.goodfood.com.au/eat-out/polly-waffle-set-to-return-to-shelves-thanks-to-melbourne-company-chocolate-works-20151021-gkegbw
https://australianfoodtimeline.com.au/choo-choo-bar/ ~Leny Tee55~ 06:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but the first one is coverage in passing (two sentences in a list-like article) and the second one, while better, has reliability issue - https://australianfoodtimeline.com.au/ seems like a blog tied to a self-published book. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 4 April 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. Facts are not copyrightable per Feist v. Rural. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population (United Nations)[edit]

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

The United Nations website has a strict copyright which does not allow for redistribution, so this article as it stands is almost certainly a WP:G12 violation if reproduced from the website linked at the bottom of the article. However, I've gone to AfD instead of speedying it instead because I cannot figure out exactly where the data has been sourced from. The external links bring up spreadsheets rounded off to the nearest thousand, inconsistent with the article here, so I figured I'd AfD and get a few eyeballs on this in case nothing is actually amiss. SportingFlyer T·C 02:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @SportingFlyer: - if copyvio, it should be speedied (and evidence of copyvio presented). If not a copyvio, I can't see how this will be deleted, though a merge to List of countries and dependencies by population could in the offing, as I don't see why we need a separate list for the specific UN estimate over others.Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I completely agree. I sent this to AfD since the source presented in the article - listed here [17] - doesn't match the table. I can't G12 a file if I can't find the source, and if the source can't be found that's another problem that I see as potentially deletable. But since one of the notes says, The UN source document states: For statistical purposes, the data for China do not include Special Administrative Regions (SAR) of China (Hong Kong and Macao) and Taiwan Province of China., this probably runs afoul of the UN copyright regardless. SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that a previous proposal to merge with List of countries and dependencies by population failed to achieve consensus to merge after 11 months of discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge No idea why we need a separate article for this when List of countries and dependencies by population exists. Are any of the data points different enough to be worth noting? Reywas92^Talk 06:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The List of countries and dependencies by population uses many different sources of information for the data and is from various points in time. This data is from one single source and one single point (2017). Thus I think it is of great value. Hopefully it can co-exist peacefully with the other article in question :P Jjm596 ✉ 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the views stated by above user. 112.199.181.72 (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Procedure-wise, a copyright issue should be resolved separately, not at AFD, and based on my (incomplete) knowledge of copyright law I cannot believe that a simple list of populations can be copyrighted. I think it is arguable that a U.N. source/perspective about population is worthwhile keeping as a list-article, distinct from possibly differing other sources/perspectives about populations. Population numbers in general are important, have political and economic implications, and here could be important in particular for their potential to influence United Nations' official policies and aid programs. --Doncram (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an analogous article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant), was just deleted on WP:COPYVIO grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant), there are no "creative forecast" of data here that would breach COPYVIO. Should be fine from that perspective. Britishfinance (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The projections use the "medium fertility" scenario here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue per the other AfD are complex long-term forecasts that require a high degree of "creativity" in making. These are current estimates of populations in which the level of "creativity" in forecasting is much reduced. For example, GDP requires assumptions to estimate (hence why it is re-calculated so many times in teh following years), but WP tables of GDP data does not violate COPYVIO. Britishfinance (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, they use the same methodology for all data sets under a restrictive license. There's still "creativity" involved here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced that WP:G12 applies – I don't think this article meets the standard of blatant or unambiguous infringement. What's been copied here is not text in the usual sense, but a selection of data – essentially two columns from a spreadsheet that contains 800+ columns of data. That brings up two issues. First, WP:COPYVIO does not make it explicitly clear that data and factual information should be treated in exactly the same way as any other original written content. The omission is potentially significant, because data and compilations of data don't always receive the same standards of copyright protection as other creative works. Second, even if we assume that there's no difference between data and written material for the purposes of meeting Wikipedia's copyright policies, copying of properly cited "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media" is allowed if the ten WP:NFCCP criteria are met. And I think those criteria are met here. I think the best way forward is to raise the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Cobblet (talk) 22:56, 2 April 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pandagala Vachadu[edit]

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

This article has existed since 2013 but the film doesn't appear to have been released yet, and the IMDb listing notes that it is of "unknown" status [18]. In any case, the article has minimal content and I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NOTFILM. PC78 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass WP:NFILM and as it has been upcoming since 2013 there have to be doubts whether it will ever be released. If it is eventually released and receives reviews in reliable sources etc it can be recreated, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM . Sources are very scanty about the subject. Lapablo (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santosham Best Choreography Award[edit]

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

An award with questionable notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santosham Best Young Performers Award Wgolf (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santosham Best Young Performers Award[edit]

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

Award that only went twice at an award show. Either delete or redirect to the award show. Wgolf (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I also have one up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santosham Best Choreography Award. Wgolf (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Piper[edit]

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

Actress with very questionable notability. Her biggest role seems to be the obscure film Rawhead Rex (film). Outside of that film all of her roles are either small parts or a guest role. Wgolf (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just added three refs from the NYT but only one of them mentions her acting. Tellingly her obit does not so IMO the article fails WP:NACTOR. MarnetteD|Talk 22:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I agree that it is rather telling that her obit includes nothing on her acting career. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Dog Press[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. None of the references qualify as reliable sources, cannot find any reliable sources on my own. Rogermx (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Caldecott[edit]

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

Unsourced article that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article is sourced properly and satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Thomas E. Caldecott was not a state politician, he was a Mayor of Berkeley who received statewide recognition for his leadership role in getting the major highway tunnel in the San Francisco Bay Area which was subsequently named for him constructed. The naming of the Caldecott Tunnel alone demonstrates the public recognition of notability. WP:POLOUTCOMES This is significant not just historically, but also contemporarily given the major status of this tunnel regionally and as a key link in the statewide highway system. People will be curious about who this person is for whom the tunnel was named, and Wikipedia is one of the information sources they may consult. Tmangray (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be the best course of action to merge with the tunnel's article? It would really be a matter of transferring a paragraph or so. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DeleteIt is in no way properly sourced. None of the 3 sources, one of which is an untitled and unlinked local newspaper article and another of which is primary, are used in line. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Changing my vote to MERGE with the Caldecott Tunnel. We can add a paragraph explaining who he is and why the tunnel is named after him. This article just doesn't stand up on its own in my opinion, maybe it could if it was truly sourced besides a list of county administrators, an untitled and unlinked local newspaper article, and an article about his pharmacy gaining landmark status. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’m sorry, am I misinterpreting WP:POLITICIAN where it states that; “…The following are presumed to be notable:•Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them". Appreciate showing me where I am wrong. Every day is a learning experience. No snarky remarks meant here. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of political experience. His son, Thomas William Caldicott, meets the standards of WP:NPOL by virtue of serving in the California state assembly, but Thomas E. Caldicott did not hold a statewide office or serve in a state legislature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caldecott never served in the state legislature. His son did. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The highest office this person held is mayor of a midsized city — which means that he could have an article if he could be referenced well enough to clear WP:NPOL #2 ("major local political figures who have received significant press coverage"), but it isn't a strong enough notability claim to guarantee him an article in the absence of solid sourcing. Mayors are no longer automatically presumed notable just because the city they were mayor of eventually surpassed an arbitrary population cutoff — the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political impact, not just the ability to verify the names of his wife and kids, so one obituary in the local newspaper upon his death is not enough sourcing to get a mayor over the bar all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that he was Mayor of the City of Berkeley. Strictly speaking, it isn't even that he was a politican at all, but that he was a key person involved with the construction of a major highway tunnel who recieved recognition for that fact from the State of California. Sourcing that notability is not a problem that can't be addressed without resorting to the drastic step of article deletion. Tmangray (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having a piece of transportation infrastructure named after him is not an automatic notability freebie for a mayor either — at least half, if not more, of everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere at all has had something (a building, a street, a bridge, etc.) named after them somewhere, so that being true here isn't a free exemption from having to have enough coverage to clear NPOL #2. If better sources exist to get him over NPOL #2, then by all means bring 'em on — but mayors aren't automatically exempted from having to show more sourcing than this just because they had stuff named after them, and they aren't kept just because somebody says better sources exist that haven't been shown. The inclusion test for a mayor has far less to do with the things the article says than it has to do with the quality and depth and volume of the referencing that's present to support the things the article says. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not weighing in on whether to delete or keep this article, but Bearcat, it should be noted that Mayor of Berkeley is actually this person's second-highest office. This person's highest office was as a member of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. That being said, it doesn't change the standards of notability that apply. Your arguments (and Tmangray's arguments) are unchanged substantively even when swapping the word "mayor" for "county supervisor" instead. OCNative (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" WP:NEXIST Tmangray (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The key to making that a compelling argument in an AFD discussion is not just to say it. We don't keep badly sourced articles just because somebody idly speculates that the necessary depth of sourcing might exist to get him over the bar — NEXIST only comes into play if somebody shows hard evidence that the necessary depth of sourcing definitely does exist. If nobody shows the actual results of an actual search for sources, then we do not keep a poorly sourced article just because somebody tried to invoke NEXIST — turning the tide requires you to actually show evidence that enough better sources do exist to get him over the bar. And no, CDOT's own internal corporate newsletter about its own internal affairs is not the kind of sourcing we're looking for either. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in a matter of minutes I managed to drum up two interesting sources for this individual--not bad for someone born in 1878. There may be some editing issues that need to take place, but I see no reason not to assume good faith that the content of the article is accurate at this point. It appears to be an article worth some attention and the individual seems to have had an impact on politics and the roads in California. Notability speaks to WP:IMPACT and the breadth of independent sources have provided significant coverage of the individual, in my eyes enough to pass WP:GNG so there it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People get notable by having media coverage in newspapers, not by getting covered in corporate or organizational newsletters or named in transcripts of legislative speeches. There's still not a single GNG-eligible source being cited here at all except the obituary. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are not the only source: books, television, radio, legitimate online news services... just to name a few. WP:GNG states "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." And WP:PUBLISHED states that the source may only need be a "reputable party". The two sources I added are both reputable and objective. It would be nice if a local researcher would look into offline sources for additional impact, but at this point I don't see that as necessary because I believe WP:GNG has been achieved from the sources in the article and others found in basic searches.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not to reliable 3rd party sources, it is press releases and the like, which does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question which of the sources do you consider not "reliable" and "press releases" ??? I see coverage in newspapers, books, etc. I don't see any sources in the article that are just "press releases". I could have missed them... please elaborate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources (yes, newspapers, as well as a book). There are plenty of secondary sources, and it is clear from articles in 1937, 1951 and 1960 that he was acknowledged as "the man responsible for the success" of the Broadway Low Level Tunnel project. It was a major project, with a very large cost for the time, and the original contractors were unable to complete it so it had to be retendered - this is in the sources I have added, though I did not add that information to this article, assuming it would be in the tunnel article (though I see that it's not). That is why he is described as having fought for it, championed it, put untiring effort into it, etc. I don't have access to all newspapers, eg not the Berkeley Gazette, otherwise I would add inline citations to the obituary it published. I think there is enough for him to meet WP:BASIC, but if the article is not kept, I would recommend merging to Caldecott Tunnel, so that his role in its construction is recognised. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEYMANN upgrades during AfD make clear that this old-time pol has solid sources, real impact and demonstrable notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 5 April 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Dodd (presenter)[edit]

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

Notability is in question. TheEditster (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established by substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 23:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources understandable, he deserves a page more than most - it will only grow as he does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurugby54 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see coverage in reliable sources.Tacyarg (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, we don't predict that someone will gain notability per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Simply isn't sourced well enough to meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't seem to find any reliable sources about the subject on GNEWS. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plastique Tiara[edit]

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

All of the in-depth coverage has to do with them in a season of RuPaul's show. Outside of that, fails, notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect the article to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). @Onel5969: Honestly, you should know better. I specifically started a discussion at Talk:Plastique Tiara to avoid AfD. The redirect serves a purpose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - which I didn't know about until after I began the AfD, but thanks for the AGF. I did redirect the article, it was quickly reverted. No sense in starting an edit war, simply let the community decide.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, The community could have decided to restore the redirect without going to AfD. I'm assuming good faith, but at the same time, there's no need to waste editor time discussing deletion and reviewing existing coverage when the redirect serves a purpose and can simply be restored. I'd prefer to see this nomination withdrawn, but that's your choice. If the page is deleted altogether, we'll still need to recreate Plastique Tiara to redirect readers to the season 11 article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Another Believer - My AGF comment was in respect to your assumption that I ignored your beginning a discussion on the talk page, and simply went straight to AfD. That wasn't the case. In regards to the talk page discussion, it's been my experience that regarding notability, those types of discussions are a waste of time, since you get a very limited number of editors who participate in them, and many of them have "skin in the game" regarding notability. Especially on an article which has had to be protected due to recreation in the past. This way, uninvolved editors will get a chance to take a look, and participate in the discussion if they choose to do so. Regardless, as I said on the talk page, thanks for all your tremendous efforts for the project.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, Thanks for clarifying and for your kind words. Are you against restoring the redirect? If not, are you willing to withdraw the nom and we can simply enforce the redirect? I really don't think a full AfD discussion is needed at this time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer - Of course I'm in favor of the redirect, that's why I did it in the first place. However, since there is a keep !vote, I now can't withdraw the nomination.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, Ok, I did not know that was a rule. If an admin is reading this and is willing to speedy close this discussion and simply restore the redirect, I think that's best. I'd even support locking the redirect in place temporarily, or having someone ask Cascadia2000 not to revert the redirect restoration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources specifically about her, so I'm fine with Keeping. I'd also be ok with redirecting, but I am against deleting the page altogether. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This person is 100% notable. period. First of all she has almost 3/4 of a million followers, which should automatically count as being a notable person. second she has connections with other more famous people outside of Drag Race (Tyra, James, Patrick) and third, she's going to get the page anyway when the season gets deeper and deeper, so its a waste of time to do all of this and just leave the page alone. Also, I think the reason it got redirected in the first place was pure hatred for her and just trolling. --- User:Cascadia2000 _{User talk:Cascadia2000} —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia2000, you're not helping yourself here... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even make any sense. --- User:Cascadia2000 _{User talk:Cascadia2000} —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia2000, I appreciate your interest and passion when it comes to adding content to WP. Unfortunately, the reasons you've listed for keeping the article do not satisfy GNG. Follower counts and being connected to famous people (see WP:INHERITED) do not establish notability. I do agree she'll eventually become notable, which is why I support a redirect over deletion. --Kbabej (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The inherited argument is invalid because that means she's only notable from being associated with A famous person, when she's actually associated with Multiple famous people. I support keeping the page because there is no reason to discredit everything she did so far as not important when it is. --- User:Cascadia2000 _{User talk:Cascadia2000}

