Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 20 August	22 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Schweichler[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no explanation given. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as Schweichler has never made an appearance (as player or manager) in a fully professional league or senior international match. Also fails WP:GNG, as his work as a goalkeeping coach lacks notability and sources provided are WP:ROUTINE coverage. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments feels very WP:PROMOTIONAL and User:FootballDataManager account, one of the key contributors added a lot of work and only to this article. This maybe a WP:G11 candidate for deletion. Govvy (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete or G11. It's promo just with all the wording, use of CV as heading and that photo. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 00:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:43, 24 August 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles McAlister[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, the only mentions of him in secondary sources are trivial and not significant. CataracticPlanets (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dispassionately have to agree with nom. In terms of WP:GNG, the subject doesn't seem to meet the expected criteria. The independent coverage that is available (pretty much all of which seems to be included in the article itself) is not significant, and represents (for the most part) passing mentions in witness statements from the Bureau of Military History archives. The subject is not the primary topic in any of these references (or indeed in any other texts that I can find). Hence GNG is not met. In terms of WP:MILPERSON, the subject doesn't seem to have held a particularly high-rank, or have played a significant role in the events described. Or otherwise meet any of the related criteria. (The text of the article itself notes that he didn't actually take part in the Easter Rising, was hospitalised through a significant portion of the War of Independence, and held a somewhat administrative role in the Civil War). In general terms I would note that 50,000 officers and men served alongside him in the Civil War, and 15,000 alongside him in the War of Independence. I see nothing to suggest that he was any more notable than the tens of thousands of others involved. Hence NMILPERSON also isn't met. In terms of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the subject and text seems better suited to a family history archive than to this project. In short: delete. (Or maybe userfy. So the author can move it to Ancestry.com or similar. Which would seem to be more suited to this type of content). Guliolopez (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There is a lack of objective criteria - Arguments_for_deleting_non-notable_articles. Keeping this page will further the documentation of Irish historic events. The events took place during an era where there was no technology and so the subjective nature of existing documentation is questionable. This documents a minor character from major events in Irish history. Aspects of this article can be considered as an alternate view of the relevant notable events mentioned in the article. If historic events are only documented from the view of prominent figures, then it could result in a wooden type of history. Articles like this can provoke discussion and further enlightenment of historic events. The centenary of many of the events described occurs around this time therefore increasing the notability of this article.
The content in this article will help enrich the semantic web should wikipedia be striving towards developing a 'semantic web' or a 'semantic web browser'.
The cartoon image contained in the article, "Major "Mac" helps ref reconsider "decision"", would suggest that the subject was of notable interest at the time. As stated in the article the subject supported the playing off all sports in the Irish Army not just Gaelic games (GAA). This was contrary to the majority view. The playing of foreign sports is still debated within the GAA to this day, most recently Liam Miller's memorial match Liam Miller's tribute match. The subject would therefore be notable due to their choice to reject this notable rule.

-- John McAlister (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --[reply]

Comment. I don't normally like to respond to or query other's inputs to AfD discussions (on the basis that all editors are entitled to their opinion, and the right to express it, without having it questioned out-of-hand). However, as the above comment was your first/only/ever contribution to the project (and hence you may not be as familiar with project norms as perhaps others might be), I would highlight that notability is not inherited. Just because a subject was involved or associated with something notable (a debate on which sports should be played or even a war), that doesn't make them notable themselves. In your own words, a "minor character in major events" (or in the project's terms, a subject notable only for involvement in a single event) are specifically out of project scope. So that argument do not follow. Nor does the "put it all in and let search engines sort it out" (semantic web) argument. In fact, both of these arguments are specifically accounted-for in related guidelines. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest further research before deleting this article possibly with the help of Project Ireland members. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I re-listed this with the sports articles. He may be able to pass WP:GNG there as a member of the Davis Cup team. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Hawkeye7. Can you explain what you are talking about please? The article does not claim that McAlister was a member of Ireland 1923 Davis Cup team. Not least because he demonstrably was not. The statement made (unsupported by any references of any kind) is that McAlister simply went to a tennis match that Cecil Campbell was playing in. (Campbell was, of course, a member of the 1923 Davis Cup team, but Campbell is not the subject of this article.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. You're right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of references, even if not a lot of detail available. His tennis may meet SNG. Would be a shame to delete such a detailed article. Middledistance99 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I mentioned that I don't normally query other's contributions to AfD discussions, I am having a hard time following my own rule here. Because, even if "lots of detail" or "lots of references" were valid arguments in an AfD discussion (and they are not), there are demonstrably *not* a lot of references. And just 4 or 5 which actually refer to the subject in any way. Of the dozen or so references provided, and just by way of example, the reference provided for the subject's mobilisation in the Easter Rising makes no mention of the subject whatsoever. Nor does the link provided to support the claim that he lived with his family at Custume Barracks, which appears to be a photo of a building. And, what this webpage has to do with any of the text it is intended to support is absolutely anyone's guess (it is offered to support a quote attributed vaguely to someone speaking to the subject's wife's employer - and then only barely mentioned the latter). In general terms, of the references which might seem to contribute to notability, I would note that McAllister is mentioned three times (and then only in passing) in Boyne's 2015 book on Emmet Dalton. Only mentioned once in McDermott's 2001 work on the Belfast pogroms. And briefly in a footnote in Hopkinson's 2004 book on the Civil War. These latter references may (just about) support some of the claims in the text. But do not support notability. Guliolopez (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also, Middledistance99, can you help me understand how "his tennis may meet SNG"? The WP:NTENNIS notability guidelines would expect that he have competed in an international team tournament (Davis Cup/etc), top professional tournament (Wimbledon), or otherwise hold a related record. The only thing the article claims is that the subject watched someone else play at Wimbledon (ie: he was a member of the audience - not a competitor). And that, vaguely, the subject "played tennis and golf". Playing a sport ("for fun/leisure") doesn't contribute to notability. Guliolopez (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the coverage to meet the GNG or the accomplishments necessary to show he meets any other notability standards.Sandals1 (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great article. A no brainer!Bashereyre (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Bashereyre. Can you please provide an argument against the AfD nomination? "It's a great article" does not address the GNG, NMIL or other points raised by the nominator. And is specifically highlighted as an invalid AfD argument in the relevant guidelines. Also, respectfully, an article which relies almost entirely on unqualified and unverifiable "information from the family" is demonstrably not in keeping with the good/great article criteria, and would seem to highlight that the subject has not been the primary topic of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (If we have to rely on unpublished/family sources, then it should be a red flag that published sources are not available, and [if published sources are not available] a red flag that GNG/SIGCOV is a concern). Guliolopez (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't review the book sources, but I really don't see significant coverage in the sources provided, and the best ones appear WP:PRIMARY. Appreciate Guliolopez's contribution above. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2040 in Germany[edit]

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

Definition WP:CRYSTAL. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Four or five years into the future, maybe at a push, but 22 years? A bit too early. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to add to the nom. —Kusma (t·c) 10:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom about crystal gazing, so WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON. Ajf773 (talk)
Delete No use for an article about a country 22 years in the future. No possibility to get it past stub. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not an archive for list of future predictions. The planned event may obviously get delayed or happen earlier. wait it out until that event actually happens and then one can make such an article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all comments. Redditaddict6 9 00:25, 29 August 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Sowell[edit]

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

Fails all notability guidelines as he was solely a failed candidate. Never held elected office. Redditaddict6 9 20:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable defeated candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable outside his failed candidacies. What little information is here can be moved to the requisite Senate race articles. SportingFlyer talk 11:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete found nothing beyond WP:MILL coverage of multiple candidacies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lore Sjöberg[edit]

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

No acceptable citations. Highly promotional, non-encyclopedic. Notability not established. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 20:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the attempts to show notability are tangential to the subject. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article or redirect to Brunching Shuttlecocks. Orientls (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would agree with User:Orientls but this is not going to be a likely search term nor do many articles link to this. If whoever closes this AfD feels that it is, then please do so. Redditaddict6 9 03:29, 29 August 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Hay Bright[edit]

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

Presents no notability; passes no notability guidelines. Failed U.S. Senate candidate and that's about it. ADDITION: The article seems to have been created by herself (User:JeanHayBright). Redditaddict6 9 20:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unsourced. SportingFlyer talk 13:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a completely unsourced biography of a living person. Beyond this, failed candidates need really good and strong sourcing, both of which are lacking in her case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quite a lot of WP:MILL coverage of her campaigns exists, Maine has papers and radio stations in Bangor, Portland, and some smaller ones. fails WP:AUTHOR, Maine newspapers carried headlines like , Mill Hays writes book to retire campaign debt, but no reviews or INDEPTH on the books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2018 (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 coypyvio - on checking the source given, I found the article to be virtually copied and pasted from the source. Therefore I made an executive decision and nuked it, without prejudice to a new article being created that can meet WP:GNG via WP:V by WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klein-Flugzeugträger[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax, a forum creation, or so obscure that it does not meet GNG. There are no hits in Gbooks and only wiki mirrors, apart from the only source, a DeviantArt post. Either way, the article ought to be deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Why would anybody submit a ship design to a Police General like Daleuge?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I though this was definitely a hoax until I saw this. Now I am just confused. The lack of secondary sources certainly says delete at this point, but primary sources may exist and there may be something to the story, unplausible as it sounds (why would Dräger work on things that are not related to gases/breathing?) —Kusma (t·c) 21:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See here, p. 40, Folder 324 (US National Archives) for another mention. So if it is a hoax, it is pre-1960s and has made it into various archives. —Kusma (t·c) 21:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those - so that rules out the hoax/forum creation possibility, but it's still too obscure (and I say this as somebody who writes articles on obscure German warships) to warrant an article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. It may be an interesting story to write about for a military history journal, but it is not fit for Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 10:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Assuming this was not a hoax - this was a paper design that simply went no where. This was a private proposal of an oddly specified ship (possibly inspired by the Merchant aircraft carrier? Which actually did serve a military purpose) with no real conceivable use in the German navy at a phase in the war where the German surface navy was irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2018 (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. Six out of six comments stating a clear "keep" consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling in Israel[edit]

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSTATS, this article is just a list of stats and regulations with no assertion of WP:NOTABILITY or any description of how recycling in Israel can be compared to any other country. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable topic, that currently covers 2 laws in Israel (acts of legislation are usually assumed to pass GNG). Hewiki shows an abundance of additional content. Article could use expansion, but content is not in the TNT zone.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A patently notable topic. The fact that the article article needs improvement is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG. WP:NOT is simply not applicable. James500 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG. Needs development not deletion.Charles (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is barebones, but the topic meets GNG, as can be seen via Google news preview: [1]. The article can be developed futher; no reason for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough references in the article as is to verify notability and the two laws that are listed do indeed distinguish recycling in Israel from recycling in other countries. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon Common Parkrun[edit]

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

This individual parkrun event is not notable. The sources listed as not RS. I redirected this article to parkrun but was reverted. We've already deleted several of these articles but more keep being created. Natureium (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Natureium (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very sad that these pages keep getting deleted. These events are attended by so many people and an article for these events would really add to Wikipedia. Not sure what deleting these pages achieves. We could make a nice article for each parkrun, which would be easily navigable by visiting a category list. These do not 'clutter' or 'clog up' Wikipedia, they instead provide interesting insight into the parkrun events. Middledistance99 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Strike comment from block-evading sockpuppet. --Yamla (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a directory of things that might be useful to people, it's an encyclopedia of notable subjects, which apparently these races are not. There are other sites across the web that would be a good place for it, you can even start your own wiki that is dedicated to parkruns in England. ... discospinster _talk 20:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~True, but these pages are backed up by references and I will help to find more. Middledistance99 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major, well established event in the running community. Mentioned by the BBC, as well as in the newspapers. It is not for the good of Wikipedia to delete respectable pages which may be of interest to fellow readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middledistance99 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. There is simply never going to be much encyclopedic content on the vast majority of parkruns, and all we have here is some general parkrun info and some stats. Anything that makes individual parkruns remarkable can be covered in the Parkrun article, but I don't see anything here. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it is highly unlikely that an individual ParkRun would be notable (and I say this as a keen ParkRunner). Currently the only independent source in the article is about ParkRun in general and only gives the briefest of passing mentions to Wimbledon, and I'm not seeing anything else out there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Parkrun is currently collecting parkrun profiles like this one [2] with a view to printing a book, when that happens it'll be cloned by independent and secondary print sources and these parkruns will all get added - paper print is pretty solid for referencing purposes. Szzuk (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that ParkRun might publish a book, which might get "cloned" (what does that even mean?) sounds a bit WP:CRYSTAL to me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ref in the article is fine. Also this could be referenced with this paper print book [3] Szzuk (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for more or less the same reasons as my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banstead Woods Parkrun 2. There are a few more passing mentions in reliable sources for this than for the Banstead Woods article, but passing mentions is all they are. The Dean Carter book linked above by Szzuk seems to be self-published, and so doesn't help to establish notability. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book certainly helps establish notability. I don't know whether the book was published by Szzuk, but, it does not matter if it is, as I created the page, therefore the article is not original research. This book in terms of this article is an independant source, with multiple pages dedicated for information regarding the article subject. Middledistance99 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is suggesting that the book was published by Szzuk. But it was self-published by its author, which in 99.99% of cases disqualifies it from being a reliable source (see WP:SPS)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from a potential WP:OR issue, that's a self published book and a collection of a bunch of random profiles, so it definitely doesn't meet the threshold of RS or independent and significant. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should keep this article. The book had sold fairly well on Amazon, written by a person with first hand experience of the runs (helping reliability) . The fact that the author has had the interest to write the book, with a decent number of people reading it, helps to demonstrate notability.

~~20,000 is a lot of individuals (not cumulative) for the history of an event. I think the SNG for sports should be updated. Middledistance99 (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Middledistance99: Without wanting to sound patronising, you really ought to read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, if you haven't already. What you're missing is that notability and reliability have specific meanings on Wikipedia, and are used in ways that differ from the ways we might use those terms in other contexts. For example, one of those differences is that "first hand experience" is actually not what we look for in a reliable source at all: we almost always prefer sources written by people at a distance from their subject. Likewise, a book having sold lots of copies might indicate notability or reliability in other contexts, but it isn't relevant for determining notability or reliability in the senses used by Wikipedia.

If you think the notability guidelines ought to be changed, that's of course a totally legitimate position to take, but the case needs to be made at the relevant project talk page (in this case probably Wikipedia talk:Notability (events) or Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)) rather than at an AfD discussion. Best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet. --Yamla (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, as the nominator misinterpreted the process and nominated his own article and then voted to keep it. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banstead Woods Parkrun[edit]

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

Possible lack of Notability Middledistance99 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for being only the third ever parkrun out of more than 500 different events. Almost 10,000 inidividuals have taken part. Middledistance99 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avasaraniko Abaddam[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject except this which is not a reliable source and there is no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per user GSS. Two sources. One of the sources, Chitramala, gives 1 1/2 stars out of 5 and includes "...low budgeted and having unknown faces...". The critic statement also includes: "This movie adds to the list of just additional movie released and nothing more than that. To summarise, watching this movie till the end somehow helps you boost your patience levels.". The other source is just a censor report. Because there is a list of films somewhere does not mean it is encyclopedic. Otr500 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is just a film in a language. I see no notability presented in the article nor in a deep Google search. Redditaddict6 9 03:40, 29 August 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Citizen[edit]

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

Non-notable small town newspaper, no evidence of any awareness of it outside of its recipient base. Largoplazo (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in the Hartford Courant helps establish notability since the Courant is a long-established reliable source and it is located outside the Berlin Citizen’s circulation area. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The general notability guidelines require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Even the Hartford Courant articles consist of perfunctory announcements that "it's opening", "publication has been suspended", and "publication has resumed", with no in-depth coverage of the paper's activities and operations as a going concern. They're the counterpart to birth, college graduation, and marriage announcements, and obituaries, which similarly don't establish the notability of people. Largoplazo (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- the Hartford Courant...is located outside the Berlin Citizen’s circulation area
- Huh? That's absolutely false. It's not just that the Courant is a state-wide paper, Berlin is in Hartford County. --Calton | Talk 20:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and counterargument, as well as the false claims by Eastmain. --Calton | Talk 20:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. For what it's worth, I think the argument above comes down to semantics, and can be dropped. Eastmain talks about the Citizen's circulation area and the Courant's place of publication, and the rebuttal seems to get those reversed. It's a small point, but worth noting. I expect that it will be possible to find more sources for this, but I haven't been able to come up with any searching in the usual places, so I think moving to Draft: space for further research is the best option. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Bhat[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying either WP:NARTIST or WP:BIO. Current sources are not reliable and appear to be marketing fluff except Deccan Herald which is insufficient to establish notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are some decent sources here that actually do cover the subject. However, given the promotional intent and style of the article, I think we should scrupulously apply GNG. When so applied, his notability is fairly minor and sources do not adequately establish it either.96.127.244.27 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm extremely sorry if the article doesn't meet the standard of writing, I could rewrite the parts that seem promotional. The artist is a prominent name in the independent music and art industry of the country. The article does leave out two major print publications. The person has been featured (including a cover mention) in Pool Magazine (August 2015) [4], one of India's most reputed and longest running design publications. There's also an article/interview on Creative Gaga (November/December 2015) [5], another leading art publication in the country. The magazines do not have a digital copy but can be easily verified. Have added an Issuu link for the first one and a link to the issue the artist was covered in for the second. --Cyktic (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Cyktic (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@Cyktic: As the creator of the article it is reasonable that you think it should be kept, but you'll need to provide reliable sources that establish notability under WP:GNG and as I said above the current sources are not reliable and interviews are not independent as all the material except for the questions is straight from the person. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. Also, you appear to have a conflict of interest and may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use by failing to disclose your relationship with the subject in question. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cover artists are rarely notable, and nothing suggests Bhat is an exception to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Hope[edit]

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

This article on a political party has had no sources for the preceding 11 years. As a party which has failed to win any parliamentary seats it doesn't qualify under WP:POLOUTCOMES or WP:NPOL. A search on Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com, and JSTOR fails to find any coverage. Chetsford (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a website claims they got 336 votes in the 2006 National Assembly election. Nothing in the article is verifiable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, fails WP:GNG per nom. SportingFlyer talk 07:44, 28 August 2018 (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 John Carroll University#Center for Service & Social Action. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Service & Social Action[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo. Just an service of John Carroll University with no independent notability. The Banner talk 23:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an overtly promotional article for a minor, non-notable religious center (or should we call it a service?), sourced largely by its own web site. I removed the paragraph talking about the $2500 in internal awards they distribute, which pretty much tells you what you need to know: this is a small non-notable org. I don't think it even deserves a redirect.96.127.243.251 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into John Carroll university as not independently notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. No significant coverage by independent reliable sources is found. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Carroll University#Center for Service & Social Action, which has a single sentence on the centre. I haven't been able to find any coverage in independent reliable sources, and I don't see much value in merging the article content into the university's article, but so long as there's a summary there then a redirect is useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Arms and Hearts. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a strong consensus that this article should not be kept. However there are specific disagreements about merge/redirect/delete, warranting additional discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Carroll University#Center for Service & Social Action, which adequately describes the center and its purpose in a more notable context without needing any details from this article. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Carroll University#Center for Service & Social Action - the article does not meet any of the relevant notability guidelines, but redirecting makes more sense to me than deleting. There's a sentence about this there already, and I don't think it needs any more than that, meaning that further merge wouldn't be necessary.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:50, 29 August 2018 (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. Good rough consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to provide the minimal level of notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cade Foehner[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only thing sourced is gossip. » Shadowowl | talk 15:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The article is poorly written, but most AI contestants will get some press if they make it past the audition stage. It seemed like the subject had only auditioned so I assumed a quick delete, but when I did a search (which we should all do WP:BEFORE nominating and !voting) I found multiple sources to support notability: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Even if he were to have decided the subject was not notable, we could have redirected to Gabby Barrett, with whom he is in a relationship and that has more than passing recognition: [11] [12] [13]. Combined, there's enough to assume WP:GNG. Will Shadowowl be improving the article using these sources? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - usually top 5 or 6 on American Idol get enough media attention, as did this person, that we keep them. Past practice is that we eliminate those below the top 10 or 12, with a grey area in between. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Walter Görlitz that this article does meet WP:NBIO, as shown by the links he provides. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 17:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bjo Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable award only sourced to IMDB. » Shadowowl | talk 15:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that these awards are "non-notable," and I would respectfully assert that someone who is not familiar with the STAR TREK franchise, its fandom, or the importance and impact that STAR TREK fan films have had on either may not recognize or understand the "notability" of these awards. Dozens of STAR TREK fan films are created and released every year, and these awards recognize the best of them. One recent fan film in particular caused STAR TREK's intellectual property owners to file a well-publicized lawsuit against its creators, which ended in a settlement that had a ripple effect throughout the entire entertainment industry in general and those franchises which inspire its fans to create their own films in particular. Not unimportantly, that lawsuit has its own subsection in the Wikipedia article about that film.

While these awards may be relatively new (four years old), they serve the same purpose as the Hugo (science fiction/fantasy literary works) and Nebula (science fiction/fantasy works of American origin) awards, both of which have existed for more than 50 years and have well-established Wikipedia pages. To date, the Bjo Awards have recognized films from around the world (including Australia, Germany and United Kingdom) and both the judges and the award presenters have been high-profile, well-known, professional actors and authors who have worked in STAR TREK or other popular science fiction franchises. Further, many of the winners of these awards (both individuals and films) have their own entries on Wikipedia.

I would also like to address Shadowowl's specific complaint that these awards are "only sourced to IMDB." In fact, it is only the nominated films that are sourced to IMDb, not the awards. Announcements and news coverage of these awards have been published in several noteworthy, credible and established online sources, all of which have been appropriately referenced, as well as other online sources which are not referenced within due to their duplicative nature or non-notable source.

Finally, while information about each year's winners can be found in various notable online sources, the purpose of creating this page was to collect and present information about all years' nominees, finalists and winners in a single, convenient, well-sourced location. Because... isn't that what Wikipedia is for?