Per WP:INHERITED, "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." (Emphasis mine.) --Kbabej (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep She once worked with someone famous" - see the difference? --- User:Cascadia2000 _{User talk:Cascadia2000} —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, want more evidence? - "inherited and inherent notability claims can't be verified with evidence." - Almost 20 reliable sources, and probably more with time.User:Cascadia2000 _{User talk:Cascadia2000} —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratherbe2000. Linguist111^{my talk page} 18:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). While I did find three sources solely focusing on the subject (Distractify, Gold Derby, and Z6 Magazine), the fact of the matter is she's only in the spotlight for being on a reality show for 4 episodes (at this point). I really have no doubt she'll become notable and go on to do more (ie: release music, tour, participate in other projects, etc.), but at this point I think it's WP:TOOSOON. The coverage is only in relation to the show. --Kbabej (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have you know that James Charles collaboration alone gave her at least 100,000 followers over the span of 1 day. --- User:Cascadia2000 _{User talk:Cascadia2000} —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking out loud here, but if you have a RS for that, that information could be added to James Charles' page as an example of his influence. --Kbabej (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per above. Doesn't currently meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect - as above. Brocicle (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there are numerous independent sources that verify her notability, next. – DarkGlow (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, per above. It's a bit WP:TOOSOON. Armadillopteryx^talk 14:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets basic WP:GNG. There are plenty of references.--AfPEN (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked for undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability requirements and there are references. 198.33.159.251 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111^{my talk page} 20:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect Every contestant on a major reality show will receive coverage related to that, but that alone does not establish notability and I do not see substantive sources outside of routine coverage of the latest season. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the season article. Every contestant on a reality show always receives some coverage in that context, but the winner of the reality show is the only one who gets to be considered notable because of the reality show per se — a non-winning contestant can still go on to clear the notability bar for other reasons after the show is over (e.g. Jennifer Hudson is not getting deleted just because she didn't win American Idol when she was on it, because she's done other notable stuff since being on American Idol), but the reality-show coverage is not notability-making coverage in and of itself. And the number of followers a person has on social media is not relevant to our notability criteria either: a person with ten million social media followers is still non-notable if their social media following hasn't translated into receiving reliable source coverage in real media in a noteworthy context, and a person with zero social media followers (e.g. a politician who died before social media was even a thing) is still notable if they do get the correct kind of coverage in real media. Redirect for now; she can be recreated if Ru crowns her the winner in the end and/or she accomplishes something new after the show ends that changes the notability equation, but simply being able to show some RPDR-specific coverage is not enough in and of itself. As it stands, even the RPDR-specific sourcing shown here largely isn't actually reliable or notability-supporting anyway: We the Unicorns, YouTube, Saigoneer, Dragstardiva, Distractify and Gold Derby, for example, are total non-starters in terms of ever establishing the notability of anything or anyone on here, and even the ones that are reliable sources (e.g. Billboard) are mostly just covering all of the Season 11 girls as a group, rather than speaking to Plastique's standalone notability as an individual. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 4 April 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. One "keep" comment from a now-blocked sockpuppet was discounted and has been struck. Of the remaining keep comments, they all seem to believe sources establishing notability must exist, but unfortunately nobody has been able to actually produce them, so the argument for deletion is the stronger one. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yōko Satomi[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; fails WP:BASIC. Sourcing is in passing, primary, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:ENT as the award listed ("Best actress at the Pink Grand Prix") is based on a fan poll. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 07:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To comment, she has won the two major pink film fan awards, the Pink Grand Prix for Best Actress, for her work in two separate and arguably notable films, since the films have alright coverage. This makes it is easy to argue she fits the bill for both #1 and #2 of WP:ENT. They are "has had significant roles in multiple notable films," and "has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." That said, to meet WP:GNG, the English coverage on her is absolutely awful. I could find essentially nothing, searching for both her common names. I can't help but think she must have some fantastic Japanese coverage somewhere, and I feel uneasy recommending delete unless that avenue of research has been somewhat explored by an editor with such a knack. Concerning reputable Japanese media, I'm only familiar with a few national newspapers. MidwestSalamander (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete usual gng fail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: being a recipient of niche, fan-based awards does not meet WP:ENT. In the absence of significant coverage, the page also fails WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She won Japan's highest award for porn (e.g. pink film) as Best Actress, twice (which has its own WP-article). It is hard to believe that such an award winner would be un-notable? She is a Japanese-only film actress (never appeared in Western film), and therefore all her refs are in Japanese (which I can't search). Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words a BLP that fails the GNG and all you have is assertion and tired depreciated appeals to fake notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tired depreciated appeals. That is kind of harsh there. Her major awards (i.e. Best Actress), for Japan's biggest porn awards, seems like the proverbial "elephant in the room", that is being dismissed at this AfD, because it gets in the way of "can't find any en-RS". My understanding of AfD, is that we are "obliged" to look for foreign language RS for foreign language cases? I am not sure that anybody above has done this for Japanese script. A Best Actress for a major western porn award (e.g. AVN Award), would have RS for a GNG (winners of lesser AVN Awards may not). She could have lots of Japanese-RS? I am not convinced that we are trying to get the right outcome here and give this BLP a proper hearing? Somebody went to the trouble of making this BLP, which is well constructed and seems referenced; we owe them that their work is fairly reviewed. Do we have any Japanese-Editors who can check her Jap-RS? Britishfinance (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further participation is needed to develop a clear consensus following additional discussion; also, some additional time is reasonable to permit a more effective search of sources in the subject's native language media.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412 T 20:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if no higher-level sources are found and added to the article prior to the closure of this discussion. bd2412 T 16:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep passes Wikipedia:ANYBIO major contribution in her field, and meets GNG through major award. Gristleking (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions of major contributions for passing WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT are not attributed to reliable sources. GNG needs significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, which are not in evidence here. Also, a "major award" without reliable sources can't be counted as significant. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete awards ≠ notability. General notability obviously isn’t there. Trillfendi (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Porn awards without reliable source support don't establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be popular Japanese porn star with awards. ~Leny Tee55~ 07:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If she is so notable why is not there an article about her in Japanese wiki?Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Major issues considered here were WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:SIGCOV. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim and Mary McCartney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have not felt comfortable about this article for a long time, and have described it as "like a Daily Mail gossip piece that has no place on an encyclopedia". I'm a longtime Beatles fan but I find the whole article creepy and intrusive, with excessive personal detail. Although it is assessed as a GA, and it (at least superficially) seems to be covered by reliable sources, it deals with two people who are not notable in their own right, and never particularly wanted to be, and the entire prose talks about two people without mentioning anything important or significant about them specifically, which every other notable biography does. The problem is, that Beatles biographies cover just about everything remotely connected to the group, so it's possible to build up a reliably sourced document of these people, without considering the due weight in the sources; which only cover them in the context of their children. Of the main sources used, I am not a fan of Barry Miles' book, which seems to be far too pro-Paul McCartney to be considered reliable and authoritative. I don't know much about Bob Spitz, but reviews suggest he brings a fresh view to the proceedings, which in turns suggests he probably shouldn't be cited excessively without another source to hand.