Leo Walsh (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Palmisciano[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Is nominated for a prize, but has not won it (yet). Depends on when the prize winners are announced, this may be a WP:TOOSOON case. » Shadowowl | talk 15:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. If they win a meaningful award, then they'd meet WP:NACTOR, but until then they aren't notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. Falls in the WP:TOOSOON category. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as IMHO TOOSOON, Anyway fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 27 August 2018 (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. There appears to be consensus that the content should be kept. A discussion about whether a move/amendment to turn it into an event page can take place on the talk page (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addison Rerecich[edit]

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

Fails WP:NNEWS. » Shadowowl | talk 15:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject of extensive coverage in reliable sources and as a rare and precedent-setting medical case. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a 1-time event. This article also fails WP:BLP1E. » Shadowowl | talk 17:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. There are four articles on the subject in tucson.com in the top ten Google searches for crying out loud, and that is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. Was the subject of a 2013 episode of Frontline so meets WP:DEPTH (countering the NOTNEWS claim). Since there are a sufficient number of references, and Shadowowl raised BLP1E which states that "if the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead", shall I assume the intent is to move the article to one focusing on the event rather than the person and we should be having a move discusison rather than an AfD? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage about her is more than trivial, so meets WP:GNG rather than being a case of WP:BLP1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom, thanks to Eastmain for adding refs. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 18:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A.F. Blakemore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 14:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Please remember to do WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 August 2018 (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. Any blowing up and starting over can be done by editors being bold and simply doing it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MACS M3[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm, can't find any reliable sources. ansh 666 01:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This reference is no longer available, and doesn't appear to be archived, but I think coverage by Jane's, publisher of Jane's Fighting Ships, establishes notability. There is an article in the Croatian Wikipedia at hr:Teška snajperska puška MACS M3 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NPRODUCT; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge (selective) to Zastava M93 Black Arrow per this source - seems this is a Croatian variant of the same Yugoslav design.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Zastava M93 Black Arrow per Icewhiz --RAF910 (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz and RAF910: that isn't true. The MACS M2 (which the M3 is based on) seems to have began manufacture in 1991 in Croatia, while the M93 began in 1998 (though there are no reliable sources for either, it seems). The source says they use similar actions, but doesn't say anything about being actual variants. ansh 666 19:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant both being variants/developments of a common Yugoslav action - not the M3 being based on the M93. But I guess similar action is not sufficient. Need a better source though - striking.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I don't think it's very notable, but there are plenty of reliable sources on Google. So, I vote Keep, at least for now.--RAF910 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PS I'm moving this to the product AFD, which might be a more suitable category for this AFD. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I have to disagree with Eastmain here. If the article link used as a reference is dead, and it's not in archives, there is no way to verify it. Therefore, it might as be consider as nonexistant. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm - no - we use offline sources routinely - including those that were never online to begin with. Furthermore coverage by Jane's is quite likely given that there is coverage by Jane's online - e.g. this book (snippet view).Icewhiz (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was talking about East's comment about dead links. Websites that was active but not longer. So the page content cannot be seen by anyone beyond the person inserting the ref.

They're hard to verify. That's like pointing a reference to a book that is no longer accessible. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks and elsewhere. James500 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not satisfied by the Jane snippet view: [14]; it may very well be passing mentions. Jane probably mentions many firearms routinely; the confirmation of existance does not mean WP:SIGCOV. None have been offered at this AfD so far. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 14:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – blow it up and start over per WP:TNT. This appears to be notable but the article has so many issues that probably can't be fixed so soon. Definitely restart the article, but as is, it is awful. It's at a point of no return to being good. Redditaddict6 9 03:32, 29 August 2018 (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. There's good agreement that this article needs a lot of editing. Perhaps major trimming, and/or refactoring with related articles. Possibly WP:TNT applies. There is, however, no consensus to delete it. The number of pageviews is not a factor in determining notability. On an administrative note, I'm over-riding User:Redditaddict69's relist, partly because WP:RELIST argues against a third relist, and partly because you shouldn't relist a discussion you participated in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriation (music)[edit]

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

Since the creation of this article other closely related articles such as Cultural_appropriation and Ethnomusicology have expanded to cover cultural appropriation in general and through music. There's been suggestions on the talk of the article page to delete it as this topic is already covered in other articles there should be no need to keep this poorly sourced article anymore. Other related articles like aforementioned are already covering the topic with better sources and can expanded in the future. MayMay7 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This area obviously needs a good editor. There are three distinct concepts here: borrowing from other composers, borrowing from other genres, and borrowing from other cultures. IMHO, the last topic belongs in a non-existent cultural borrowing article, but unfortunately this is a redirect to cultural appropriation which I might characterize as a WP:POVFORK. Borrowing from other composers seems like a plausibly notable topic, but I'm out of my expertise to say for sure. The solution is editing, not deletion until someone demonstrates they're going to write something better. Daask (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – Yes, this article needs some serious reshaping, but I think the subject is notable enough and researched enough (never fails to hit 15 views daily, occasionally gets near 60) that it should be kept. I'm not opposed to a deletion then restarting immediately from scratch, but I am opposed to "salting the earth". Redditaddict6 9 14:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 14:38, 22 August 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwanand (Sarvanand) Koul Premi[edit]

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

This seems to be a greatly exaggerated tragedy. The sources provided are mostly unintelligible at best but seem to be quite embellished. All other sources I've found are either rehashing the four here, are not about him or are blogs. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a BLP1E. There have been posthumous medals awarded to him, and one of the references was written in 2017, demonstrating that the world did not forget about him after 1990.. Political murders attract more attention than murders by a family member or murders as part of a robbery attempt because they are intended to force a political change. It is also possible that he is notable as an author, but if his writings were reviewed by a reliable source, the review would probably have been in the same language as the work. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff being written about someone isn't a criteria, it's reliable, in depth content being written about them. The sources in that article and the only others I've found are unreliable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined towards a keep because it appears he was a known writer^[1] This doesn't give a date of death though (and spells his name differently). Better references are definitely needed. Could we seek help from WikiProject India / Jammu and Kashmir? Deb (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kartik Chandra Dutt (1999). Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999: A-M. Sahitya Akademi. pp. 585–. ISBN 978-81-260-0873-5.

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually we can find out better sources in Google Books[15] than normal searches for establishing his notability. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am aware that stating here that he is known in Kashmir won't suffice, but the few available English-language sources are objectively reliable and confirm his notability. Definitely not a candidate for deletion, also per WP:NEXIST. One spelling of his name should be selected, though, and article renamed accordingly. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Osmate[edit]

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

I came to this article when I noticed that Platinoids was prodded. For record labels I check to see if/how many artists are notable. This was the only "notable" artist, but there are no references in the article supporting notability. An online check revealed no further sources, so it appears this artist is not notable, failing WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Article is highly promotional towards topic, possibly signifying it was created for advertising and not encyclopedic purposes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced original research and promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Neither Mr. Osmate nor his record label are notable – I can't find any more than nine releases on the Platinoids label, and they end in 2012... that's also when Mr. Osmate and Platinoids social media stopped publishing updates, and the official websites of both are dead. Seems to have been pure self-promotion, and no output for the last six years. Richard3120 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Head over Heels (The Washboard Union song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG - "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." There are no references meeting this criteria. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found several sources for this song when searching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wazzo1234 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet any notability criteria. Google search does not turn up anything and despite charting low on a national chart, it has not generated any press for the feat so appealing to WP:NSONG No. 1 is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. #18 on the Canadian country charts is rather unconvincing, IMO. PK T(alk) 14:00, 23 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom D’Agostino[edit]

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

Press coverage of D'Agostino appears chiefly related to his brief (less than 1 year) marriage to FFBF LuAnn de Lesseps. His company (SmartSource, LLC) does not appear to be notable. (Note, the SmartSource Wikipedia article redirects to News America Marketing based on their acquisition of a company with the same name, but this acquired company does not appear to be the same company that D'Agostino leads.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete- It is true that D'Agostino appears chiefly related to his brief (less than 1 year) marriage to FFBF LuAnn de Lesseps. However, the Smartsource Wikipedia article is not related with SmartSource LLC in any way, nor there is any indication or citation in the article that proves otherwise. Furthermore, the News America Link mentioned in your post is again not relevant to Smartsource LLC. Nowhere in D'Agostino's wikipedia article, there is any indication or citation of Smartsource LLC acquiring News America Marketing.

Here is the part that is in debate. Please note that all links are not related with Smartsource or News America. Please note that SMARTSOURCE and Smartsource LLC are different companies. I am attaching the part in conflict below for your conveneince.

In 2015, they acquired Data Associates, a 47 year old family owned business that provided Marketing Communication services, adding a $7.5 Million revenue stream to SmartSource LLC, increasing the total revenue to $65 Million. The same year, SmartSource LLC acquired Benchmark Graphics Ltd, a commercial printing company in New York with over 50 years of experience.In 2016, they acquired the assets of Data Supplies Inc, a marketing communications services, which was founded 50 years ago. In 2017, SmartSource was named in the prestigious Top 50 Distributors of 2017 print and promotional products in USA.

Saad Ahmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saad Ahmed2983 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - people who run "distribution" companies are dime a dozen until they own at least four yachts. Husbands do not inherit notability from their wives unless they get an HRH in front of their names. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete-- The Luann de Lesseps page mentions Tom in her info box - and right now that's a dead link. Another thing that I would like to point out that RHONY (Real Housewives of New York) is the #1 show on Bravo, and Tom is a well-known player on the show that people Google constantly. He's absolutely noteable, and known. Please also advise a course of action. Thanks - Saad Ahmed

Previous message by Saad Ahmed. Who has already stated to Do not delete aboveVViking_TalkEdits 17:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with USER:Bearian. This seems more like a way to try and get him more notable. That is not what Wikipedia is for. VViking_TalkEdits 17:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. - Scarpy (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage outside gossip mags. Daß Wölf 23:12, 21 August 2018 (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. As SportingFlyer notes, a merge can be considered outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit Hash Historic District[edit]

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

Merge with Rabbit Hash, Kentucky and provide link. I don't see enough here to justify a second article only on its designation as a historic district. I found it confusing. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC) (revised --David Tornheim (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - While I understand the confusion, the historic district within the town does meet notability guidelines for being a national heritage site. I would suggest adding hatnotes to each page to further distinguish the two. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the historic district is WITHIN the town. Why? Is thereWP:RS that says that? The Boone County Planning Commission says "As a Preserve America Community, the entire town of Rabbit Hash has been designated a National Register District and a local Historic District." [16]. Please also see my response below. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBUILD criteria #1 by virtue of its historic designation. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I didn't think anyone would vote to keep it. I can see an argument that it might meet the notability requirements (and arguments that it doesn't), but I don't see why we would want to have a second article even if it is notable. There's hardly anything in the Historic District article and can be completely encapsulated in the main article. And to the best of my knowledge the historic district encompasses most if not all of Rabbit Hash anyway. Yes, they are not exactly the same, but not far from it.