The article was recently reassessed for GA, with several editors complaining that the article wasn't a suitable topic for Wikipedia, full stop. The assessment was closed on procedural grounds that challenging notability of a topic should come here. So have at it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I just want to point out to other people—for some reason this was lost in translation—that I wasn’t trying to delete via GA reassessment (I don’t even know why that has to be explained), I was simply trying to get this piece of trash delisted from GA status and pointed out that none of these sources, if you could even call them that, in the article contribute to independent notability. I would have settled for merging then, but these people just aren’t relevant enough to have that much space to begin with. They aren’t royalty. Their family history and backgrounds are simply not important by association. They never contributed anything themselves to popular culture worth having every sneeze, cough, and meal documented in this unprofessional manner. Trillfendi (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator here – these people are not notable; their son is. It's nearly entirely sourced to two biographies of Paul McCartney. It's typical for book-length biographies to also cover the subject's close relatives but that doesn't mean they're notable too unless people decide to do scholarship on them specifically. Anything important about the two is with respect to Paul, and this becomes undue weight to have so much detail about his childhood and relationship – That's what the long booksare for, and Wikipedia's purpose is not to copy everything the books' authors want to mention. (To comment on Trillfendi's phrasing: Royalty aren't automatically notable either, they still require substantive dedicated sources to have their own articles too!)Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John? Where does John come into this? --Qwfp (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed typo, had John Lennon in my head for some reason apparently. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed the Good Article reassessment. It wasn't so much a procedural closing as one that ignored the notability objections (I still took into account the sourcing and copyvio concerns). It just happened that most of the discussion focused on the notability. I am sure the closer of this discussion will likewise ignore any keeps based solely on the fact that it is classified as "good". AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Take a look at Template:Paul McCartney family; this article isn't the only one of its kind. If we delete this article, shouldn't many of the articles on Paul McCartney's family members also be nominated for AfD? — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Heather McCartney is pretty marginal, but the rest appear to have established notable careers of their own, with a variety of substantive sources dedicated to them. Quite the Otherstuffexists there. Reywas92^Talk 04:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably the only other person in that family who has developed their own independent notability without question is Stella. As far as I’m concerned the rest can go too, especially James McCartney who literally relies on Daily Mail (last I checked that website was banned on here) “articles” and Beatles fan blogs. The more things change the more they stay the same, I guess. Trillfendi (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James should redirect to his dad's article. Meanwhile, Francie Schwartz is described as "an American scriptwriter", but the article spends most of its time documenting her affair / relationship with McCartney in a seriously WP:BLP violating manner. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was nominated for deletion before, but the consensus was keep. Parents were mentioned in the media multiple times and received notable coverage from major media sources. See also WP:SPINOUT. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you just said is true or backed up with any evidence. Well, apart from this being the second AfD, which is irrelevant. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand the hostility towards this article. It doesn't read at all like a "Daily Mail gossip piece" to me and even if it did, that's not a valid basis for deletion. As for "creepy and instrusive"... intrusive to whom? The subjects have been dead for decades. As I said at the GA reassessment, it is not true, as Trillendi keeps saying, that the sourcing is poor - it is primarily based on two Beatles biographies by respected authors (Spitz and Miles) and established mainstream publishers (I disagree with Ritchie's doubting of their reliability). In any case, there are other quality sources available, such as Mark Lewisohn's Tune in, which could be used instead. WP:INHERITED says, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG", and GNG is clearly met here due to the level of attention from reliable sources that the Beatles naturally attract.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Joe never drank alcohol, went to bed at 10 o'clock every night, and the only swear word he used was "Jaysus". Florrie was known as "Granny Mac" in the neighbourhood and was often consulted when families had problems" What on earth is encyclopedic about that? I've read Barry Miles' book all the way through and the pro-McCartney anti-Lennon / Harrison rewriting of history is staggering, particularly where he nitpicks exactly who wrote what Lennon / McCartney credited song. This is why it's barely used on Abbey Road, which I had a large hand in improving to GA. And it's a general notability guideline, not absolute rule - in relative terms, the coverage in sources is "trivial, passing mentions". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poor writing or unencyclopedic language should just be removed or re-written - it is not a reason to delete the entire article. And there are many sources that cover Jim and Mary McCartney in depth - not "trivial or passing" mentions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I totally agree with the nominator's reasoning – the whole article just reads like an episode of Who Do You Think You Are?... interesting titbits for anyone interested in the subject matter, but fundamentally, the only interest comes from them being related to a celebrity. The subjects are not individually notable at all, their notability is entirely WP:INHERITED from being the parents of their famous sons. Or, to put it another way... would they qualify for a Wikipedia article if their sons hadn't obtained a measure of notability? I can't see how this passes WP:GNG, as the subject for the sources used in the article is Paul McCartney, not his parents. Of course there are reliable sources in existence, being as one of their sons became internationally famous, and any decent biography needs to talk about its subject's background and childhood, but it doesn't make the parents famous if they are mentioned in biographies about their children – the only thing I can see that could possibly count towards their own individual notability is Jim writing a couple of songs that Paul later recorded... and even then, he only recorded them because it was his own father (would they have made it onto record any other way?), and they only made it onto a deluxe CD package of outtakes released more than twenty years later. The argument that "unencyclopedic language should just be removed" – well, almost everything I can see in the article is unencyclopedic, and therefore the arguments for WP:SPINOUT don't apply either, because what would be left are just a few lines which are already included in Paul McCartney#Early life anyway. I don't see a redirect as a solution because Paul McCartney's children James and Mary are probably better known now to the public than his parents, and therefore the more likely search targets – I cannot see a situation where someone would be looking for either Jim or Mary McCartney that wasn't in connection with their son's childhood, instead of for them personally. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above discussion. Mary alone, being the inspiration of the words and the song "Let It Be", has sufficient notability. The page is well sourced (note that the nomination itself calls for more sources when, in actuality in this case, sources are abundant, establishing notability). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A person isn't notable simply for being "an inspiration" for a song, surely... there are many, many examples throughout musical history of songs written about family members or friends, and it doesn't make all those people notable. Richard3120 (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since notability isn't inherited and neither are noted for anything of their own merit (meaning something that doesn't have to do with family affiliations). They fail WP:BIO miserably, and most if not all of the quality sources that do mention them are more about their Beatle son Paul. There's also WP:NOTGENEALOGY to take into account, which says "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic". That most certainly isn't the case here, especially with superfluous things like "Joe never drank alcohol, went to bed at 10 o'clock every night, and the only swear word he used was 'Jaysus'. Florrie was known as 'Granny Mac' in the neighbourhood and was often consulted when families had problems" and excessive detail moving from house to house. Pretty much everything of encyclopedic value is already included in son Paul McCartney's article. We're not supposed to be a Beatles/McCartney fan site. Editors are often overly lenient with keeping articles on family members of famous people. Let's help reduce that by getting rid of unwarranted pages like this one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SPINOFF, as well as being well sourced, and having already survived one AfD nomination with good arguments that should be taken into consideration for this nomination. I agree there is an abundance of trivial/fan cruft, but feel the solution is paring down content (indeed, there is lots of junk here) rather than outright deletion. Yeah, I get the WP:INHERIT arguments, but consider the intrinsic value of wikipedia by providing articles that assuage a wider public curiosity that comes with one of the most famous persons in the world. Including deep detail on family lineage and parents in the McCartney article would make it unwieldily, so this spin off is appropriate. It’s kind of the same reason we have a separate article on Abraham Lincoln’s mother, who was equally unremarkable on her own. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone assert that Barry Miles' totally biased book is "well sourced" without any evidence? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was published by Henry Holt Co., a reputable publisher. That's all one can really go on in distinguishing it as a reliable source as opposed to, say, information taken from a fan blog. But even if that single source is problematic, certainly the Lewisohn book can be referenced in an effort to improve the article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Miles's book's POV, but this idea the article is "well-sourced" (here and above) and that that means it should be kept is nonsense. Basically everything relating to Jim and Mary is based only on the Miles and Spitz biographies of Paul; every one of the website sources is a citation to an unrelated fact. [19] cites what Jim's company did. [20] cites what happened in the air raids during WWII. [21] mentions that Paul once used his father's guitar (without even mentioning Jim by name). Six are merely links to Google Maps of mentioned addresses. This article is a prime example of a WP:REFBOMB. Cut your laughable OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nancy Lincoln is discussed in a much wider range of sources and even has some commemorations and places named for her. Reywas92^Talk 20:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is a book written WITH the subject of it (Paul) an independent source? This is the bs I was talking about. The fact is, there are no reliable sources on these people. Trillfendi (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read Miles' book, but if that features Paul's comments on his own parents, then it most definitely is too closely affiliated with Jim and Mary to be considered an independent source. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, it's Paul discussing his years in the Beatles and devoting a surprising amount of time to what proportion of what song he thought he wrote, including trying to take most of the credit for "Tomorrow Never Knows" on the grounds that he was socialising in the West End, checking out avant garde experimental groups, while John was married with a child in the commuter belt. Wings is reduced to about two pages in the entire book (which probably upsets Alan Partridge). His parents don't get much of a mention, relatively speaking. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read the Miles biography, but my issue here is that if we are going to allow Wikipedia articles for people who clearly aren't notable in their own right, but simply based on the fact they have been mentioned in two or more reliable sources, it's going to open up Wikipedia to biographies of a lot of non-notable people. Presumably we could now create stub articles on the parents of David Bowie or Elton John, based on the multiple biographies that have been written about them? Or perhaps Bowie's half-brother, given that there are at least two Wikipedia articles about songs that refer to him? It wouldn't even have to be a person related to anyone famous – I'm a keen genealogist, and I can think of at least two people on my family tree that would pass the criteria of having been mentioned in multiple reliable, independent sources (newspapers, books), without actually having done anything at all of note to the general public. Saying that there is a public curiosity with family members connected to famous artists is not provable, and sounds like a WP:INTERESTING argument to me. Richard3120 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is quite a poor argument for keeping, and even if the book by Miles can be seemed trustworthy, it doesn't count towards notability as their son and his comments are too closely affiliated with them to be an independent source. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fascinating AfD and very good nom. This article (and other Beatles-linked fan articles) have no long-term future on WP. The !votes of this AfD versus the last is in keeping with the Beatles' slowly fading mega-notability. However, unlike lesser cases on WP (whose linked articles get deleted faster as WP:FANCRUFT), the still mega-notability of the Beatles gives a halo of protection. This couple is chronicled (and not just a passing mention) in many Beatles/Paul McCartney books and "technical" WP:GNG arguments can be made (I have seen worse on AfD). Given the Beatles still mega-notability, it is fair to give readers access to such an article. "No consensus" will be a fair outcome here, but their inevitable "delete-day" will ultimately approach. Britishfinance (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, if Notability is Not Temporary, does that apply to mega-notability? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is Not Temporary" – come back in 20 years to see the WP BLPs of "youtube stars" (drowning in WP:GNG notability), being AfD'ed. Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to laugh. Significant coverage where? In fan blogs? Trillfendi (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to tell you that the coverage comes not from fan blogs but from books published by major publishing houses?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If referring to the Barry Miles book, then publisher is moot when it's not an independent source when much it is based on their Beatle son's comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The books are about Paul McCartney and the Beatles for crying out loud—NOT Jim and Mary McCartney! Who are simply biographical details. Supporting characters in Paul McCartney’s life story. Use common sense. Trillfendi (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree that books focusing on Paul don't really count towards notability on his parents, Trillfendi, I should point out that the so-called "common sense" isn't very common given the wide diversity of people's individual perceptions and senses. That term is therefore a meaningless argument and it's better to instead just focus more on your rationale for why the article is unwarranted or how its referencing is insufficient. See WP:Common sense is not common for more. Telling someone "use common sense" or that something should be done "per common sense" also isn't saying much when those phrases incorrectly presume that the general public shares your senses and thought processes, even if they agree with your stances on certain matters. Something to keep in mind. Anyway, I personally doubt anyone could find a solid independent source (not based on comments from relatives or close friends) that specifically focuses on Jim or Mary as their own people. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense in the obvious context tells you that books about Paul McCartney and / or the Beatles are not books about his parents and notability is not derived from there—because they are not independently notable. If this were the case then why don't Jimi Hendrix's parents have an article? Quincy Jones? Madonna? Outside of said books the only thing people could manage to "find" were from websites called goddammit "magicbeatlestours", "classicbands", "beatlesireland", etc. Google Maps images of their house? Who does that??? There are no actual profiles on these people from independent, reliable music sources because no one would even know they existed had Paul McCartney not become a star. This is absolutely ridiculous. Trillfendi (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is to understand the reasons why it should be deleted takes time, effort and an understanding of the subject matter. This is why the opening nomination had to be as good as I would get it, otherwise I'd just get a bunch of drive by nominators saying "keep - lots of sources" without really assessing the situation. I guess that we haven't had so many of those is a step in the right direction. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Mile's book and blogs seems to be a major sticking point because of this article's reliance on them as a sources for more about 80% percent of it's content. Since Wikipedia's mantra is to try to improve an article prior to deletion, if an editor wants to do the work (not me!) then perhaps references can be taken from the following reliable publisher sources which contain deep research on the McCartney Family that are independent of the son's involvement:

Lewisohn, Mark, Tune In: The Beatles: All These Years, Vol. 1 Little, Brown and Company

Norman, Philip, Shout!: The Beatles in their Generation Simon and Shuster

plus the aforementioned Spitz book:

Spitz, Bob, The Beatles: The Biography Little, Brown and Company ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Spitz's book really has anything to add. The McCartney family is documented on pages 60 - 63 but the prose that could be used to cite facts is basically restricted to Jim's amateur music career, which could be reasonably condensed into a few sentences in Paul's article. I haven't read Philip Norman's book for a while, but it's very old (the group were still musically active when it was written) which is both good for contemporary reporting and bad for not knowing about stuff that didn't fall out of the woodwork until a lot later. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are confusing Philip Norman with Hunter Davies, who published the Beatles "authorized" bio in 1968; Philip Norman's book was after Lennon's death. (He also published a full length Paul bio. It could probably be used as a potential source, but I don't think it shed any new light above the deeper, superior research published by Lewisohn, especially regarding the McCartney family genealogy. FWIW, Neither the Hunter Davis book or the Beatles own Anthology project should be used as references; they suffer the same "too close to the source" flaw as the Miles book.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you're quite right, I did get Norman and Davies confused - thanks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. subject is notable. Lubbad85 (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JNN is thataway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED Trillfendi (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (break for humour). This AfD is like sumitting K2 in winter, possible in theory, but in practice .... Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since y’all wanna get mad at me for pointing out that this "article" relies on egregious, dreadful secondary "sources" such as Beatles fan blogs, Google Maps, or just plain dead links. Out of the 82 citations of this article, over 50 came from a book about Paul McCartney so that leaves examples including:

62-year-old Jim was earning £10 a week in 1964 (equivalent to £200 in 2018), but Paul suggested that his father should retire, and bought "Rembrandt"; a detached mock-Tudor house in Baskervyle Road, Heswall, Cheshire, for £8,750 (equivalent to £174,200 in 2018). the "source" for a smattering of photos is "magicbeatlestours.com"
Ruth remembered that Jim was funny and musical with her, but also strict when she was young, and was insistent that she learned good table manners and etiquette when speaking to people. the "source" for this irrelevant trivia is "classicbands.com"
His two sons were the first in the McCartney family line to buy cars. the "source" of this irrelevant trivia from an archived link of liverpoolmuseums.org.uk and the article isn’t even about that, for crying out loud, it’s about Mike’s photography hobby.
Jim advised Paul to take some music lessons, which he did, but soon realised that he preferred to learn 'by ear' (as his father had done) and because he never paid attention in music classes. the "source" of this is a "femalefirst.co.uk" blurb that makes no mention of Jim nor Mary.

The entire marriage section is a directory of addresses with no respect to privacy. So indeed, take the "reputably published" books about Paul McCartney away from this and you are left with nothing. Trillfendi (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let us readjust the article and use better sources if we must, but deleting the overall article would serve to remove useful information. McCartney75 10:39, 1 April 2019 (EST)
- Like the incredibly WP:USEFUL "Jim avidly read the Liverpool Echo or Express, liked solving crosswords and instigated discussions about varied subjects." and "As Jim was a heavy smoker, Jim would first dry and then crush sprigs of Lavender and then burn them (like incense) in the ashtrays to kill the smell of his cigarette smoke."? The only thing useful about this would be "Paul McCartney's parents were Jim and Mary", or whatever would fit into Paul_McCartney#Early_life, Mr. McCartney. Reywas92^Talk 18:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You Beatles fans need to take the strawberry colored glasses off. Be realistic! What "better sources" even exist about these people? Literally unknown except the fact that "they were Paul McCartney's parents". What do you legitimately think you're going to find? Everything about them comes from biographical books written about their son for God's sake. There are no Rolling Stone articles on these people. There are no 60 Minutes interviews with them. Trillfendi (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge good bits to Paul McCartney#Early life then delete: Agree with nom. Article goes into many odd and peculiar details about the lives of this couple, a couple that was never notable in their own right. These details are great in a niche book dedicated to the topic, but not for Wikipedia's general audience. Having not read McCartney's article, I do think there is some interesting background here to Paul's life that deserves mention in his article if not already there, and should be merged. TarkusAB^talk 01:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every detail of encyclopedic value on these two is already mentioned in Paul's "Early life" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm partial to Ringo's mum. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 3 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gatecrashers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Possibly on the way to notability, to meeting WP:GNG, but WP:TOOSOON. The two sources cited are OK starter sources, even if one of them is one writer's personal Top Five list for 2014, but both give the comic only a paragraph, where the sources cover a number of topics each. And I can't find coverage in independent reliable sources via Google to supplement these. Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This has nothing to do with the previous article by the same title, about a wrestling tag team, that was the subject of a deletion discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 29 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Mattix[edit]

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

For WP:BLP1E. Not that it matters but the article’s neutrality issues also neglect to mention the documentary she participated in such as VH1’s Rock Docs Let’s Spend the Night Together a decade ago where she boasted to Pamela Des Barres about “so many great memories” regarding her groupie days with Page et al. She’s never even called the men rapists as she says she consented during the alleged encounters. Gotta give both sides. The fact remains that this rumor/allegation has never been verified independently or the alleged artists never confirmed their side of the story. Her only “notability” is being a groupie 40 years ago (not notable unless you do actually do something with it) and being tracked down by #MeToo to relitigate. Outside of this allegation, absolutely nothing can be found about her life, so this article isn’t even her biography. What it comes down to is notability is not inherited. Trillfendi (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I think there are a few problems with deletion request. First, the "gotta give both sides" issue mentioned above can be fixed by including the above-mentioned source; deletion is not required to solve this problem.
Second, the issue of "she didn't refer to it as rape" isn't really a side left out of the discussion because the article only discusses the legal analysis of the rape. Statutory rape, in the United States, does not factor in the victim's perception of the events or whether nominal consent was given. Therefore, Ms. Mattix's perception of the events, and her claims that she consented have no bearing on whether statutory rape occurred. This would obviously be very different if forcible rape were being alleged, but it is not.
Third, the WP:BLP1E page allows articles for people who are famous for one reason IF the reason for which they are famous is independently notable. I think the Me Too movement is big enough to be considered notable on its own. The page says that an individual's article may be protected from deletion "because the single event [s]he was associated with...was significant."
Fourth, there are twenty-nine other articles in the Category:Groupies category that have not been deleted so I think it would be inconsistent to delete one when so many others remain. Et0048 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Et0048: I know that "gotta give both sides" aspect isn't relevant to deletion itself. I just think the article has a biased agenda.