If someone was going to add more to the historic article, then that might justify it, but I doubt that will happen--the article is already 10 years old. Also, I don't think there is much WP:RS on Rabbit Hash's historic significance, which is why the article has stayed so short. My feeling is that most of the WP:RS out there on it is mostly WP:OR of oral stories, and sources like [17] or just brief mention in historical works of larger geographic regions. It was never a very large town.

Is there some advantage to having a second article, when anyone looking for information about the historic significance could simply go to the article on the town? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim:If the entire town is included in the historic designation, I'd be good with a merge too. That being said, the main article states that Rabbit Hash proper was designated in 1989, while the historic district was designated in 2003, which sounds like there may be a purpose to having both articles. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PohranicniStraze: Thanks agreeing on the advantage of a merge. The 1989 date for designation is for just the store, not the entire town--a typo by me which I just corrected. Sorry for the confusion. The town was added to the register in 2003 as you noted. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Jmertel2. - Scarpy (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my responses above. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. We can have multiple articles for overlapping areas like this and it doesn't hurt anything - Scarpy (talk)

@Scarpy: Yes we can and do, especially when both articles have significant coverage and significantly different scope and focus, neither of which is the case here. It's a question of what reason there would be two have two articles, when one articles does the job, and, in my opinion, more effectively. As a user of the encyclopedia I found it both confusing and inconvenient. I was about to add the info. about the fire that destroyed the main historic building, only to find it was already covered in the main article for the town. Why maintain both? If both articles were immature and one could envision them expanding later in different directions, sure it would make sense, but that is not the case either. I see no real advantage of the extra work of maintaining two articles if there is no obvious benefit to users. Can you give a reason to justify the redundancy? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care - I think that I created this from a federal designation, and used the usual pattern for a Historic District article. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SEWilco: Thanks for your reply and explanation. That's what I had assumed. Do you know if there is any advantage in terms of indexing or searches in having a separate article for a historic district rather than incorporating the material as a subheading of another article, especially if one or both are relatively small in length? I haven't looked at how other historic districts like these have been handled. I believe most historic districts will have as little WP:RS as this one. I figure you might have more experience with any drawbacks to merging and the typical fate of these stubs. I was hoping someone with such experience with chime in. Otherwise, I probably would have just done the merge without asking first. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this would have been better done as a merge request instead of an AfD. I do agree it should probably be merged and redirected with the main Rabbit Hash article. The only sources on the page we're discussing are WP:PRIMARY or are directory listings, whereas the Rabbit Hash article has more information on the historic district itself, and there's no need for a split. SportingFlyer talk 01:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Sorry about that. You are probably right--I had forgotten that option. Twinkle certainly makes it so easy to send here with a merge as a common result. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2018 (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 John Lauritsen. Views were split between deleting the article entirely and merging some of its content, so a redirect (with no content) would seem to be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AIDS War[edit]

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

Twenty-five year old non-notable self published book that got it very wrong. There have been suggestions to Merge with the Author's article John Lauritsen, but honestly, why bother? Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually a one line article with a couple of not newsy sources. No evidence of real or lasting notability. I would say merge, but what?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the previous version of the article doesn't appear to meet WP:NFRINGE. The City of Friends reference is an incidental dismissal, Virginia Scholar was a self-published newsletter from an HIV/AIDS denier, Praxis was a self-published newsletter from HIV/AIDS denier Jerry Terranova, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Virusmyth.com are clearly fringe, The Cornell Review is profringe piece by "a sophomore in the College of Engineering" in an independent student newspaper, which leaves a review in The Bloomsbury Review. --tronvillain (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to John Lauritsen (first choice), or Delete (second choice). I agree with tronvillain's evaluation of the sources in the longest version: they're almost all either self-published (e.g., the virusmyth website) or generally unreliable (e.g., the student newspaper), and what's left is too little to support a claim to notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to HIV/AIDS denialism#North America and Europe, which mentions the book. It lacks notability, i.e., there are insufficient sources to write an article. TFD (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to "John Lauritsen" as a technicality. The article, such as it is, has two sentences of content. The "Reception" sentence could reasonably be copied across. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a technicality with a brief mention at the author's article, or delete. Sources are not sufficient to demonstrate independent notability from the author. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to author's article as suggested by Insertcleverphrasehere. - Scarpy (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no interest in voting keep, delete, or merge, but I do have a couple of comments. Firstly, the accuracy or lack of it of Lauritsen's ideas is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted or not, as is the date his book was published. Secondly, the Virusmyth source mentioned by WhatamIdoing is summarizing a published book by Peter Duesberg and Bryan J. Ellison, Why We Will Never Win The War on AIDS. I actually agree with WhatamIdoing that the Virusmyth website is not a good source to use, and I had planned to replace it with a direct citation to the book the site was summarizing, though that's irrelevant now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to John Lauritsen (first choice), or Delete (second choice). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nom said about a redirect, why bother? A bad book with a MS Word document cover, and the author article may not be needed either. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles on books based on judgments about whether the book is bad, and suggesting that the article should be deleted because of the book's cover is bizarre. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have been a comment on a redirect over simple deletion ("As the nom said about a redirect"), not whether or not deletion is justified. --tronvillain (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed it was a 'per nom' comment; the author's only purpose is to write ad hominems against common knowledge things, and the book is a questionable quackery tract that I don't see has a purpose being here. Nate • (chatter) 19:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: If it is verifiable then it has a reason for being on wikipedia. I don't think it warrants a separate article (because it isn't independently notable), but it is still worth pointing out on the authors page that he did create a book that is a "a questionable quackery" where the author's "only purpose is to write ad hominems against common knowledge things". Would you suggest that wikipedia should not record this information so that readers who learned of his book are not informed of the quackery therein contained? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with John Lauritsen, which is the only context this book would be notable (by WP standards) in - that is, the context of the beliefs and total body of work of the author. I vote for merge mostly as a technicality, as I think the author's page should go through the AfD process as well, but that's irrelevant to the current discussion. Nanophosis (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as first choice, merge and redirect if people feel strongly that there's content there worth saving. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:20, 25 August 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STAR voting[edit]

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

Delete. Markus Schulze 12:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale:

WP:PROMOTION, WP:OR, WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON.
This article has already been deleted twice (first deletion discussion, second deletion discussion).
This election method has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
None of the Google Scholar hits refers to this method. They refer to all-star voting or to voting schemes where the voters cast "stars" instead of likes/dislikes.
This election method isn't used anywhere. And it has never been used anywhere.
This election method is uninteresting from the scientific point of view. It is a trivial variation of score voting.
Everything in this article is disputed. Examples:
- Reversal symmetry: The first version of this article claimed that STAR voting satisfies reversal symmetry. I removed this claim as this claim was obviously incorrect (Talk:STAR voting#Reversal Symmetry). However, the fact that the first version of this article claimed that this method satisfies reversal symmetry shows that this method has never been analyzed properly.
- Condorcet winners, majority winners, mutual majority: The first version of this article claimed that STAR voting satisfies the majority criterion. However, this claim is obviously incorrect as it is not guaranteed that a majority winner even gets to the runoff (Talk:STAR voting#Majority Criterion). The current version still adds: "With all-strategic voters and perfect information, the Condorcet winner is a strong Nash equilibrium". But this statement is uninteresting as this is true for almost every election method. The only interesting question is whether STAR voting satisfies the Condorcet criterion, the majority criterion, and the mutual majority criterion when the voters don't have perfect information. The clear answer to this question is that STAR voting satisfies none of these criteria in the absence of perfect information.
- Condorcet losers, majority losers: STAR voting has a problem when there are more than 6 candidates. In this case, the voters are urged to give the same rating to more than one candidate even when they strictly prefer the one candidate to the other candidate (according to their sincere preferences). This can lead to situations where a Condorcet loser (or even a majority loser) isn't identified as such and eventually gets elected. This problem is similar to that in plurality voting; when plurality voting is used and there are more than 2 candidates, it can happen that a Condorcet loser (or even a majority loser) isn't identified as such and eventually gets elected; plurality voting is usually considered as violating the Condorcet loser criterion and the majority loser criterion.
- Monotonicity: The current version of this article claims that STAR voting satisfies monotonicity. However, STAR voting has some problems that are usually attributed to a violation of monotonicity. Examples:
  - Changing a ballot from A="5", B="4", C="3", D="2", E="1", F="0" to B="5", A="4", C="3", D="2", E="1", F="0" can change the winner from candidate B to candidate C. (Remember: In STAR voting, a "5" is the best rating and a "0" is the worst rating.) This can happen e.g. when, in the original situation, candidate A and candidate B got into the runoff and candidate B pairwise beat candidate A and, in the new situation, candidate B and candidate C get into the runoff and candidate C pairwise beats candidate B. If this had happened under a different election method, this would have been interpreted as a violation of the monotonicity criterion.
  - The main consequence of the fact that traditional runoff methods violate the monotonicity criterion is that it is a useful strategy for a voter to give an insincerely good ranking to a candidate who can be beaten by this voter's favorite candidate in the runoff. Also in STAR voting, it is a useful strategy for a voter to give an insincerely good rating to a candidate who can be beaten by this voter's favorite candidate in the runoff.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Successfully getting an initiative on the ballot, via >17,000 signatures, easily clears the hurdle of notability. This information is relevant to >250K registered voters in Lane County, OR, and saying it's "too soon" because the election hasn't happened yet is perverse.
Previous deletion is not germane; situation has markedly changed.
Nominator is self-interested; relentlessly promotes the "Schulze method" (aka beatpath, but you wouldn't know that to listen to him) and opposes other election methods across multiple internet venues. I have no problem with the relentless promotion part; that's healthy. But suppressing discussion of alternatives (including getting blocked for edit-warring on this very page) isn't.
Nominator's apparent belief that only peer-reviewed academic sources are WP:RS is incorrect.
...Nominator's argument that "this election method is uninteresting from the scientific point of view" is an unsubstantiated personal opinion that has absolutely no place in AfD. (added in response to edits in nomination)
...Nominator's argument that former versions of this article were inaccurate? I can't even. This does not relate to current accuracy, let alone notability. (added in response to more edits in nomination)
...Nomination has now been edited to also include some concerns with current version of the article. These concerns have some validity and should be worked out through the regular editing process. AfD is not the place for this. (added in response to yet more edits in nomination)
Finally, see talk page for long list of news articles establishing notability.
...Nominator continues to add arguments above that belong on the talk page, not AfD. In the most recent case, it regards monotonicity, a subject where nominator was participating in the talk page discussion but appears to have disengaged from talk (and then gotten a 24-hr ban for 3RR violations on this subject on the article!) when he began to lose the argument.

Homunq (࿓) 12:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the nomination directly touches on monotonicity, the topic for which nominator got a 24-hr WP:3RR ban immediately before nominating, I think this entire nomination should be speedy-closed as an attempted end-run around the 3RR rule. Homunq (࿓) 11:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - amount of sources ppears notability to me, even if there is criticism of the method. - Scarpy (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nardopolo (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of Markus Schulze's WP: deletion reasons withstand scrutiny. Article is neither promotion (WP:PROMOTION) nor original research (WP:OR), multiple notable sources (WP:GNG) now describe the system in detail as well as the campaign to institute it for real public elections, and the WP:TOOSOON reason for prior deletion occurred prior to STAR Voting's coverage in newspapers of record, and before 16,000+ residents of Lane County, Oregon successfully petitioned to place it on the ballot for the upcoming November election. A great many voting systems described on Wikipedia never make it remotely that far towards significant adoption in the real world.

Keep* STAR voting is being used by the Eugene Weekly for their annual best of Eugene voting.

Strong Keep – This is an important article on voting systems. It explains it thoroughly. Redditaddict6 9 17:34, 29 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hottie Weds Naughty[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no evidence of release and production was not notable, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A film that has not yet been released is eligible to be listed if principal photography has started. In this case, photography has completed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFF, the film's production must be notable if it has not yet released to the public. Entering principal photography is not enough.
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.
BOVINEBOY2008 19:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Bovineboy. - Scarpy (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "was scheduled to be released in 2016" but apparently was not; no references that say anything about the film beyond its title and cast. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Bovineboy. Lack of reliable sourcing for notability just shows movie advertisement. Otr500 (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreleased and not passing WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Farouk (referee)[edit]

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

No significant coverage available from secondary sources to show notability for a full article ~ Araratic | talk 09:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as suggested by nomination. - Scarpy (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete referees are not default notable and nothing in the article suggests meeting any actual notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only passing mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 10:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G12 by Boing! said Zebedee. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rez Kabir[edit]

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

Unreliable, non-independent sources failing to demonstrate notability of the subject. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted for copyright violation. This was created by a serial copyright violator whose approach is to just copy content from the cited sources. The major source [1] for this article appears not to be online any more, so I can't check that, but several pieces of content I was able to check were direct copies. For copyright violations we need to err on the side of safety, so I did not feel I could leave uncheckable content here when the chances of its being a further violation are very high. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Year Festival in Busan[edit]

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

Non-notable event with no references Kpg jhp jm 08:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The proper name of this event is Busan Sunrise Festival (부산해맞이축제). I added a bit of information regarding how it was first developed. There are plenty of Korean-languages regarding this subject [18]. ℯ xplicit 14:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep see work done by Explicit. - Scarpy (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kpgjhpjm: do you still believe the article should be deleted? wumbolo ^^^ 10:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: Nope , you may close this one as keep . Kpg jhp jm 11:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject is notable, while the article is also written mostly in an in-universe style, and the article herefore remains tagged as such. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Idea Mechanics[edit]

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

Fictional organisation in comics. Fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial third-party coverage in reliable sources. Tagged as failing WP:WAF (written in an entirely in-universe style) since 2009. Such content belongs on fan wikis. Sandstein 09:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Sandstein 09:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find coverage in sources and a selection follows. Dismissing content because it has fans is contrary to core policy and we wouldn't have much of anything if we did that because most types of content have their followers and enthusiasts.

Marvel Cinematic Universe Guidebook
Captain America and the Struggle of the Superhero: Critical Essays
Media, Technology and the Imagination
100 Things Avengers Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die
The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe
The Supervillain Book: The Evil Side of Comics and Hollywood
1000 Facts about Supervillains
The Encyclopedia of Super Villains

Andrew D. (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't indicate what, if any, coverage this organization has in these sources, or if they are reliable and independent from the comic's creators. Sandstein 10:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Marvel Cinematic Universe Guidebook and The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe are published by Marvel, so they don't count. For the rest, many of these are collections so can you please identify the individual works within those volumes? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel is a large publisher of many works by many authors. This doesn't prevent its works from "counting". In fact, their publications have extra weight as they tend to be canon. As for the other cases, they are fine. For example, here's another fresh source: Marvel Villains and the American National Identity from World War II to the War on Terror which states that "Advanced Idea Mechanics (AIM) is a prime example..." This appears in the collection The Function of Evil across Disciplinary Contexts. So what? Andrew D. (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OK, the recent push to delete comics character articles is getting ridiculous at this point. AIM has been featured in a great many storylines since they debuted 50 years ago, and lately has been even more ubiquitous than Hydra. They were the villains in the movie Iron Man 3. I don't doubt that Andrew's sources above (and others that he didn't post, as well) have more than enough info to indicate that they meet some silly WP:GNG expectation. BOZ (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most significant fictional organizations in Marvel Comics with appearances in movies, video games, and the books themselves. The group can be covered reliably in the sources given, it just needs to be cleaned up. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Occurring in many story lines means nothing. Secondary sourcing means everything--sourcing from outside the fan universe. I'd refer folks to Wikia. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some people don't seem to know the difference between Wikia and Wikipedia's policies. Relative importance in a fictional universe means pretty much nothing in Wikipedia, and the secondary sources here are nonexistent. It is already in Wikia in far greater detail._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extremely notable in the fiction, and there is no viable merge target. Deleting this would be harmful to the ~~nearly 2000~~ 326 articles that link to it. The date of the maintenance tag is irrelevant since there's no deadline and AfD isn't for clean up. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. I agree with the claims of Sandstein, BOZ, Etzedek24, and Argento Surfer. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Rtkat3 means Andrew D instead of Sandstein. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction Argento Surfer. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Wot Drmies sez.We are not Wikia.Not a single secondary source has covered the topic, any significantly.∯WBG^converse 11:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still feel this should be kept, but those in the delete camp seem to be unaware of how many incoming inline links this article has. At minimum, this needs to redirect somewhere. List of fictional espionage organizations and List of Captain America enemies are the best option I've been able to locate. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This group has appeared on numerous occasions, both in comics and other media. If it is not kept Argento's suggestion to merge and redirect to another article is preferable to simply deleting it. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--placed here rather than at the top, but this is kind of a response to Sandstein's comment regarding Andrew D's sourcing: yes. It is no surprise that publications like the "official handbooks" have entries on these. Are they "reliable and independent from the comic's creators", in Sandstein's words? If something is an "official handbook", then clearly it's not independent, and these kinds of books are really in-universe, as opposed to the kind of book like The Cambridge Companion to Dante. No, we need independent sourcing to prove these things deserve an article. That they occur doesn't mean much, and besides Andrew no one, not a single person here, has provided secondary sources. This is not impossible for comics characters in general: but some are more important than others, and thus more notable than others. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see this as a necessary article from a WP:CONTENTFORK point of view. Do you really think it's better to replace the blue link in the plot summaries of ~~nearly 2000~~ 326 articles with an explanation of what AIM is? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your premise is that it's important in the first place. I argue that it is not, and I think the article (which is of Wikia standards) proves it. This is for the fans. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - At WP:COMICS we frequently use the handbooks to gauge notability, because there are certainly characters and groups that the company doesn't deem as notable. This is just misguided deletionism. To dismiss the group because it doesn't have the sources you like is against editing policy. Fine. IAR. What the delete votes haven't attested to at all, as Argento noted, is that ~~2000~~ over 300 pages link to AIM, as well as my point that the group has appeared multiple times across multiple mediums, in addition to having appeared (by Marvel Wiki count) over 400 times within the comics. MOS:WAF notes that it's acceptable to use primary sources within fictional articles, so long as it doesn't devolve into cruft. As I said earlier, the article needs to be cleaned up. Of that, there is no doubt, and AfD isn't for cleanup. But just because the article isn't important by your standards, does not mean that you can definitively say "it isn't notable." NPOV, much? Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - My premise (as stated in my initial vote) is that it's extremely notable within the fiction. I won't defend the quality of the article. It's awful. That said, AfD isn't clean up and deleting the content wholesale would be detrimental to the articles that link to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Etzedek24, huh, what "much"? NPOV has nothing to do with this, and this whole "by your standards", we've heard that before in AfD discussions. That 2000 articles link to it, I can tel you what I think that says: we have way too many articles on things that are minor and that in themselves may lack reliable secondary sourcing. It may well be that we have a walled garden here, a really, really big one. An article should be judged on its own merits, and those are established by way of WP:RS, WP:GNG, etc. Why we should ignore all the rules here is not clear to me: there is nothing unusual about this. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you bothered to review any of those ~~2000~~ 326 articles? Iron Man 3? Captain America? Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite? Claims about a walled garden are preposterous, unfounded, and quite honestly make it hard for me to take your opinion serious. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Correction - If links from templates are discounted, there are 326 in-line links to this article, not 2000. I have updated my earlier comments to show the correct number. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein doesn't know the sources because it appears that he didn't follow WP:BEFORE, as a nominator is supposed to. I have familiarised myself with the sources and consider them adequately independent and reliable. As for Danté, see our coverage of his major work Inferno. That page could use some improvement too but that doesn't mean that we should delete it and send people to the equivalent Wikia site – Infernopedia. That site is a commercial business focussed on selling advertising and that's not what our readers want. These major fictional works are notable and so our readers expect them to be covered here. That's our policy and so we should keep the page for further development. Andrew D. (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew D., I'm not surprised to see you misconstrued my comment. This isn't about Dante (no accent), it's about sourcing. I don't know what Sandstein did or didn't do, and I don't know why you're presuming you might, but my guess is that Sandstein didn't "find" those sources because they don't consider them to be valid sources--at least that's the tenor of their comment, but I can't speak for them. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein came to the article in question as a result of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jude the Entropic Man. They didn't spend long considering this article and so that's why they are not familiar with the sources. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Matt14451 (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some usable book references but I'm at work. Will add them as fast as work permits. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC) ... I have now added four book references, including a small analysis section. Frankly, I was surprised not to find more scholarly analysis in the vein of Costello's book, discussing the ideological underpinnings of the Cold War-era SHIELD and AIM; I blame JSTOR's lousy search function, but I believe I've demonstrated that the organization is mentioned in reliable sources not only in connection with Marvel products and the coordination of the Marvel properties, but also in a scholarly critical context, and that this evinces notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, thank you - the faithless need to see evidence before they will believe. ;) I think you have added more than enough to clearly demonstrate what most of us already knew. BOZ (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick thanks to Yngvadottir for adding those references. I believe this is now enough to meet WP:GNG. The article certainly needs cleanup, but as others have mentioned, deleting isn't the solution.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments on the sources provided by Yngvadottir would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 09:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a large amount of WP:SPS but there appears to be enough independent WP:RS here. - Scarpy (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would like to see the page kept. I hate being referred to all sorts of other pages in order to find all the information. My car has three user manuals. To find information about one display, one book usually referrs me to sections of the other two books multiple times. There is nothing more infuriating. Due to this kind of frustration in other media, I would like to see the A.I.M. page kept. A one stop shop.Bfair2fans (talk) N21:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for so many reasons already discussed. Organization is prominent within its fictional universe, and external sources are easy to get. I wonder about the nominator's bias against this kind of article. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that despite the vigour of many people defending this article at AFD, none of them (except kinda-sorta Yngvadottir) have made the slightest effort to improve the article so as not to consist entirely of in-universe fan minutiae. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice how long this had been open. Yngvadottir did a bit, but debatably just made it more clear that the topic is not notable as their "critical reception" section is anything but. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They did more than just add a reception section. BOZ (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That seemed to be the best of what they added. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 26 August 2018 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Goehl[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are brief mentions of examples of articles. reddogsix (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Coverage of the subject meets notability guidelines. Subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the coverage is pretty in-depth from good sources that I found online here such as The Guardian, The Nation, and The American Prospect. Frankly, it surprised me, since I'd never heard of him and I usually !vote detete for professional "activists". Bearian (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks notable to me based on the amount and depth of WP:RS - Scarpy (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article meet WP:GNG from coverages. Emily Khine (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the interviews don't satisfy GNG, and the American Prospect article is written by the subject. wumbolo ^^^ 10:38, 28 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by CNBC Pakistan[edit]

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

Unnecessary list, no program has article on WP. WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, solidly into WP:NOTTVGUIDE territory. May be eligible for snow close. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as suggestesd by Ajf773 and Alpha3031. - Scarpy (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The network was renamed three years ago to GNN and the entire list is redlinked; this list-of has no point here. Nate • (chatter) 06:56, 22 August 2018 (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. There is an argument that the topic is notable via GNG, but this is disputed by several editors. Overall consensus is that the topic is not currently notable, and that should the topic become notable it would be better to start from scratch. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Baker[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a means of promotion. Sourcing is inadequate for notability. The girls own site, them talking about themselves, alumni publication, indiscriminate puff piece. A search found nothing better. After creation was taken over by spam SPAccounts such as Thebakertwins, Bakertwinedits, Bakertwin and Nativegirl21. See previous afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Baker Twins (created by User:Bearcat).