A lot of the "groupies" in that category already had their own notability for an article (Luciana Gimenez is tv host and model in Brazil and had a career long before she got pregnant by Mick Jagger. Bebe Buell was already a model and a singer before getting pregnant by Steven Tyler. Pamela Des Barres became an author and media personality, so she isn't just famous for being a groupie anymore. Cynthia Plaster Caster is the subject of a song by Kiss and the subject of a doctumentary and made an art career out of her collections. Margaret Moser became a journalist for crying out loud.) No need to group anyone together because this AfD is for this person. This is a case by case basis.

Having a sexual misconduct allegation is not automatic notability even if the movement has grown. MeToo doesn't grant notability, unless actions happen from it. And certainly this event doesn't grand that because it's not like she came out and said "MeToo", if anything this it was whataboutism from social media users as the article says. Jimmy Page, Mick Jagger, nor the late David Bowie never were arrested or investigated for these allegations. It's nothing more than gossip with no evidence. Trillfendi (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, it needs more elaboration and to be expanded, the subjects on the article have deep cultural relevance; I assume we all know that -leaving aside details- all this was real; The fact that the people involved never were arrested and that society at the time seemed not to care for the things mentioned on it are a key point to note; this is not just about Mattix but something way bigger--Agustin6 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to what you just said. Trillfendi (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi There is an Iggy Pop lyric where he literally says he had a relation with one of the baby groupies when she was 13 years old, and there is a lot of pictures of these groupies with musicians -including Jimmy Page-, it is not a gossip; it can be checked easily if those women lied about their actual age, the year the pictures/songs about them fit the dates. (I was a fan of Led Zep, nothing of this is new, I'd just never knew how old they were; their characters on Cameron Crowe's movie were 16 perhaps to avoid the controversy). --Agustin6 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability could be established as long as multiple independent, reliable sources talk about subject and especially this article has a huge relevant on notable "Me Too" culture. This article seems to have all the checks to stay in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basing an article on an unconfirmed rumor. Groundbreaking. Trillfendi (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to split hairs too much, but the Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations pages, among many others, are "based on unconfirmed rumors." So long as the article points out that the allegations are, in fact, allegations, this doesn't seem to be a disqualifier. Et0048 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those had actual research go into it though, by reputable publications such as the Wall Street Journal and the White House has commented on those.... This rumor is ubstantiated gossip, if anything, the article should be renamed accordingly, such as Jimmy Page sexual misconduct allegations but even then, that’s unethical in my opinion because we still haven’t heard his side. Trillfendi (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not Notable as an article, suggest redirecting to the notable artist articles. Lubbad85 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that seems like a more reasonable choice compared to keeping it. Trillfendi (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus on this page is that the article should be expanded if anything, not shrunk to a small mention on an artist's page following a redirect. Given that on both the Jimmy Page and David Bowie pages, there has been substantial resistance to so much as putting Ms. Mattix's name on either those pages, it's highly unlikely that any mention of her on those pages would contain enough information to cover the matter properly. It's best left to its own page. Et0048 (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The woman is not notable no matter which way people try to steer around it. There is resistance to it because people know this is not the Daily Mail. This is not place for rumors without any kind of verification. Hell, even a comment on it. I could say Idris Elba groped my left butt cheek—what would that mean if I didn’t have any evidence to back it up? Nothing. It would be a rumor. Even if I said I “enjoyed” it. So the fact that this allegation is only “worthy” of a blip on either musician’s page tells you everything you need to know about it. We know absolutely nothing about this woman’s life besides “she was a groupie at 13.” A whole article for someone just for claiming they had consensual sex with a celebrity? Ridiculous. Trillfendi (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In trying to disentangle the various parts of the nomination, it seems like the nomination is basically confused about WP:NPOV (representing what is in reliable sources, good) and WP:NNC (applying notability standards to article contents, bad). Nonetheless, focusing on the policy-based rationale for deletion (WP:BLP1E), it's obvious from a simple Google search that the subject has been covered by multiple RS over multiple events (with multiple people), so it's a pass of WP:GNG that is not ruled out by WP:BLP1E. It's worth noting that the sole redirect !vote above does not suggest a specific target, and indeed can't, since multiple valid targets are supported by RS, precisely because it is not a WP:BLP1E situation. Bakazaka (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not confused on NPOV vs BLP1E. I simply opined that what’s the point of this article based on an allegation if it’s not even giving the entire version of alleged events, serving to victimize Ms. Mattix for a sexual misconduct “reckoning” when by all accounts (those only coming from her of course, it was the opposite). The fact remains, she’s only seen as “notable” to people for a rumor, not her own merits. What career does she have to speak of? What biographical facts can even be confirmed besides “she was once a teenager in California?” All notability is on Jimmy Page for that matter; the 2 sentences in his personal life section sum it up for what it is. That’s that on that. Trillfendi (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A person doesnt need to have a career to be considered notable nor what happened has a merit of true. Notability is measured by "worthy of notice" (as this article has a culture relevant) whereby the subject is mentioned by multiple independent, reliable source which the content of the article claimed . There are/were many groupies or teenagers had many group sex especially during the late 60's early 70's during the "free love" era, or many rape victims were killed, but no independent sources talk about them and that is considered not notable in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not convinced by the WP:BLP1E argument; her interaction with these people went on for years, regardless of its reporting (and many of the refs used in the article span several years; E.g. it wasn't just one reporting "event"). My biggest issue is that there is no real WP:SIGCOV here. I could not find an article on her from a material Tier 1 RS (as opposed to her being mentioned in a David Bowie/Jimmy Page articles; many of which are not strong RS). Even her other WP:RS seem weak; evidenced by how little real BIO details we have on her (e.g. the classic sign for me of a lack of a SIGCOV article). She is interesting and I could see readers wanting to know about her, however I'm am not sure she clearly meets WP:GNG criteria? Britishfinance (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many situations in which Wikipedia might have an article about a person, but not have certain biographical details, or even a birth name, available. The extreme example is the featured article on D. B. Cooper, but of course authors write under pseudonyms, victimized people seek to minimize the chances of revictimization, and professionals in certain fields might seek to obscure their personal details (e.g. modeling agencies lying about DOB and height to maximize the chance for models to get hired). So lacking biographical details does not necessarily indicate anything bad. It may, in fact, mean that Wikipedia is handling a sensitive matter correctly. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My point is that in the case of this BLP, the lack of any WP:SIGCOV means that we have no wider biographical details. It is of course not a universal one-to-one relationship, but BLPs with no SIGCOV usually lack core biographical details, as most of their GNG is from less substantive sources. Not having WP:SIGCOV doesn't automatically stop a BLP, but for a current living BLP candidate not to have SIGCOV, is a material issue imho. Britishfinance (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as a WP:COPYVIO. This is likely to be an unpopular result, but as RoySmith and Britishfinance point out in the discussion, copyright expertise is required to assess the copyright status of this article, and I am in the unfortunate position of being an admin with the requisite expertise. While it is true that copyright can not inhere to lists of facts, this article is not a list of facts. It is a list of speculations, based on factors chosen by its authors. While these factors may have been chosen with an intent to make the most accurate projections, there is still substantial personal creativity involved in deciding which factors to include and which of the immeasurable set of all possible factors to exclude. This deletion is without prejudice to the creation of an article about this list of projections, which could in context make a fair use discussion replicating a sampling of these factors, and broadly relaying their conclusions. However, replication of the numbers arrived at by the author here, no matter how formatted, lifts this information out of the body of work that Wikipedia is able to publish under its license. As a final thought, the use of this or any material in Wikipedia to further any third-party agenda is irrelevant, and properly rejected as a basis for deletion. bd2412 T 20:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant)

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

Why the page should be deleted Mystery42 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is just a copypaste of some UN report. There are no other references, the "references" are only footnotes from the report and other footnotes by some Wikipedia people. Everyone could just get this directly from the UN. If it is relevant to some other article, they need not reference this article, but they can simply refer to the UN report. In my eyes, the technical problem is that this article is irrelevant and this is a reason to delete this article.

The bigger problem is: Context is missing. There is no discussion of the methods, no criticism, not even the context of why this table was created and what purpose it is supposed to be used for. This data necessarily is highly speculative. Noone can estimate the world's population without dubious theoretical assumptions. This is obvious for any academic, but it might not be obvious to children or people with bad access to education. Of course, Wikipedia should educate these groups, but this context-free stub is not going to educate them. It is rather going to make them believe: "This is on Wikipedia, even UN, there is no criticism section, so this is probably objectively true."

This becomes clear when we see that the shooter of Christchurch refers to this article in his manifesto (which will lead many people to this page). Of course, the shooter's reference is not a reason to remove this article. But it is obvious that people like him just take this table to be objective truth, just like the actual population numbers from last year.

The worse problem is: It just appears as if this was a propaganda page by people with the same ideology as the shooter. Just look at the phrase in brackets: "(which is the *recommended* one)". This has not been written by someone who wanted to inform other people, but rather by someone who desperately wanted to persuade other people.

So – as there are clear technical reasons to delete this page –, I suggest doing so. (In that case, better put a note in there, linking to this discussion, so that people do not think Wikipedia is censoring facts because they support an unpopular opinion. This page URL will be called by many people and they would then wonder. It should be clear that this page simply does not make sense for technical reasons.)