Bundling her sister Shauna Baker for similar concerns. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my memory I created both of the articles and it was never for their promotion. It was because of their advocacy for Native Americans and First Nations in Hollywood and the Modeling world that had to deal with racism and stereotyping. Yes both are famous models doing different things, but their modeling careers wasn't the main point for the articles' creation. I've been multitasking so much that I lose track of keeping unnecessary info out of them, and for that I apologize. I don't want to see their articles destroyed because of that they are activists for Native and First Nation portrayals in Hollywood.Mcelite (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a prolific but non-notable actress and social activist. Her numerous minor roles are backed with citations, but said citations do not convince me the subject meets WP:NACTRESS. In addition, the subject's activism has only accrued minor coverage (seemingly centered around the years 2007-2008), but said coverage is not in-depth and is centered around information from quotes provided by the Baker twins and as such the sources are not independent of the subject, a key part of WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. This leads me to believe the article subject is not notable enough an actress nor an activist to be included in an encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree 100% the articles need to be fixed but I do not believe that merits for them to be deleted.

True, AfD is not cleanup, but notability requirements should always be met.--SamHolt6 (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A GNG pass through the "Baker Twins" connection. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A single appearance on a notable show does not confer undue notability on the subject, unless of course a RS makes the case that it does.--SamHolt6 (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would change my mind if article was based on WP:RS and the first reference wasn't a WP:SPS. - Scarpy (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both have no evidence of any notability - Both fail NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought I might be able to salvage this, but couldn't find any sources to start doing so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Purely promotional. I'm in favor of WP:TNT if more sources could be found, but this can't really be fixed as is. Redditaddict6 9 13:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surendra Pratap Singh (author)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable author. Created by an SPA; references are to his own books, Goodreads, and a Blogspot blog. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A poorly-referenced WP:SPA article on a writer who has published via Invincible Publishers and Marketeers and previously Authors Press. Aside from others of the same name (journalist, vice-chancellor, judge), my searches are finding only a possible passing mention which may be the subject in an article documenting a political meet-and-greet in Varanasi ([19]), though the article indicates the subject lives elsewhere. As things stand, I see no evidence that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's written one self-published novel from Invincible Publishers, a vanity press, which does not make him a "writer". We are not a spam dumping ground. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not demonstrate topic meets WP:GNG. - Scarpy (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not pass WP:NAUTHOR or the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:42 & WP:NAUTHOR. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion deteriorated into yelling and ground to a halt. Please, click here and go "awwww".... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capes, Cowls & Villains Foul[edit]

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

This exhaustive article on a small ~~board~~ game cites no source of any kind (RS or non-RS). A search on Google News, newspapers.com, and JSTOR fails to find any references to "Capes, Cowls & Villains Foul" or to ""Capes, Cowls and Villains Foul". Ed. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [20]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newimpartial. Could you please not refer to me, or other editors, as "clueless"? I've previously asked [21] [[22]] you to not use AFD discussions to engage in personal attacks against those with whose !votes you disagree. I'm not personally offended to be called names, however, other editors who might like to participate in this discussion might be discouraged from casting a !vote if they're afraid it could open them up to attacks from you. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing consideration. Chetsford (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to AGF, I really did, but your rationales just became more and more egregious. Anyway, you have to ridicule people who submit to AfD articles that they don't understand: that's what ridicule is for. :P It's not as though my effort at politeness was getting through: you just went right back to IDONTLIKEIT and ICANTHEARYOU. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"you have to ridicule people" - I respectfully disagree. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your respect would appear more genuine if you could exercise the capacity to stop trolling us, but I frankly don't think you have it in you. Your inkjet/Indianapolis series may not be comedy gold, but it is certainly not "respectful". Less infuriating than the deliberate misuse of "Fanzine", I'll allow - that really was maximum troll. Oh, the days... Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to List of role-playing games by name.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spectrum Games per WP:PRODUCT. Article is sourced to game itself and non-RS. Fails GNG. Failes notability criterion for inclusion in suggested merge target. Jbh ^Talk 17:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to company that produces the game. - Scarpy (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's about time the nominator found out a little more about the things they nominate for deletion. Including the difference between an RPG and a board game. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter? I think the greater problem is that the people who are writing these articles need to find out a little more about Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and sourcing requirements. Jbh ^Talk 14:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it matters. Someone nominating at AfD has as much responsibility to do it accurately and without misrepresentation as someone writing an article has to know about our procedures. It's too easy to knock off an AfD nomination without properly researching the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Does it really matter?" sounds like a question a gleeful bull in a china shop would ask. Of course understanding the subject – at least on some basic fundament matter – is important... unless one is just approaching it from an WP:IDONTLIKEIT position and smells blood in the water, looking for something to destroy and glad to have found it. BOZ (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately it could be a belief that WP:V is of fundamental importance and that we have inclusion criteria and sourcing requirements for a reason ie they are the foundation which makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Jbh ^Talk 15:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can agree with that to the extent that lack of knowledge of the topic may compromise BEFORE. On the other hand, articles with poor to non-existent sourcing like I have seen on game/comic AfDs recently do not require anything beyond knowledge of notability/sourcing guidelines and reasonable BEFORE skills. Editors with more in-depth knowledge may be able to improve the sourcing but that does not invalidate the good faith of the nomination of obviously problematic articles. Jbh ^Talk 15:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the nature of the "product" in question involves making judgements some questions crucial to AfD, such as whether NBOOK (or CREATIVE) applies, whether the article is subject to NORG or NBIO, the relevance of awards, etc. While it is certainly possible to have policy-based disagreements on these issues (and an RfC or village pump discussion may eventually be needed to improve clarity and consistency of policy application), it is not possible to have productive disagreements when the nom or other participants either lack knowledge of the topic or are unwilling to use the terminology in the reliable sources.

IME, it also produces unnecessary friction each time a new editor wanders into this area of AfD without having read some of the prior discussions, and tries to impose novel policy interpretations or OR notability criteria. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe requires understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines – When an editors "tries to impose novel policy interpretations or OR notability criteria" is indeed disruptive but what you seem to mean by "Understanding the nature of the 'product'" seems to mean 'being receptive to special pleading'. For example claims that a game company is not a company but a collection of artists and therefore exempt from NORG or that game books and supplements are 'books' rather than 'instruction manuals' ie rule books or 'reference material' ie supplemental material to aid in game play. Making those calls requires knowing Wikipedia PaGs not esoteric knowledge of games. Same thing goes with sourcing and being able to distinguish sources which may be reliable for content ie some SPS or 'expert' blogs vs being valid for purposes of notability ie providing coverage which is at the same time significant, independent, reliable, and secondary.

There are some topics which require an in-depth understanding to assess such things, mostly in hard-sciences or other topics requiring specialist or advanced knowledge. RPGs and other games are not such a topic. In fact, from the articles I have observed, it seems to be tending to a walled garden where notability is secondary – I mean who vetted an article sourced entirely to game books and a blog and thought it was OK?!

Anyway, this has gone well off topic of this AfD. I suggest adjourning the discussion to my talk page if you wish to continue it. Jbh ^Talk 16:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without prolonging the discussion here much longer, I would just note that per WP:DEADLINE there is nothing wrong with creating unsourced non-BLP articles, as long as sources exist, and per WP:NOTCLEANUP, the correct response to such articles is not AfD if sources arise from a proper BEFORE. (Yes, those are essays, but they reflect the ethos of WP:AFD, which is not an essay.)

I would also suggest that questions such as the potential application of the "instruction manual" argument to the Guide to Glorantha -- a game publication without game content -- or the relevance of literary criticism to Hillfolk -- a role-playing game by a published literary critic -- benefit more from those aware of the subject-matter than they do from those who seek to apply WP "rules of thumb" without regard to context, with as much consequence in this much smaller field as knowledge of related topics brings to, say, discussions of the notability of schools and academic programmes, or medical science brings to MEDRS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is not AfD if sources arise from a proper BEFORE Per BEFORE - "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search." As described in the nomination, the minimum BEFORE was not only met but exceeded, specifically newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google Books, Google News. BEFORE does not require the nom to spend weeks checking the stacks in the manuscripts and archives unit of the Lake Geneva, Wisconsin Public Library. As of the timestamp, no sources have been added to the article, no sources described in the AfD, and no sources unearthed in a BEFORE that exceeded the minimum requirements. Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case, no, and there is a reason I haven't !voted keep on this case. I was responding per policy, about what is required for a policy-compliant nom. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDFORMAT a policy-complaint nom will (a) describe "how the article meets/violates policy", (b) describe a COI if one exists, (c) affirm a BEFORE search if applicable to "A". I neglected to put "Fails GNG" to meet criteria "A" and have updated it accordingly. The nom is now fully compliant. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I accept that, by now, you have done an appropriate BEFORE in this case. But as there were other cases where you did not, e.g. Man, Myth and Magic and Hillfolk, I believe a certain degree of skepticism was warranted. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DROPTHESTICK. Really. Drop it. Nothing constructive will come of continuing this and it is disruptive. Jbh ^Talk 19:33, 22 August 2018 (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. Opinions are all over the place. There is a vague consensus that the article should be renamed, such as Orb (photography); that can be done outside of the AfD by editors being bold and just doing it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orb (optics)[edit]

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

This subject apparently doesn't exist within the field of optics. Check all of the sources that are reliable. NONE of them identify the visual artifacts as "orbs".