The technical reason is: This page is unnecessary and it makes figures look uncontroversial which are not uncontroversial. An alternative would be to extend this page, but I do not see a reason for that at the moment. Mystery42 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being mentioned in the Christchurch manifesto is not a reason to delete something. The article has existed since 2011, and you have to do something better than this nomination. When stating objective data projected by a neutral source becomes 'propaganda', I fear for the fate of the modern man. Or whatever. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a WP:COPYVIO. The terms of use state it is for "personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is not a valid deletion argument. By your logic, EVERY article is copyvio because they all (or nearly all) use copyrighted works as sources. We are certainly allowed to use data to write articles. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a functional copy-and-paste of the report. The logic isn't wrong. We could use this as a reference, but we can't copy the table per the U.N. copyright/terms of use. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article existed since 2011 and has a lot of language versions. We also have other similar article List of countries by population (United Nations). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I agree this is a copyvio. It appears clear from the U.N. website the United Nations does not allow this data to be redistributed (which we are clearly doing) without permission. SportingFlyer T·C 04:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be G12'd. SportingFlyer T·C 02:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as WP:COPYVIO appears to be a potential issue. What should really happen is a deeper discussion of UN's future population reports, with the nominated article plus List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant fertility variant), List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant mortality variant), and etc included as sources. Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix, and per Dawid2009. We can't let monstrous acts influence encyclopedic content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as this subject is notable and fix copyvio issues. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia's role is to summarize content from other sources, and usually not to reproduce the entire content in full. However, there are many cases in which we need an entire video, table, or quote if we can keep it. The issue here is there are all these other articles: List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant fertility variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant mortality variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, instant replacement variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, high fertility variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, low fertility variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant) List of countries by past and current population (United Nations, estimates) and nobody knows what any of this means without reading the report. I suppose we could go ahead and copypaste the whole text of the report to explain it, but then we really would be committing a copyright violation (which the data per se does not do). But never mind that -- the end point is we have the entire UN crystal ball put in the voice of Wikipedia. Is that what we need? Doesn't the UN host their own report? The fix is to take all this data, condense it down to maybe one table, paraphrase some context, link in some commentary, make the article about the report or World Population Prospects in general, and give readers something they can take home a message from rather than a poor copy of a primary document. This is not a pure delete vote (I want that article) and it is not a pure keep vote (most of these articles need to get redirected to something - actually World Population Prospects is an excellent target). I see no need for administrative deletion - no content here has to be hidden, because the U.S. does not (yet, I hope not ever) suffer from database copyright. Also, I would like to retain the data because readers can take ratios of the projections over current population and make up SVG maps using this data, which are easier to swallow in moderate doses. The data tables could then be kept at the map image description pages. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's clear this is still a copyvio. The Excel spreadsheet this article is completely based on has a copyright with an "all rights reserved" on it, which includes redistribution or creating derivative works. The database rights isn't on point, because you imply databases that aren't covered by that law do not fall under copyright, which is incorrect (if I have this right that actually creates a separate right if you have a database of facts you have worked to compile, and facts cannot be copyrighted.) Further, the data are estimates and not facts so can be copyrighted as they are the work of the U.N. SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument about estimates almost makes sense, but not when there is no originality involved. A set of predictions made by a scientific procedure are meant to be reproducible by anyone who does the same thing. We have many such tables - electronegativity, Mohs hardness scale, oxidation state etc. The number does not have to be a direct observation - a 'fact' you might say -- it can be highly processed by algorithms or clever chemists into some index; nonetheless, if the author didn't have the option to just go into the table and change some numbers for the heck of it, it cannot be a creative work. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, databases are copyrightable in the U.S. - see "compilation" here [22]. Even if the facts in the databases aren't copyrightable (assuming the data are "facts" the database itself can be. And in any case, "unoriginal" databases have been held in the past as breach of contracts where distribution occurs through a license even though the work itself isn't available for copyright. In this case, it's crystal clear the UN license is incompatible with the Wikipedia license. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia certainly cannot breach a contract it didn't make. Your argument about "compilation" relies on some indication that the authors compiled and selected their original population data from many different sources in a unique and idiosyncratic way rather than using a few public data sets to base their projections; admittedly I haven't found out enough about the set to disprove that, but I'm not convinced it's true either. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it can breach a license, which is, in essence if not in fact, a contract to use the data. An argument saying the UN copyright/license is invalid because of a legal theory which may or may not be correct isn't an argument to keep per our non-free content terms. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming copyrights on uncopyrightable material based on "a legal theory which may or may not be correct" is called copyfraud. Every day people are duped into paying royalties on public domain content, and there's no law against it. Even so, I don't see the UN here complaining - I see you propounding what sounds like an overwrought extension of copyrights even beyond their usual miserable nature. Wnt (talk) 0f7:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but again, you're assuming a court would assume the information provided in the table is not creative. Per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, this is an instance where the UN is not reporting facts, but rather collecting data from a number of different sources and providing their own estimate. It could be considered roughly equivalent to the CCC Information Services case mentioned in that link. It really boils down to whether these have been created by "repeatable calculation" or by "value judgments," and a reading of the methodology here, especially page 5 [23], means that we're much closer to "value judgments" than "repeatable calculations." SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Downloading the UN data and uploading here is against their terms of use but my thoughts are that it is not a breach of copyright because the information has been sufficiently transformed. I think WP policy is to respect copyright but not terms of use. I'm not sure because I personally try to respect both. Database rights? No idea. I'm not at all sure how useful this table is (would it not be better to discuss the area of interest in an article and link to the UN?) but I don't think that is an sufficient reason for deletion. Thincat (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't "transformed" the work at all, simply reformatted it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe you are right. The spreadsheet I looked at (with the same figures) was in quite a different format but perhaps I looked at the wrong one. Another consideration: these figures are not merely counted numbers, i.e. not "facts". Rather, they have been produced using a (mathematical) process that is arguably "creative" to a lawyer. And perhaps a valid copyright claim can be made on that basis. I don't know. Thincat (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A number can be a valid scientific observation or estimate, or it can be a creative work of the human imagination, but it can't be both. Creativity implied someone had an option to change those numbers to tell some other story. Wnt (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion should focus on notability, and on whether these data are copyrightable. Neither is particularly clear from the discussion above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RAWDATA. I'm also unable to figure out exactly what source was used. There's an external link that gets you to https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/, where you can find a large number of spreadsheets. I can't tell which of those was used to generate this table, so fails WP:V in its current state. I don't honestly know if this is a WP:CV, but it certainly violates the UN's Terms Of Use, which says, The United Nations grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, “Materials”) from the Site for the User’s personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works. This clearly violates that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found the source spreadsheet, which the first one on the "Probabilistic Projections" tab ([24]). I think if the article survives AfD, then the sourcing and additional methodoligy criteria of how this data was constructed should be added to the WP article so that a reader can see exactly where it came from, and what it represents (e.g. assumptions etc.). Otherwise it is useless to a reader, and just junk. Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the COPYVIO concerns, however, I feel that we need some specialist input here; particularly given that there are many WP articles that are effectively "data tables" of other global NGO-type organistations (e.g. our GDP-GNI data tables, and many many more). Should we ping a WP copyvio specialist to this AfD (e.g Dianna)? If we can sort the copyvio one way or another (e.g. is it a WP:G12 or not), then now that I have found the source, we could repair this article. It is very intersting and informative imho. Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on copyright / licensing; I certainly agree that we should have input from somebody who is. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the question here really isn't whether it's notable but whether the methodology used by the U.N. is "creative" or whether these are being presented as facts. If there's "creativity" in the methodology (and I think there is), especially given the U.N. license then it's a copyvio. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Per above comments (and additional comment below re WP:NFC); could we get some expert opinion on the COPYVIO issues raised in this AfD, before we try to address the other issues on sourcing etc. thanks Britishfinance (talk)

Comment This deletion request is without obvious merit. The arguments for deletion require too much speculation to succeed. Noct urnalnow (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: COPYVIO shouldn't be a concern here as lists or data sets don't apply, only prose, per WP:NFC. And if citing Wikipedia in a shooting manifesto is grounds for deletion then I think we'd see an increase in shootings. (For the humour-deficient, I'm saying the argument that we should delete it because it was cited in the Christchurch shooter's manifesto is rubbish.) SITH (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like some discussion on how this passes the NFC and whether data that is presumably a unique data set can be creative or not. What is the copyright status of the original UN report?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first it appeared to me that it was a simple list of raw data, which would not contain any creative content, and thus not be copyrightable. However (after being pinged to offer an opinion and thinking about it for a few hours) I don't think that's actually the case. Countries are grouped as "medium-fertility" if their children per woman is declining but is still somewhere above 2.1 per woman. That seems straightforward enough, but this page, which describes the process of obtaining the final data, says that a number of different variables unique to each country such as mortality, AIDS status, and migration are taken into account to obtain the final result. Therefore my opinion is that the data in this series of UN tables contain enough creative expression to qualify for copyright protection and should not be republished here in their entirety. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This has apparently already been cross-wikified to Wikiversity. I'm not an expert at cross-wikification; if there's anything else I need to do to complete that process, ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Setswana medical terms[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary/glossary. Natureium (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not appropriate English Wikipedia topic. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It wouldn't even qualify for a (hypothetical) Setswana wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move I guess we could move them elsewhere such as Wikiversity.[25] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the outcome is delete and the contributors would like to continue at Wikiversity please post a cross-wiki import request at v:Wikiversity:Import. --mikeu ^talk 23:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note the content was copied and pasted to en-wv without revision history. The v:Wikiversity:Import#w:List_of_Setswana_medical_terms is on hold until this discussion completes so I can preserve the attribution of the final revision. --mikeu ^talk 00:17, 2 April 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Coveto[edit]

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

A "fashion influencer" who is noted for being "spotted front row"... I think this about sums up the notability here. Celebrity gossip itemlets and promo pieces, but no in-depth, third-party coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canards sign[edit]

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

No results on pubmed to verify that this exists. The only results I found on google were Wikipedia mirrors. Natureium (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a hoax to me. Some of the text is copied from this book, but slightly modified to support the hoax. Pretty sure other bits have been similarly treated but can't identify the source. On the other hand, "sudden pain in the left arm pit during this movement" is likely out and out bullshit. SpinningSpark 19:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Ray Sheps[edit]

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

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now simply doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, only a single significant role. Most of the coverage is about the one film, All Square, and the two significant pieces are interviews, again, having to deal with All Square, plus interviews don't go towards notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to justify having an article on this minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saddle Ranch Chop House[edit]

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

Not seeing significant coverage of this restaurant. Tacyarg (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting that there is more coverage than one might expect, although maybe not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. MidwestSalamander (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The Rowdiest Bars In The US". www.businessinsider.com. Business Insider. March 10, 2013. Retrieved March 15, 2019. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Saddle Ranch Chop House Closes at the Triangle in Costa Mesa". OC Register. August 3, 2018. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Zint, Bradley (March 22, 2018). "Costa Mesa's Saddle Ranch Chop House closes after 5 years". www.latimes.com. Los Angeles Times. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Goei, Edwin (April 23, 2013). "SADDLE RANCH CHOP HOUSE OPENS IN COSTA MESA". www.ocweekly.com. OC Weekly. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Keep on the basis of its use as a set for famous shows. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it was a bar open for 5 years, which appeared in some shows, including the great show "Rock of Love". The sourcing is very poor, including being named one of the rowdiest bars around, and I do not see notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oh great! Another restaurant in America. Mccapra (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Camp[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose claims of notability are not properly referenced to reliable or notability-supporting sources. Five of the eight footnotes here are to blogs, making them total non-starters in terms of establishing notability at all -- and while there are three sources that are more reliable titles in theory, two of the them (Huffington Post and Instinct) are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, while the third (Attitude) just glancingly mentions his name in the context of being the cover model rather than actually saying anything substantive about him. As always, appearing on the cover of a magazine is not in and of itself an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from actually having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but a person doesn't get over GNG if you have to rely entirely on blogs and Q&A interviews and can't show any third-party third-person journalism. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Brownhills West railway station. I don't see any consensus (or, any substantive discussion) on whether to leave a redirect behind or just delete after merging. I'll leave that decision up to whoever does the merge. Whatever happens, make sure you provide proper attribution via some procedure complying with our licensing requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brownhills West (Midland Railway) railway station[edit]

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

A dearth of reliable sources to say this station ever existed. It looks like it is being confused with Brownhills Watling Street and West may just have been local unofficial nickname to distinguish this station from Brownhills. Nthep (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doubt it. The three stations seem to have been in completely different places. And note that Brownhills West still exists (albeit in a slightly different place) and is the terminus of the heritage Chasewater Railway. That article explains that it was rebuilt after the previous station had to be demolished due to the construction of the M6 Toll motorway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem with the current Brownhills West or even the Chasewater railway building a Brownhills West and then having to move it but I'm having problems finding reliable sources to support the existence of a Brownhills West on the Midland Railway branch just Brownhills later renamed Brownhills Watling Street by the LMS to distinguish it from the ex-LNWR station of the same name. Brownhills (Watling Street) was a terminus for passenger services according to contemporary timetables and contemporary maps don't show any passenger stations north of Brownhills Watling Street (see also [26]). Neither do modern reference books like Quick or Clinker nor atlases mention a Brownhills West opened by the Midland Railway. Note the only source in the article is [27] which says Brownhills West on the Chasewater Railway is a newcomer to the region's railway scene and a newcomer to the Chasewater Railway as the M6 Toll Road, to add to the general catalogue of bad luck faced by the Chasewater Railway during its history, drove through the original Brownhills West station - the site of which today is directly under the motorway! With the compensation for the loss of their facility, the Chasewater Railway built its present Brownhills West station and heritage centre. So I think this article is based on a misinterpretation of this source in that the original Brownhills West mentioned is not a Midland Railway station but the first Brownhills West built by the Chasewater Railway and demolished when the M6 Toll Motorway was built and the original editor of this page has conflated the Chasewater Brownhills West with the original Brownhills (Watling Street). Other than the Chasewater Railway one of the few mentions I can find of Brownhills West is this blog which mentions two stations on the branch line from Aldridge, namely Walsall Wood and a single station in Brownhills which the author calls Brownhills West but is IMO Brownhills later Brownhills (Watling Street) on which we already have an article. Nthep (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The station does not appear on six-inch OS maps from the period it was supposed to have existed (e.g. 1900, 1915). This is conclusive because these maps are sufficiently detailed to show signal boxes and even signal posts.----Pontificalibus 06:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, no station marked on historical OS maps at the place indicated by the map pin (or anywhere on the Walsall Wood extension). Merge the relevant material (ie, from 1985) to Brownhills West railway station. I don't think there is a need to keep the page for attribution reasons, it can be deleted after merging. Just a credit to the original editor in the edit summary will do; no one else has made a substantive edit. SpinningSpark 18:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's only one reference and it just mentions the Chasewater Railway station; that source also says the new station opened in 2004 when it was 2002 according to the article and 2001 according to better sources (Railway Magazine and Chasewater Railway). The old station probably closed in 2000 (according to Chasewater Railway Museum blog), and there seems to have been no station there before the Chasewater Railway. I would oppose merging from an article that is not supported by sources and is likely to be inaccurate. Peter James (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former railway stations are seen as notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and as separate articles. The article does need additional references but a lack of references is not a valid reason to delete the article. Rillington (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rillington: As demonstrated above, this is not a former railway station: it never existed. Brownhills West railway station is a station on a hertiage railway, this article was created on the assumption that the station was in existence on the orginal Midland Railway, but it wasn't. The station was newly created by the heritage railway. ----Pontificalibus 14:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge @Pontificalibus: After reading your comments I checked the disused-stations website and the site covers the line but there is no mention of this station. Therefore, I have changed my view and am now in favour of merging the information in the article we are discussing into the Brownhill West article if the information can be verified from an independent source. Rillington (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rillington: I've struck your first comment for you so that you are not voting twice. SpinningSpark 16:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Spinningspark: Thank you. Rillington (talk) 20:34, 31 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-Documentaries[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:29, 29 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freesky Online[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In my WP:BEFORE search I found: a press release [28], WP:ROUTINE announcement of a server merge and is not WP:SIGCOV of the game here [29] and a passing mention in [30]. Nothing even close to be used for GNG purposes, not even a single indepth review on a WP:VG/RS source. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:29, 29 March 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier (grid computing platform)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. My WP:BEFORE fails to find anything outside passing mentions and self-published company documents. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective sources and don't really know what it is. scope_creep^Talk 14:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:28, 29 March 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Nehring[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's been five years since this article was last nominated for deletion, and there hasn't been any significant improvement whatsoever. With the research I've done, there still isn't enough independent sources to help this article pass WP:GNG. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being organizational chair of a political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie — it can get a person into Wikipedia if they can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough coverage to clear WP:GNG, but it doesn't guarantee them an article just for existing. But two of the three references here are glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things or people, and the one that's actually about him is a straight-up press release from the Republican National Committee itself. Which means none of these are notability-supporting sources at all: the two that are reliable aren't about him, and the one that is about him isn't independent. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:28, 29 March 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L&F (production duo)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources, no indication of notability. Every single cited source is an interview; only the YouTube video one mentions the Grammy that came up in the previous deletion discussion. I tried to find a reliable source for that and failed. That's not even mentioning the tone issues that would require a complete rewriting of the entire article. Huon (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: at this time, there is nothing which conveys notability beyond trivia for a stand alone article; see WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:27, 29 March 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anzujaamu[edit]