Suggest adding a section to ghost hunting to cover the topic of paranormal believers thinking they've seen "orbs" in their photographs. jps (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's already a section about this at Backscatter#In_photography, which identifies this as the main page. If this page seems an unwarranted spinoff then just merge back into that section. That's ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it could be justifiable to have an article on backscatter (photography), but the article we are discussing here is not about backscatter. There is a lot more that has been claimed to be an "orb" than just backscatter. jps (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current text is very much about backscatter. Insofar as there are other causes of such optical effects, that's fine too as the general topic is notable. See The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography for a reasonable encyclopaedic treatment. Andrew D. (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Orb photography might be yet another option (at least it's not claimed as a field of optics!), but we already have spirit photography which is essentially what Peres is referencing. jps (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, if applicable, merge whatever may be useful wherever else. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful non-fringe material to a section of backscatter. ~~Merge~~ I have merged pseudoscientific/paranormal claims to spirit photography with the non-paranormal explanations and linked to backscatter, seen here. At ghost hunting, ~~add~~ I have added a sentence or two and a pointer link to spirit photography, seen here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So they're backscatter now? And yet yesterday you were adamant (Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Orb_(optics)) that they were "lens flare" and then a "flash" artifact (they're neither). Maybe find out what they really are before advocating deletion of an article you've clearly not even read? Andy Dingley (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t “adamant”, just offering suggested photographic terms. Anything’s better than a fringe term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources establish notability 80.111.16.75 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A notable attempt at renaming a known optical phenomenon so that it sounds mysterious does not require an independent article.- Mr X 🖋 12:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a term of art actually used in photography as far as I can tell, the correct term is backscatter. It seems to exist largely as a reflection of debunking of a ridiculous paranormal claim. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Orb (paranormal) currently redirects to Orb (optics) - this is a notable paranormal talking point; it's not a notable photography talking point though. So I'd recommend a name change is more appropriate than a deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It remains to be seen that this is a "notable" talking point -- that there's a lot of talk about something doesn't automatically make it notable.842U (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (paranormal). jps (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd also like to point out that it's WP:PROFRINGE to call this stuff "paranormal". This isn't a term academics use to refer to, say, ghosts, but it's embraced and promoted by, say, ghost hunters and in pop culture. Outside of the fringe, there's nothing "paranormal" about any of these things: they are in fact completely normal occurrences. Sooner or later we're going to need to discuss how this word has been used to date on the project, and now is as good a time as any to start rooting its use out where it's being applied to promote fringe concepts. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Orb (photography). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a notable and sourced term, and keep the paranormal section too.

This is a sheer bad-faith nomination on no valid grounds, just a fit of pique after yesterday's attempts to blank the paranormal section of the article [23] [24] were rejected by multiple editors. So yesterday this was a term of science so important that it must remain unsullied by paranormal spookery? But today the whole thing has to go as "just not notable"? Andy Dingley (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if a valid nomination, why weren't the past AfDs linked? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (paranormal) has already decided that the paranormal aspect should be merged to here, i.e. that both the primary topic is the rationalist optical artifact, whilst also including the paranormal aspect as a notable and widely discussed one (amongst those hunting for circular glowing spirits) and incumbent upon WP to give a real explanation for. Andy Dingley (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename~~ Orb (paranormal) currently redirects to Orb (optics) - this is a notable paranormal talking point; it's not a notable photography talking point though. So I'd recommend a name change is more appropriate than a deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge with Bokeh or Circle of confusion. We don't have to adopt ghost hunter terminology for an optical phenomenon that is well-understood. I would also support delete as a close second choice. Imagine if we referred to birefringence as angel auras or lens flare as portals to another dimension. We're not obliged to have article for ever name that someone has given to something that already has a name.- Mr X 🖋 11:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But they have almost nothing to do with circle of confusion. Such circles might be what make them look like "orbs", but the key aspect here is the backscatter from dust particles, creating those orbs where there wouldn't otherwise be one. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's only tangentially related to circle of confusion. I don't think you mean "backscatter from dust particles". The same effect is caused by sensor dust, specks on the lens, raindrops, bugs, and so on. It's simply small objects out of focus that stand out because they are well-illuminated relative to the rest of the image. In the case of sensor dust or lens specks, the effect is the opposite in that the orbs are darker that the rest of the image. I think this subject would get lost in the backscatter article. Maybe it should be moved to a ghost article and simply explained as a common optical phenomenon. - Mr X 🖋 12:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

simply explained as a common optical phenomenon I'm happy to have one article, ghost and optics, and separate at either Orb (optics) or Orb (paranormal) . That's the result of the previous AfD. Having both viewpoints in one article also constrains the whoo-whoo science. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit photography may be a good one-stop article to put all these things. jps (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge to Spirit photography Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie has already pre-empted this AfD and has done that. Of course there's nothing in there (compared to what we already have at Orb (optics)) to explain how these arise, and so it's very one-sided. That sort of AfD pre-emption is near the opposite of "good editing". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that such explanations are better handled at a location like visual artifact (which is an article that is in desperate need of some loving care, it seems). jps (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't clearly explain how the artifacts arise? I must need new eyeglasses. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Orb (optics) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Merge, or Rename I don't have any strong opinion on what happens to this material, but at the very least there shouldn't be an article named "Orb (optics)" when no optics experts would call the phenomenon described by that name. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've always called them orbs (admittedly taking the lead from the ghost hunters) and I'm a laser physicist. What else are you going to call them? They have one name, it's not unreasonable, and why invent a new one? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do most scientists take the lead from ghost hunters? If so, is there a laser physics journal (or any scientific journal) we can cite that identifies them as “orbs”? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine The Amazing Randi making it some point of honour to always refer to "regurgitated muslin" when others would say "'ectoplasm'", and with the raised-eyebrow-quotes being implicit. But for optics, then optics doesn't have a specific term for this, the ghost hunters clearly do call them "orbs" and so why invent another name? What would you call them? "Circles"? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since only ghost hunters use the term (and our WP:FRIND sources make it clear they are commenting on the use of the term by ghost hunters) several suggestions have been made about what articles to place the ghost hunter use of the term in (ghost hunting, spirit photography, etc.) For the concept of floating particles in photography, several suggestions have been made about what articles to place that information in, (visual artifact, backscatter, etc.). If we are going to have a dedicated article using ghost-hunter lingo as its title, "Orbs", it should clearly identify: "In ghost hunting, an orb is a typically circular artifact on an image, created as a result of flash photography illuminating a mote of dust or other particle, that is interpreted as a spirit presence." Please get it into your head the issue is context, not content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a particularly bad article for its length. I understand it raises the hackles of some people for the encyclopedia to have articles on woo-woo stuff, but that shouldn't be a motivation to go searching for weak excuses to delete it. To be honest, I'm surprised the crazy claims have been nearly removed from the article. There are a number of books (from fringe, but not necessarily vanity press publishers) that make a big deal of it. I agree that the crazy claims are crazy, but they're not non-notable. ApLundell (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge/Alter - The subject matter should be here but I don't like the name, it's obfuscating wht the article is really about. I think it needs a rename or that the contents should be split into the appropriate places. Exactly how though would likely depend on who chooses to initiate the work and how they go about it. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could fit into whatever the photographic equivalent of Visual artifact is? Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 842U (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename - Good to have one simple article to explain the topic and less in other articles. It was a craze back then and this will help inoculate future outbreaks. Should rename to orb (photography) or orb photography (which go to different places) because people would rarely see them without a camera. The redirects do need a cleanup. It is still relevant, even if just for humor[25] or style[26]. I know these are not backscattering, but do use the circle of confusion. Speaking of other articles, would you really want to explain this at the circle of confusion article? That would lead to confusion. Visual artifact is mostly just a list page. The backscatter article in the lead says diffuse reflection, but the photo of a glory (optical phenomenon) is more a retroreflector [27]. Also, there is a new use for “Orb” in photography, creating them with light painting [28]. StrayBolt (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge/Rename as suggested by MrX. - Scarpy (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion is starting to go round in circles, and no definitive decision of what to do with the article has been agreed on. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KPTT Agricultural Training Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as a school. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a school. Jzsj (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are far too minor, tangential and/or unrelated to support notability. For example the claim that they network with other schools (can we be more generic?) is suported by this wholly unrelated source about a Jesuit school in Chicago. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Fucking Jesuit-spam coupled with dubious motives and all-around incompetency.We need non-independent sources covering the subject in a significant manner per our guideline and my own searches fail to extract them.If I had seen this, I would have tagged for G11.I also see that the clique of school-inclusionists has now expanded it's horizon of activities to encompass anything and everything that provides some education/vocational training.∯WBG^converse 09:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely mistaken about my motives in creating these articles. I was spurred on by the reviewers who rapidly approved these articles without even a tag! It behooves Wikipedia to get its act together and close the gap between reviewers and those who would apply the most rigid criteria to schools articles such as this, where there's a credible argument for inclusion. We retain most secondary and tertiary schools, which this is. Jzsj (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No body with some non-advertising motives write gems like The benefit of poorer, small farmers is integral to its vision.If it were not for your religious bindings (or something like that, as told by TonyBallioni), you would have been long-blocked as someone indulging in ADVERT/UPE.∯WBG^converse 10:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please give the location of what you think Tony Ballioni said. Also I can only hope that someone who abhors rash judgments will come forward to review schools articles like this. Jzsj (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check this t/p thread.∯WBG^converse 11:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I see there is your "impression" deleted and TB defending the fact that I am not obliged to follow the directive of any superior in my work in Wikipedia. The fact is, no Jesuit superiors have ever expressed to me the least bit of interest in my Wikipedia work. It's something I do because of the sparsity of opportunities to help out in state prisons, which Is the (volunteer) work to which they have assigned me. Jzsj (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tb didn't say anything like that except that COiI is difficult to establish (where we disagree).And, spamming Wikipedia in lieu of working in prisons (or whatever that stuff is)? I will better leave this discussion........∯WBG^converse 12:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WBG's comment should be given minimal weight per WP:ADHOM. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have missed the second line.........∯WBG^converse 13:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's discuss discuss edit's, not editors. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Or rather sources supporting and establishing the notability of the subject....∯WBG^converse 13:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- An agricultural college producing 1000 graduates from a one-year course is likely to be notable, rather more so than many of the secondary schools that we habitually keep. It would however be nice if the data were rather more up to date. Much education is provided by Christian missionaries and churches of many denominations: applying foul language here to Jesuits in not appropriate, whatever the editor's views. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a thousand per year but 1116 in 44 years. An average of a bit more than 25 per year... The Banner talk 17:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The graduation rate claims are also unsourced: the claims in the article for numbers of graduates are not suported, or even mentioned, in the given sources.(NB I am the first IP delete voter above. Router reset.)96.127.244.201 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could someone please remove the "not in citation needed" tag at the end and make this correction: the stats are in the third citation, here. Jzsj (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible improvements and additions to refs: citation 4 is more properly not "Google translate" but here, if someone would be so kind as to make this replacement. Also, please see "Could someone please" just above. And these other sources might be considered: [29]; and: Membangun karakter petani organik sukses dalam era globalisasi (in Indonesian). Kanisius. 2005. Pp. 146-147. ISBN 9789792112382.; and for reference 1 add P. 124. at ; and here; and here; and here. Thanks. Jzsj (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you not try to give independent, reliable sources? Weblogs are not regarded to be reliable sources and most other sources given are related to the subject/Jesuits. The Banner talk 13:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do the best we can with poor schools in underdeveloped areas. Our judgment of the independence of various sources likely varies from yours: the main point here is the veracity of the source, and there's much more reason to believe than to disbelieve this assemblage of sources here. Jzsj (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CIR? WP:COI? The Banner talk 14:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is suggesting and repeatedly soliciting edits to an article on a school, as above, not a violation of Jzsj's topic ban? (I am the IP editor above, router keeps resetting)198.58.175.190 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Jzsj is invoking the creator exception for the purposes of the AFD; can not otherwise discuss the topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources (provided and available) don't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG, since they are either unreliable sources (blogs) or insignificant mentions. I'm not entertaining the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES argument here because the article is clearly promotional in tone. — Newslinger talk 03:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If you judge the article promotional in tone, isn't the solution to remove the promotional tone, of a school that clearly exists and does good work, rather than to delete it? Jzsj (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That depends on how promotional it is. If it can be rescued and simplified, then go for it, but if the extensive history of it is highly promotional, then WP:TNT it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article isn't just promotional in tone: it also fails the sourcing requirements. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has a notice right underneath it summarizing a 2017 RfC, saying that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES shouldn't be used in deletion discussions. Additionally, the article doesn't provide any evidence that the school is accredited. — Newslinger talk 16:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional tone and non-notable. - Scarpy (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been since 1965 it does appear to be notable agricultural institute.