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

Non-notable cosplayer, possibly WP:TOOSOON but I can find little in english or Turkish sources about her and though I don't take into account (per WP:V) subscriber numbers, I don't think 500k subscribers on YT really indicates much of anything either. Praxidicae (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. I was the one who prodded it that was removed. I can't find her notability either. Wgolf (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Surely this should have been an uncontested speedy delete? W C M_email 09:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or just Comment: I know Anzu in person as being from the same faculty in Bilkent, even used same evening shuttle with her (she was in Or-An while I was in Ayrancı before my dropout). Besides of those personal issues with her; if you find Knowyourmeme and weekly university journal's entry weak, then you have serious problems with notability (or people whose you don't know, even if you can use the goddamn Google). Also, I have access problems due to Turkish government's stupid Wikipedia block, that's why I can be personally rageful during editing articles and commenting AfD discussions such as this. Sorry for my aggressive behaviour anyway. Onur T 17:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally not in good form to be uncivil and then follow it in the same edit with "sorry I couldn't help myself" but that aside, university paper, social media and personal knowledge are in no way able to establish notability for a subject. There must be in depth coverage in major media outlets, independent of the subject (or books.) Praxidicae (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Due to minimal actual discussion I suppose this can be considered a "soft" delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joël (Musical Artist)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for musicians. References are mostly the artist's own works on Amazon, YouTube, and Spotify. The 3 news sources do not show much significance. Very recent new singer. Intro paragraph is overly promotional. See WP:GARAGEBAND. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references from reliable sources are enough to pass WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has no career to speak of so file this one as Too Soon. Also, he doesn’t have significant coverage. Most of these sources here are useless and promotional. The only feasible sources are Complex and Noisey. Trillfendi (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis J. McCabe[edit]

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

The sources used in this article do not demonstrate its subject's notability, and I can't really find anything else out there that does, either. What's currently being used are just snippets from local papers, patents, questionable awards, etc. On a side note, if this is somehow kept, it needs serious cleanup per WP:PSCI. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an organisation article. Rathfelder (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Mayer[edit]

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

Unsourced, and I have been unable to come up with any sources of my own. Appears to just be a lot of pieces of trivia in an attempt to establish notability, but failing. Translating works does not establish notability for the translator, especially when there is no evidence of any of these translations being notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See [31], which suggests the subject meets WP:GNG. That said the article requires improvement. W C M_email 10:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve Agree with above, article needs improvement but subject seems to meet GNG. Jessamyn (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a few reviews and was able to expand her biography a little. Agree with above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep appears to meet WP:GNG Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:30, 4 April 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khatra Khatra Khatra[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSHOW since is a minor casting which is nowhere meeting the GNG guideline. Sheldybett (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above... Aviartm (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a nationally broadcast television series as per WP:TVSERIES with most likely offline sources if not online, have you searched in tamil ? Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:TVSERIES, it airs nationally in India on one of the biggest network Colors (Tv channel) , if it do lack enough sources than it should have been tagged as it has that. It is reality show where contestants are performing stunts to go to finals and win it. Adding of more references can be helpful in this rather than deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk • contribs) 04:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LetsTrack[edit]

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

Generic startup spam, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Creator blocked for likely covert advertising, of which this article is an example of. MER-C 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets basic WP:GNG and has plenty of references. One reference might be a press release, but a Google news search brings up plenty more references to this company. I will check into this a little more and see if I can improve or add more references. Peter303x (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240624071810[reply]
Comments. I have done a little more research and revised and added a few things. Mainly it appears that this company is not UK based and a recent article from March 9, 2019 suggests they moved to Gurgaon, India. Original poster must not have seen this. Peter303x (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240624071810[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that it meets basic WP:GNG and should not be deleted just yet. The article could however do with a few improvements.--AfPEN (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked for undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 09:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete in no way does this pass NCORP. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have promising coverage in news sources; but I just want to get this !vote in now before the 7 days is up as I don't know when I'll get a chance to improve the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for incubation - until it can be stabilised enough, at the moment if ~~article creator~~ contributors are unsure on info, no point on keeping in article space. Nightfury 21:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well established company that is often in the news and who's products are often reviewed. Passes WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG. Significant coverage that is beyond trivial. Some of the coverage is recent (past month) Chaos2order (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to have good amount of coverage and as prior editors said, Google news brings up lot's of more references to this company. ~Leny Tee55~ 07:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The guidelines are clear on the types of references that can be used to establish notability and even though I've now trawled through about 50 references so far, not a single one comes even close. What is clear is that LetsTrack has an active marketing department. Can I ask any of the "Keep" !voters to provide two references that they believe meets the criteria. I draw special attention to WP:NCORP sections WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and also draw special attention to the following: Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:24, 5 April 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Noorda[edit]

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

To be honest, at this time her career has not reached the level of what we can make an article out of (from reliable sources). The only actual source here, Vogue, is a broken link; but what I was able to see didn’t substantiate enough for an article and we obviously can’t go on just one source. “Model with weight issues” isn’t notability. Trillfendi (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets basic WP:GNG. I edited and added couple of more references such as Vogue. She actually seems like a very popular model. If you do a Google image search for her name, there are endless number of pictures for her. IMO, this article should still be improved with more references and content. Google news also brings up more references to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter303x (talk • contribs)

Incredibly you managed to combine all the "arguments to avoid" into one comment. Trillfendi (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I count three different reliable sources, so it meets wp:GNG requirement. Markvs88 (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. However. Article should be developed with more references. Lubbad85 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - baffled where people are finding she passes GNG. Model directories do not count. A profile on New York Magazine does not count. An article about Amber Heard where she is mentioned does not count. A mention in a Vogue article about Bette's wedding does not count. Maybe the Vogue article about her eating habits is something. But that's one source. Where are you people seeing 3 reliable sources that actually discuss her? Yikes. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. Trillfendi (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fixed the Vogue dead-link and it seems a WP:SIGCOV: [32]. I note ABC News picked up on a follow piece her Vogue piece. [33]. Britishfinance (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also found this piece on her in Elle (magazine) [34], which also help clear up some citation issues tagged. Britishfinance (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Feel this is very borderline. Her March 2010 Vogue article about eating disorders was widely covered and there are other refs in Dutch sources from the weeks after that. Outside of that moment, the only other proper coverage on her is the Elle article. I can't find another strong RS on her that would seal it for me. Britishfinance (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Elle Germany 'article' is also a model profile and does not establish notability outside the fact that she IS a model. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of stuff I was talking about months ago but I got barked at, ganged up on, and called names for simply pointing it out. Which is why the requirements for NMODEL need to be revisited again because it’s getting out of control. Trillfendi (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. further discussion of merging can continue on the relevant talk page if needed Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland dress[edit]

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

I am feeling a bit like vandalistic or sacrilegious, but really, Alice's dress? I did some googling, and it is sold in zillions, beating Pirate's costume 2x, or remarks in passing that someone was wearing the AiW dress, but I failed to find any reasonable texts about it. In any case, it is 100% original research of dubious trthiness deserving to be nuked. If Alice's fans rescue it, I am all for it, but where have they been before? ... Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed position based on massive improvements - great work, Alarichall!) Delete It's kind of amusing to look at its Talk page - editors have been saying for years that they didn't understand why it was an article. I came across a source that I thought would surely discuss it (The Dress of the Book: Children's Literature, Fashion, and Fancy Dress) but it only had a brief discussion of Alice's dress. I think it's now become iconic, but it isn't notable. Schazjmd (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). The article is insufficiently sourced, but whatever there is to say about the topic that is sourced can be said in the article about the character. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia took a brief side trip down the rabbit hole in 2008. The "sources" are risible. Hah, I finally got to use that word. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I suppose there's enough there worth adding to the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything worth noting about the dress can be included in the main article on Alice. There is no justification for a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This is not a very timely deletion request, as an academic monograph, much of which is on this very topic, has just come out: Kiera Vaclavik, Fashioning Alice: The Career of Lewis Carroll's Icon, 1860-1901 (London: Bloomsbury, 2019) ISBN 9781474290388. I've also done some editing of the entry to provide academic references for some of the poorly referenced material and to add some of the academic coverage of the subsequent influence of Alice's dress. I think the article now meets the notability criteria of WP:GNG. So I hope we might see a case here for WP:HEY. But if not, let's recognise that there's significant material here that deserves to be merged rather than deleted. Alarichall (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). The dress may not deserve an individual article, but could qualify for a section in an article about the fictional character. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+

Keep It meets WP:GNG, with sufficient independent, reliable sources with significant coverage already in the article. In addition, the book which Alarichall added has a survey on page 5 [35] of the scholarly attention given to Alice's dress, naming as sources works about Sir John Tenniel by Simpson (1994), Morris (2005), Engen (1991) and Hancher (1985); and works about the history of childhood and children's costume by Roe (1959), Ewing (1977), Stuart (1933), Nunn (1984), and Brooke (1930), which could be followed up and added to the article. They also show that there has been sustained coverage of Alice's dress. Schazjmd said above that "it's now become iconic, but it isn't notable", but the extent of coverage indicates that it is indeed notable, and has been considered worthy of writing about by many authors over a long period. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion to see what people's views are since the article has been improved
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per Metropolitan90. Hispring (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after substantial improvements in referencing made by Alarichall and RebeccaGreen. The monograph by Kiera Vaclavik is "plainly non-trivial coverage"(to borrow the description from the GNG) of the subject. Vexations (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, really. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improvements made since the article was nominated for deletion [36] give it ample referenced material. Passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 23:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets WP:GNG, with sufficient independent, reliable sources with significant coverage already in the article. Regarding merging this article I submit that WP:Not paper covers that proposal.Lubbad85 (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets WP:GNG 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is already better than most of the garbage that survives AFD. I find it suspicious that an article on this topic showed up so soon after a book on the topic was published, with said book being basically advertised by the article's text, but that's a matter for fora other than AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the article existed long before the book did... Not that I have a problem with Wikipedia articles being written hot on the heels of academic research being published. Alarichall (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G7, also WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Schwarz (astrophysicist)[edit]

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

The subject has requested deletion. I am the page creator. I think the subject is notable, BUT, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." EAWH (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, spending multiple winters in Antarctica seems a bit trivial and I don't see much other notability per WP:ACADEMIC. --mikeu ^talk 12:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per subjects request. A non-public entity does have a right to privacy. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no prejudice against recreation as an appropriate redirect Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interhistorical[edit]

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

Poorly sourced buzzword. Article mainly serves as WP:PROMO for the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam. Obvious WP:COI (http://artdaily.com/news/100514/Oude-Kerk-opens-a-radical-and-site-specific-exhibition-by-Christian-Boltanski) Kleuske (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to an approach museums are using in response to Transhistoricity. A transhistorical approach in museums has works or artefacts spanning from different eras or movements kept separate, implying audiences draw ideas or conclusions retrospectively, and from individual time periods, outside of each other. The interhistorical approach, on the other hand, puts chronologies in conversation and/or confrontation, allowing conclusions to be drawn about the links in lineage that such time periods may have. The effect is a merging and meshing of time, where the beginning and end of an idea or perspective becomes more ambiguous (see the referenced article by Mieke Bal, under the section "in theory"). The Oude Kerk, Amsterdam section at the bottom of the article is given as an example for the way interhistoricity is used in museums. The invitation is open for other musea who use a similar method and approach to contribute to the article, since the section clearly states "in practice" JG@OudeKerkAMS (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But it needs independent, reliable sources to show that the term is actually notable. So far, only a few WP:PRIMARY sources (people coining the term) that are closely linked to the institution you seem to represent and which is mentioned prominently in the article have been cited. That is insufficient to meet the General Notability Guidelines and positively reeks of WP:PROMO. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is rife with WP:OR (and shockingly promotional) as well as an WP:NOTESSAY. Praxidicae (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems a bit odd to use an adverb (Interhistorical) as a Headword. I'd suggest a redirect, where a subsection might cover this new approach, if there existed a reasonable target that discusses exhibition practices. I'm not sure that we have such an article. Vexations (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself suggests a target when it says "This is often dubbed ‘transhistorical’". SpinningSpark 10:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or delete and redirect. WP:PROMO and WP:NOTESSAY. SpinningSpark 10:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. I did a "quick and dirty" merge, just copied everything not tagged as needing sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Egypt[edit]

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

There's an expat Indian community of a few hundred people, and there's some sporadic coverage of the Hindu festivals that they celebrate, but I'm not seeing anything on the topic of Hinduism in the country per se, and it's difficult to imagine why there should be in-depth sources about the religion of such a recent, small and likely transient community. It's conceivable that some content on this topic could be added to either Religion in Egypt or to Indians in Egypt, but I'm really not seeing anything that can be merged at this stage. – Uanfala (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there isn’t anything mergeable. Mccapra (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hinduism in Arab states until a bigger article can be drafted. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Dheerajmpai23. I agree with merge to Hinduism in Arab states. Alarichall (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, this is too small to be sensible at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Sandstein 20:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

China Windpower Group[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Just being listed on a stick exchange is not sufficient, see WP:LISTED. I can't find any non-trivial / non-press-release sources about the company. It existss, but WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for bureaucratic reason) Per WP:BEFORE, did you tried the Chinese name Chinese: 協合新能源, Chinese: 中國風電集團 or before reverse IPO, Chinese: 香港藥業集團? Yes, there are lots of Chinese concept stock in the Hong Kong stock exchange, which had a small market capitalization as well as lack of media coverage, but it would be a bias to say no English source thus delete. Matthew hk (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unfair to require the nominator to check other languages they may not be able to speak, and I don't see such a requirement on WP:BEFORE. If anyone can identify reliable sources in other languages, they are welcome to present them here. If not, saying that 'there may be sources in Chinese or another languages' is pretty much WP:MUSTBESOURCES. For the record, I did look at the Chinese version of this article, which has two references, and dismissed them, as machine translation suggests they are just press release/routine type of coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was in bad shape, but if you click the ticker symbol link, the current name of the company was Concord New Energy Group. And some googling, would got the former name of the company was Hong Kong Pharmaceutical Holdings. Matthew hk (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Analyst reports
1. Credit Suisse published a 1 November 2016 analyst report on pages 66–81 of https://plus.credit-suisse.com/rpc4/ravDocView?docid=V6fZD92AF-WElY95 written by analysts Gary Zhou, Gloria Yan, Dave Dai, and Patrick Jobin that profiles Concord New Energy, which is the successor to China Windpower Group. The report summarizes what the company does:
  Concord New Energy (CNE) specialises in wind and solar power operation. The company is the only pure vertical integrated clean energy power company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. CNE's core businesses include wind and solar farm investment, operation and services (early stage development, design and consultancy, construction, operation and maintenance, and new energy equipment manufacturing). CNE has investment in more than 52 wind & solar farm, and also owns power design, construction and installation company, as well as power farm operation and maintenance company.
  The report further notes:
  We initiate coverage of Concord New Energy (CNE) with an OUTPERFORM rating and DCF-based target price of HK$0.56. We expect CNE to deliver 24% FY16-18E EPS CAGR driven by—(1) balanced expansion of solar and wind farms; (2) wind utilisation recovery on policy support; and (3) construction margin improvement with business shift from EPC to BT model. Its current low-gearing ratio supports such growth.
  ...
  Key downside risks are (1) larger-than-expected solar tariff cut, (2) higher wind curtailment, and (3) lower build-and transfer (BT) revenue.
  ...
  CNE mainly focuses on wind and solar farm investment, operation and services. In 2015, 62% of CNE's operating profit came from wind and solar farm operation and 35% came from EPC business. Looking forward, we expect power plant operation to become the company's major growth driver. ...
  Unlike other pure wind/solar operators, CNE has diversified into both wind and solar farm operations. ...
  CNE was among the earliest companies to step into wind power business in 2007 (named as China Wind Power), and has extensive experience in EPC and wind farm operation. By 1H16, CNE had a total wind capacity of 1,777 MW and attributable wind capacity of 824 MW. During the previous years, most of CNE's invested wind farms were joint ventures or associates. Since 2015, with the improvement of the company's financing ability, it is gradually increasing its stake in the projects, and most of the new projects are consolidated. We expect its wind power to maintain the strong-growth momentum with around 59-71% attributable power output generated by wind in FY16-18E.
  ...
  Currently, the investors' major concern over wind operator's near-term visibility is the curtailment issue. ...
2. GF Securities (Hong Kong) Brokerage Limited (廣發控股(香港)有限公司) published a 12 December 2017 analyst report at https://www.gfgroup.com.hk/docs/gfgroup/securities/Report/CorporateReport/Concord%20New%20Energy%20(182%20HK)%20Dec%2012.pdf^{Internet Archive} written by analyst Han Ling that profiles Concord New Energy, which is the successor to China Windpower Group. The report notes:
  Concord New Energy (182 HK)
  Company focusing more on wind power business for steadier growth
  Wind power: curtailment issues alleviated The company’s wind power curtailment rate came down significantly from 24% in 1H16 to 12% in 1H17, with 72% of its pro-rata installed capacity in operation located in areas not subject to curtailment....
  Key risks include an economic downturn; weaker-than-expected policy support for solar and wind power; improvements in curtailment issues not being sustainable; subsidy payment delays; disappointments form the investment, development and operation of power plants; and slower-than-expected progress in BT projects.
3. Fitch Ratings published a 6 November 2017 analyst report at https://www.reuters.com/article/fitch-assigns-first-time-bb-rating-to-co-idAFFit90H4nP^{Internet Archive} written by analysts Renee Lam and Penny Chen. The report assigned a 'BB-' Rating to Concord New Energy. The report notes:
  The rating also incorporates CNE's high financial leverage due to large debt-funded expansionary capex as it aggressively expands capacity over the next two to three years, higher structural subordination relative to renewable transactions by Fitch-rated peers and the typical time lag in receiving subsidy payments faced by wind and solar generators in China. However, as CNE is largely exposed to wind power generation, its subsidy exposure is lower than for operators more exposed to solar. CNE has a weak near-term financial profile for its 'BB-' rating, characterised by its high financial leverage.
  ...
  Evolving Business Profile: CNE has actively managed its business strategy in response to changing market conditions and shifted its focus from EPC services and equipment sales to solar and wind farm development and operation. We believe CNE's experience in the upstream EPC segment helps mitigate execution risk to some extent, despite a short record in wind-power operation and management.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow China Windpower Group to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Cunard, which undertake independent analysis to evaluate risks, evaluate company health, and make comparisons to other companies in the industry, satisying WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. MarginalCost (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The first "keep" is by a now-blocked editor, the second by a SPA. Sandstein 20:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Orchestra[edit]

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

This article was recently accepted through AfC, but it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The 4 references in the article are only mentions in passing, and do not support any of the main claims of notability for the subject. A Google search turns up little except mentions of an organization by the same name in the U.S. I believe this fails WP:NORG. Bradv🍁 15:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv:, thank you for your input! Presently the article might be lacking significant coverage in regards to the sources. However, it is worth including for the following reasons. As it was mentioned, there is already a wikipedia article about another orchestra with nearly the same name - "Concord Chamber Orchestra" from Wisconsin. That article has only one source - their official website. Google search first shows the numerous videos and images from Concord Orchestra discussed here and afterwords the wikipedia article about Concord Chamber Orchestra. This might create a confusion. That is why I believe there should be a mention that they are two different orchestras. I have added this information into the article about Concord Orchestra - "not to be mistaken with Concord Chamber Orchestra". Moreover, Concord Orchestra has concerts in Europe (Germany) in 2019 as it says on their website and European audience might be looking for information about it. Dariakupila (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But needs more references. Google search and news search brings up additional sources.--AfPEN (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AfPEN, can you provide an example? I couldn't find any significant coverage, which is why I nominated this. Bradv🍁 18:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked for undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 09:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources in the article and what I can find elsewhere are press releases, passing mentions or otherwise unreliable and do not contribute to notability. In fact, I'd argue that what I did find could potentially support an article on a different Concord Orchestra, just not this one. Praxidicae (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— I think this person not eligible to notability and i couldn't find any significant news coverage. Need more reference if keep this article an a also improve this article.Swe123123 (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I was mentioning before the discussed Concord Orchestra has concerts in Europe. See the link. It also has many recent and older videos and images that come up in Google Search. I believe that the visual content online is just as important as the written one especially when it comes to the music and performing arts. The orchestra has been existed for a few years already. The article is not created to promote a fresh act but to make it clear for the foreign audience where this orchestra comes from. I strongly believe that this article has all the chances to be improved if it stays here. It is difficult to get foreign sources before a foreign tour but there is more to come in 2019. Dariakupila (talk) 09:33, 31 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KCCL Odisha[edit]

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

Overt promotion. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:RS. There's a whole lot of unsourced materials on the page. Lapablo (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sound very much like an annual report to stockholders. The company might possibly be notable , but an article would have to be started over. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 1 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zentail[edit]

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

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1	Affiliated partner.	~ For basic info, yes; for claims of notability, no.	Not really, just gives a short corporate summary and a link to their website.	✘ No
2	Affiliated seed accelerator.	~ Ditto.	One line and a link to their website isn't significant.	✘ No
3	Self-published.	~ For an albeit flowery product description, yes; for claims of notability of said product, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
4	Completely unrelated.	Press release.	Does not mention Zentail at all.	✘ No
5	Self-published.	~ For basic info, yes; for claims of notability, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
6	No apparent affiliation.	? The source appears to be a mixture of an esoteric publication and a blog.	The post heavily relies on Zentail to make a point about the type of software and the industry as a whole.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The above source analysis seems to suggest that Zentail has not garnered the requisite depth of coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to be considered notable as a company. SITH (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several other sources of news about this company, although I feel the article lacks enough references. This article can therefore be improved upon, and as it meets the basic WP:GNG it should be retained.--AfPEN (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked for undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 00:09, 30 March 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. It appears that the individual has not played at the highest level, and therefore a merge Estonia national cricket team would be misleading. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Heath[edit]

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

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not played in a first-class, List A or T20 match. Article is also full of BLP issues, using the subject's Facebook page as a source. Not sure if the poker claims in the article pass any notability either. Finally, the article's creator was blocked for block evasion/socking. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G5, otherwise delete as not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Badly treated by administrators (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCRICKET and I suggest at 186000th global ranking and 47th Estonian ranking also fails any notability for card playing. Aoziwe (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or second choice merge with Estonia national cricket team). Meets WP:NCRICKET criteria 1 "Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level" and I have added a source verifying his captainship of the Estonian team in international matches, and mentions his participation in an upcoming international T20 tournament alongside a previous international win over Luxembourg. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The games look like second or even third level internationals to me? Estonia is not recognised as a top level cricket cricket country by the ICC as far as I can tell. It has only affiliate status. This is even stated in the relevant article. So they are not playing at the highest level? Aoziwe (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, hence why I'm more confident of a "merge" / "redirect" carrying through to consensus. However my experience with cricketer articles is things can get controversial. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I think the NSPORT bar is way too easy to get over. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "top-level" match, as it's the Estonian second XI, playing matches in this tri-series. And even if it was the 1st team, the subject would still fail WP:NCRIC, as the matches fail point #4. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Lugnuts. It is not a full international team for Estonia. The match is not a T20I. And T20Is for associate ICC members need to be in a T20 World Cup, T20 World Cup qualifier, or regional qualifier final stages to count as 'highest level' anyway. I do feel that this needs to be made clearer though as it is not beyond reason to consider any T20I as 'highest level' in a sense. Regardless, this Estonian XI is not playing full T20Is anyway.Bs1jac (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The games concerned would be an official T20 International but the Estonian team could not field 11 Estonia qualified players and had to field some guest players. Once Estonia plays a full T20 Internatonal you could revisit this discussion. Topcardi (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article creator has been blocked as sockpuppet and this article is the only cricket-related article this user has started. Unlike some which may later become notable, I would say that at the age of 40, perhaps this individual may not appear in matches beyond this point. As for "the NSPORT guidelines being too easy to get over".... where have you been through 15 years' worth of continuous conversation? Why do bored exclusionists seem to appear out of nowhere and formulate rules based on their own limited understanding - and why do they complain without being able to give an alternative worthwhile, universally applicable, NPOV inclusion criterion? Bobo . 15:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. He has not played in a first-class, List A or T20 match and hence does not qualify. The matches played by Estonia in the current tournament do not have an official status as Estonia could not send an eligible XI. If he later plays in an official T20 the question is then about 'highest level' and WP:NCRIC currently says an associate ICC member t20i only passes if within specific levels of tournament (which this tournament would not be). Bs1jac (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable player, fails the already absurdly low NCRICKET criteria. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See above. If you are unhappy with the CRIN criteria, as have recently been expanded, please bring this through the appropriate channels based on your knowledge of the subject and suggest alternative universally applicable inclusion criteria. Bobo . 11:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCRIC, not likely to pass the criteria anytime soon. StickyWicket (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. - The matches involving Estonia in the T20I series were not granted international status despite the initial announcement which was given by ICC in January 2019 that all associate teams would get T20I status. ESPN Cricinfo website has also been quite reluctant in updating the stats related to the series due to other ongoing prominent cricket matches and leagues. Cricinfo stated the matches involving Estonia XI were treated as "Other T20" quite similar to the Hong Kong T20 Blitz. Abishe (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cricket notability rules are just plain absurb. We need to come up with a more reasonable set of notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody who ever says that ever comes up with new ones which are universally applicable and which can be used universally as a yardstick. I wonder why? Is it because everything which has been stuck to for the last 15 years has been absolutely fine? Sure, we come across anomalies like the one we've seen recently, but that's nothing to do with our guidelines. If you can't suggest new, universally applicable guidelines, please don't tell us the ones we've been working to are wrong. In any case, if this cricketer does fail CRIN, that's a meaningless point. Bobo . 09:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about at least one first class wicket or at least thirty first class runs or at least one first class catch or at least one first class run out? Aoziwe (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, perhaps the reason they only made a single first-class appearance was exactly that reason! Any extra "benchmark" anyone adds which contains a value judgment would be a breach of NPOV. Bobo . 00:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of our notability guidelines are by definition intrinsically value judgements. Aoziwe (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Martand Singh[edit]

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

On his own he is not notable. India is now a democracy with no more kingdoms and thus no more thrones to inherit. There is a claim of him being a titular ruler , but that means something like Queen of England and Emperor of japan, this person on the other hand has no such official title or power. Either way, In the case of J&K, the kingdom was handed over to India by the then king of kashmir in the 1950s, effectively stripping him and his descendants of royalty. A few of his relatives seem to be politicians, but not him. Daiyusha (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to say I think lots of our articles on claimaints to thrones need deleting, but this one is a very clear case for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough for sure, spare kids of so called kings. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baguio (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Links in the disambiguation page are only mostly related articles and/or partial matches (Baguio Cathedral, Baguio Airport, etc.) and do not appear to need disambiguation. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The listed articles are distinct from each other. There's no need for disambiguation. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, but there was a long discussion in 2006 on why this page was created at Talk:Baguio (disambiguation). Howard the Duck (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct that there is no disambiguation needed. We need to disambiguate Cyrus Baguio when a user has just typed Baguio. People are commonly referred to by their surnames, and I have lost count of the number of times dab pages have helped me provide a link in articles I write when I only know the surname or initials. The page is also useful for readers who have typed "baguio" in error for bagyo. Of course, both of those can be handled with hatnotes, and it is no great loss to dump all the partial matches. I have no overwhelming preference for which solution should be adopted, but I don't want us to delete the page without first attending to what is useful to the reader. So I am at don't delete unless and until suitable hatnotes are created. SpinningSpark 10:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are two people who would form a clumsy hatnote if there were no dab page, and many of the partial matches are entities which could plausibly be referred to as plain "Baguio". Have added the RC diocese, in that category. Have also cleaned up some of the excessivley wordy entries. PamD 11:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep per PamD. SpinningSpark 12:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to Keep. Everything listed under "Baguio may also refer to:" except Metro Baguio should be removed. This is based on Manila (disambiguation). --Hiwilms (talk) 16:35, 30 March 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nereida Fuentes González[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. If I'm not confused, all coverage in the article appears local and routine per WP:GNG, and Tecate is not a large enough town to get its mayor a pass on political notability grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 05:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:53, 29 March 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sparks (charity)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Blatant COI (creator of the page is User:SparksCharity), and the only significant coverage I found of the charity was this Bloomberg profile and this article on its merger. The "significant rewrite" clamored for in the first AfD never happened, and it fails WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 04:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: I added a couple of references but they rely heavily on primary sources, concerning this small charity's operational merger. Aside from these and the routine listings which provide the other references, I can find passing mention confirming Jimmy Hill's involvement in its foundation but nothing sufficient for the current WP:ORGDEPTH requirements. A redirect/merge of a sentence into Great_Ormond_Street_Hospital#Great_Ormond_Street_Hospital_Children's_Charity could be an alternative to outright deletion, though that may still require better WP:RS coverage to avoid being undue coverage. AllyD (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over - The article has been in this COI scenario since the creator made it in 2009. The first AfD called for keeping the article provided it gets rewritten. As stated above, it never happened. The majority of the edits have a COI - this will be present regardless of a rewrite and given its history of COI editors - it needs TNT to start over. – The Grid (talk) 15:38, 29 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Schuck[edit]

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

Though beloved in the community, Wes Schuck doesn't meet general notability guidelines. The article was added in 2015 by an account apparently created solely for that purpose (as was the article for the film referenced herein, using a separate account, and which is similarly not notable) and which is for all practical purposes the page's only editor. No edits since the page was created in 2015 aside from routine tagging. B.Rossow · talk 18:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep This person passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The article should be developed Gristleking (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE 06:07, 5 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAgent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable, and promotional, Every references here is either just an announcement of funding, or a placement on a list along with dozens of other companies, or a mention, or from the company itself. Such references do not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find very little other than marketing and some routine funding announcements. Not enough for notability. The subject's founders/principals are possibly notable, but their company does not inherit. Aoziwe (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Startup which seems to be doing well, but nowhere is there the kind of coverage which Wikipedia notability requires. (This comes somewhere near to qualifying for speedy deletion under a couple of criteria, but perhaps not quite under either of them. It is very similar in charcter to the article deleted at the previous deletion discussion, though by no means identical, making G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) dubious; it is unmistakably promotional, in my opinion borderline for G11, and I think many administrators, less cautious than DGG, might have gone for that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed any references to the company itself and have also made the Services section less promotional. References to any insignificant lists have been removed. The remaining lists that the company have appeared on and awards the company have won are quite notable in Australia. In the startup ecosystem in Australia, OpenAgent is comparable to Expert360, hipages and Canva. I'm happy to make any further changes or find more notable references. BabushkaApothecary (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have removed some references, but the objection was that there was a lack of suitable references. Removing references, whether good ones or bad ones, can never make up for an absence of good ones. There is now even less in the way of sourcing than there was before. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious compliance[edit]

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

The article relies primarily on a single source, and the only other source in the article defines the term very differently. Coverage online is mostly from unreliable sources. Non-notable buzzword. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it’s clear the term is widely used and somewhat fuzzy in its meaning so there is the basis for an article. There are decent sources at the Financial Times, Security Today, Researchgate and a Masters thesis in progress so it’s looking pretty sound to me at the moment. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: in what way do the two sources have a different definition? The CNN source says "Malicious compliance is when your boss tells you to do something and you do it even though you know it's not going to have the desired result." The DeHart-Davis book says "Malicious compliance leads one to adhere to the letter but not the spirit of a rule. Through malicious compliance, employees send an 'I'll show you' message..." They sound pretty much the same to me. SpinningSpark 09:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of discussion in reliable book sources. Besides the sources already in the article, there is,
- Change Management: New Words for Old Ideas devotes a whole chapter to it
- Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams has the best part of a page on the subject
- Best Practices in Leadership Development and Organization Change gives it a section with a couple of paragraphs
- Nuclear Safety: A Human Factors Perspective discusses a specific example over a couple of pages
- Air Management for the Fire Service discusses the specific firefighting example for more than a page.

SpinningSpark 09:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Fundamental concept in running or participating an organization, office, family, etc. There are tons of good sources that explicate this and if you click on the links provided in an AFD you will easily see this. This will easily go beyond a mere definition. Article can and will be improved. The Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment, i.e. deletion, has no place here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of news sources and elsewhere use this term, it a real thing, and there enough valid material to justify a Wikipedia article for it. Dream Focus 17:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I knew about this subject many years back because it was being done in some industrial facilities, causing bad things to happen. I'll just leave it at that... JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compliance with WP:Before. There is enough material to justify an article.Lubbad85 (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request speedy close. The nominator appears not to be interested in defending their nomination. The community has better things to do than waste time on a drive-by nomination, especially one that is heading for WP:SNOW. SpinningSpark 15:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Well the article would have to be written entirely from scratch if it is kept. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 5 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linzhi Ltd[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE reveals no reliable source coverage with sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - all sources are crypto blogs, no evidence of mainstream RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 31 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Corey (blues musician)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any indication that this subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Significant coverage of the subject and their work seems to be limited to sources of dubious reliability (plus trivial listings of performances in more reliable, albeit local, papers), and I was unable to find anything more reliable. It's not impossible that I missed something, as there was a fair amount of interference searching online due to other more famous people sharing the name, but the fact that their Allmusic profile doesn't even have a bio is not a good sign notability-wise. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:35, 29 March 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 Caecilia Metella Balearica. Whoever does the merge needs to be careful to make sure everything being merged really meets WP:V. In particular, see the comments in the discussion about some of the sources being questionable, possibly vanity press, posibly even hoaxes. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caecilia Metella Balearica (priestess)[edit]

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

This woman did not exist. She is not in the Realencyclopedie, not in Broughton, nor in any reliable source on the period. She seems to come from Colleen McCullough's novel Fortune's Favourite. The sources in the article refer to the historical Caecilia Metella. It seems that the confusion came from an anecdote about the real Metella, who had a vision in a dream that compelled her to restore the temple of Juno Sospita; however the sources tell that she was pregnant during that event, so she could not have been a vestal virgin. T8612 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources: T. P. Wiseman wrote two articles on the Caecilii Metelli in 1965 and 1971, but he does not mention a Metella as vestal. More recently, Kaj Sandberg & Christopher Smith drew a stemma of the Caecilii Metelli (p. 430) that doesn't have Metella the vestal.T8612 (talk) 12:03, 29 March 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 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the claims made by the nominator are true, this article should be added to WP:HOAXLIST. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I should have waited a bit to break the record.^^ Seriously, I don't think there was an intention to deceive. The article originally relied on a source, which was rightly deleted last year by @Llywrch:, but the article remained. T8612 (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I removed the reference because (1) it was added by an account that I suspect was a sockpuppet of a banned user (named below) who is known to have invented personages like this one, with the tell-tale practice of citing books without page numbers; & (2) according to to a Wikipedian in Brazil, the publisher of the cited work is better known as a vanity press, thus undercutting any possible credibility the work might have. Due to lack of time, I go further than that in determining if she actually existed. But I'm confident this is a hoax. -- llywrch (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and he created 373 articles, 240 of which are stubs, and also got 17 deleted. Someone should go through that list, there may be other fictitious people. T8612 (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the sources to this article, but I had not checked to see if there was another article about Caecilia Metella Balearica. If this one was invented by Colleen McCullough, then I would suggest merging this article into the other one (the info about Sextus Roscius is supported by scholarly sources, but is not yet in the other article), and adding a section on 'Caecilia Metella Balearica in popular culture' to the other. Readers of those books might well search for information about her, and if McCullough based her character on the historical one, it would be useful to say so. I will try to investigate further - for example, does McCullough give information in her books about which characters are historical and which she has fictionalised? RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems a good idea, then. From the other article at least one claim "Her oldest sister was a Vestal Virgin" needs to be deleted, assuming there's no proper evidence for it. And the sooner the better, because I can see at least three genealogy pages on the web that look like descendants of this page of ours.

This article was created, long ago, by User:G.-M. Cupertino, an account somehow connected with well known, widely used genealogical publications that are not always accepted as reliable ... Andrew Dalby 09:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby:What publications are you thinking about? T8612 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Work by Christian Settipani, some of it published from an address in an Oxford college.

NB1: I don't know of any connection beyond the fact that G.-M. Cupertino often cited this material. The G.-M. Cupertino account has been blocked for sockpuppetry. NB2: since the publications aren't, or weren't, available on line, I only know of them at second hand. Andrew Dalby 09:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This woman did exist. She did assist Roscius who was being defended by Cicero (see Syme, Approaching the Roman Revolution, 84-85). She was the daughter of Balearicus, consul 123 BC. I'm not familiar with Colleen McCulloch, so I'm not sure which parts come from her book. But at first glance it looks like the last paragraph is fictitious, and the reference to her being a Vestal and a priestess are also wrong.Urg writer (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are speaking of the other Caecilia Metella. There was no Metella vestal/priestess. I added the part about Sextus Roscius to the correct article. T8612 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same person. Both articles are full of inaccuracies. I agree they should be merged, and the accurate bits kept in one historical article. Urg writer (talk) 20:26, 1 April 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 Portland Museum of Modern Art. Lradon You will be able to retrieve the text of the article via the "View history" feature and selecting an old revision to view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Libby Werbel[edit]

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

Hello. The initial version of this article stated that Werbel "is the founder and director of the Portland Museum of Modern Art (PMOMA)" without clarifying that PMOMA, to quote from one of the sources, is "a microscopic basement space in her friend’s music shop". The current version of this article still states in the lede that Werbel "is an artist" but I am not sure that is correct: she appears to have studied art, to be the founder/owner of an art gallery (ie PMOMA), and to have curated exhibitions at various museums. Content about Werbel and PMOMA is supported by very primary and/or very local and/or very niche sources. Content about exhibitions Werbel curated does not pertain to her own notability, but rather to the notability of the artists whose production was on display. To conclude, the subject does not pass GNG. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space or user space. I'd like to give this editor more time to work on the article, which was created at a recent Art+Feminism event. I don't see any harm in preserving the page's history in the draft or user space. The page can be deleted at a later date if no further improvements are made. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portland Museum of Modern Art.~~Delete~~ PMOMA has some good coverage (example) but if we just go by that it seems like BLP1E. Someone would have to find in-depth coverage on her other accomplishments, which is possible but, judging from my search, seems unlikely. If we remove the items that talk about the development and programming of the PMOMA, there are three sentences left. eThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to redirect, as Portland Museum of Modern Art actually seems to meet notability requirements.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This person may be notable. Let's give the article a bit of room to breathe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- As an alternative to deletion, if Werbel is not independently notable, the page would serve as a useful redirect to Portland Museum of Modern Art.Thsmi002 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Thsmi002:... I think you may have missed something here: PMOMA is not a museum, it is a basement art gallery that Werbel decided to call Portland Museum of Modern Art because "it would be funny and bold". So the article you have created, even assuming the topic is notable, is very very misleading and miscategorised. Actually, you have just amplified what I was trying to fend off. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky, yes, but Portland Museum of Modern Art seems to meet notability requirements: coverage over time in reliable sources. Changing my vote above to redirect to Portland Museum of Modern Art. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Werbel's work with PMOMA is notable for the artists whose work it has presented, internationally recognized artists and those who have been included in exhibitions such as the Whitney Biennial. It is common in the second decade of the 21st century for project spaces such as this to make significant contributions to culture. Lradon (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve (not sure if that means draftify or not) Werbel's curation, if it receives its own attention, IS notable and I think the citations support that. Culd also see putting this in a section under PMOMA except that article is currently so teeny. Jessamyn (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I created this article. Werbel's curatorial work might not be fully captured if it were to be folded into the PMOMA article. Regarding the assertion that her activities have not been widely covered in secondary sources, such is the state of arts criticism, but her work has been covered by every significant regional outlet from the statewide daily paper to public broadcasting. I will continue to add information to the article. Lradon (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nebulas (blockchain platform)[edit]

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

Cryptocurrency that's not notable. Best source in the article is Tech In Asia and I couldn't find anything better. Їис́єӏ (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Promotional spam, second ref states; Should I invest in this company. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Delete The article clearly needs to be stripped, but I was able to find somewhat significant coverage from independent sources here, here, and here. Dr-Bracket (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr-Bracket: I'm pretty sure it's the not the same company, just a similar name. https://www.nebula.org vs https://nebulas.io Їис́єӏ (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. It appears these are entirely different cryptocurrencies, the former of which is more notable. Dr-Bracket (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as of in the notability it do not have at all. ﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on balance - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 29 March 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.