References

Ensiklopedi populer tentang gereja Katolik di Indonesia Pg 229
Sustainable Agriculture in Asia: Directory of organizations in Asia Pg 32
Membangun karakter petani organik sukses dalam era globalisasi pg 147 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't verify the contents of the first book, since the Google Books preview for this particular book is extremely limited~~, but I don't think it's an independent source because the author (Adolf Heuken) is a Catholic priest~~. The ~~second~~ third book only offers passing mentions of the school, and is not independent because the publisher is Kanisius Media, a Jesuit organization. The ~~third~~ second book appears to contain a short directory listing that wouldn't count as significant coverage in WP:ORGDEPTH. — Newslinger talk 12:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - For context, please note that the school has Jesuit and Catholic affiliations, according to the article. — Newslinger talk 12:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the author of the first book, id:Adolf Heuken, is also a notable and award-winning author in Indonesia, of German origin. The fact that he is a Jesuit and Catholic does not of itself vitiate his work. Jzsj (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For avoidance of doubt, I considered the source not independent because Hekuen is a priest (the church equivalent of a company employee), not because he is Catholic. I would make the same classification for a publication written by a person working for a company closely affiliated with another article subject. — Newslinger talk 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic church is not like a company with a single organizational leader and unified finance. While the pope and council of bishops oversee religious, doctrinal issues, such organizations as this in the church are in no wise subject to the pope or bishops but are independently registered entities in all matters of ownership and leadership. And Catholics have (and exhibit) the freedom to hold their own opinions along the whole socio-economic spectrum. Jzsj (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. I've struck out the sections of my comments regarding the independence of the first book. However, even after typing the available text into a translator, I still don't think these sources offer significant coverage of the school. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the third book doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH because the relevant chapter, "Teknis Pengelolaan Pertanian Organik" ("Technical Management of Organic Farming") is not about the school itself. The entire coverage translates to:

Salatiga Farmers' Agriculture Course (KPTT), as an educational institution, has worked for 40 years and has educated more than 3,000 peasant cadres from various regions in Indonesia. During his 40 years of work, the KPTT Salatiga is already doing a lot of experiments and research on how a farmer should live. The world development of the XXI century (the era of globalization) requires all parties not enough to be able to live, but need to participate in changing the direction of the development of the agricultural world towards the will of the Creator. In this context, the age of KTPP which is 40 years old can be a valuable provision and has a great opportunity to prepare more reliable "pioneers of farmers" in the future. In this paper we will discuss how to manage "Organic Farming" which includes economic aspects (production and marketing), ecological aspects (environment), and moral aspects (human attitudes).

The school's name is mentioned several more times in other pages, but only as passing mentions in the biographies of its alumni and affiliates. (e.g. "From 1972 until now he taught at the Farmer Garden Agriculture Course (KPPT) Salatiga.") — Newslinger talk 10:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate sourcing, The argument about non-independent sourcing is nonsense. A source from the same institution is nonindependent, a source from someone else in the RC church is independent enough. Such arguments have indeed been used in the past to avoid covering notable religious topics of all sorts, but I thought we had recognized the absurdity of such an interpretation. Otherwise, we;d be saying we could use no sources from the LC or Smithsonian for a US government topic. . DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And on what policy or guideline is your opinion based? The Banner talk 10:22, 28 August 2018 (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 Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. What Bishonen said. Regarding extended-confirmed protection, which Arbcom case would it come under? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine[edit]

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

So we have another piece of promotional garbage that I nominated for speedy, which was stripped by Eastmain. (See the last one of these here).

So this page is the product of undisclosed paid and conflicted editing - see here This page is associated with Cleveland Clinic which also has a sordid history of undisclosed paid and conflicted editing, some of which is listed at Talk:Cleveland Clinic, and see also the socking and the deleted-as-advertisement Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute.

This "school" is tiny, with around 30 people per class, and the actual degree-granting institution is Case Western, and I merged and redirected this to their med school, which now, already, has all of the decent (as opposed to the indecent self-sourced promotional dreck) that was here plus some actual information. As you can see in the recent history, promotional SPAs and IP's have been edit warring to undo the redirect. This is just academic/industrial waste that is not notable on its own. Please delete and salt. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jytdog's post on article talk, here, makes it clear that the article is indeed infested with either a number of undisclosed paid editors, or just one UPE under many guises. In a way it makes sense to delete it, but I have a question: redirects have been persistently reverted, but how about redirecting again to Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and EC protecting the redirect? Might that work? Bishonen | talk 07:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Works for me! Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - by which I mean redirect to section in article on the degree-granting institution and protect the redirect page. - Scarpy (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Bishonen's suggestion. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 21:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Mostly off-topic arguments by SPAs with COI. Abecedare (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment. I posting the following comments from the page's Talk Page.

Keep This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it provides additional information in a non-editorialized fashion about a completely distinct medical education program at CWRU School of Medicine. CCLCM has distinct admissions committees, admissions criteria, leadership, faculty, students, and educational mission. It a partnership between CWRU and Cleveland Clinic, not a small ancillary program within CWRU School of Medicine. Because of this, the amount of objective information necessary to provide an encyclopedic description of CCLCM cannot fit as sub-sub-sections of CWRU School of Medicine or Cleveland Clinic's pages. Critically, not all of this additional information is present in the existing version of this page, but could be readily added (e.g., detailed sections curriculum, history, etc.). Jytdog's use of the word school in quotes is absurd, as this is recognized by all medical institutions as a distinct program within Case Western. Most residency program websites also make a distinction between CCLCM and Case Western when indicating where their residents went to medical school. Jytdog's claim that this school is not distinct is simply factually incorrect.

If this page is allowed to continue existing, much more information about the program can be added that is strictly non-promotional and would occupy too much space on CWRU's page (community input on the Talk Page can be used to ensure a neutral point of view). This is in line with precedent of other Wikipedia pages, where certain subsections have dedicated pages due to the abundance of information related to the topic. Any aspects of this page that are perceived to be promotional can be readily edited or removed to maintain a neutral point of view (though no such sections in this article are obviously promotional as opposed to factual). It should be stressed that even if certain information on this page is perceived to promotional, the reasonable course of action is to correct these breaches of neutrality instead of deleting a page that provides encyclopedic value. It should further be stressed that no clear evidence has been presented by the nominator that demonstrates this page was created for the purpose of promotion. The introduction is objective and well-sourced.

While I have no doubt that individuals with connections to Cleveland Clinic have contributed to this and other pages, this is not grounds for deletion. Most academic pages on Wikipedia have contributions from affiliated parties, but community moderation and editing can ensure a neutral point of view is maintained. Wikipedia's speedy deletion policy clearly says that pages that could be edited to remove promotional material and still offer encyclopedic value (which this article clearly does) should be modified rather than deleted.

It is also critically important to note that Jytdog, who has requested a speedy deletion, may have a undisclosed conflict of interest, as he/she has repeatedly edit warred on many Cleveland Clinic related pages to prevent the addition of the most basic information that is clearly not promotional. Jytdog has taken an unusually high interest over several years in blocking information from being added to Cleveland Clinic's Wikipedia page and repeatedly deleting this page. This sustained, patterned behavior highly suggests he has a conflict of interest in regard to Cleveland Clinic (a negative conflict) despite the routine accusations he/she levies against all other users who attempt to contribute to related pages. His/her accusations of sock puppetry and promotions are not based on evidence but his own opinions. Specifically, there is no evidence for his/her accusation that another page related to this one has been "infested with paid editors and conflicted editors." Quite to the contrary, any user who has affiliations to Cleveland Clinic clearly disclosed their conflict of interest and routinely consulted the Talk page for revisions as opposed to making direct edits. This includes the executive director of communications at the Clinic itself.

I request any administrator who is reviewing this to investigate the nominator's claims. Altogether, this behavior suggests a gross negative bias toward Cleveland Clinic and should not be allowed to solely determine the fate of this and related pages. Tempest2552 (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC) — Tempest2552 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Pasting my reply from Talk here as well:

Page was created by an account called CCLCM: Special:Contributions/CCLCM -- WP:CORPNAME, obvious paid editor.

Page editing stats:

1) #1 contributor is Clevelandclinic2015 -- Special:Contributions/Clevelandclinic2015 -- WP:CORPNAME, obvious paid editor.

2) contributor is 2,3-DPG -- Special:Contributions/2,3-DPG -- WP:SPA who did pretty much nothing but edit about CC or CCLCM; very WP:APPARENTCOI

3) and #4 and #5 and #6 -- FeatherPluma and TylerDurden8823 and Spencer and me -- four editors including an admin who were trying to clean this page up.

7) is Mednon, like #2 a promotional WP:SPA -- Special:Contributions/Mednon

8) is TDrum2007 like #2 a promotional WP:SPA -- Special:Contributions/TDrum2007

9) is Jazmaan who did little here but added a bolus of promotional content about the matching of the class of 2009 - that diff series; Special:Contributions/Jazmaan

10) is, big shocker, yet another 100% promotional SPA. Special:Contributions/Tempest2552

yep. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to Jytdog If your chief issue with this page is the appearance of advertising, the most reasonable course of action is to participate in correcting those revisions. Many of the "infractions" you have cited are several years old and no longer appear on the current version of this page. Please provide specific examples of promotional material present on this page, and, if you still wish to completely delete the page as a result, clearly explain why those examples warrant wholesale deletion of legitimate encyclopedic content rather than revision with community feedback. Tempest2552 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC) — Tempest2552 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are not addressing the entire deletion rationale. This "school" is not notable on its own; we cover it adequately in the article about the degree-granting institution. The existence of the page itself is promotional, including its title, which omits the degree-granting institution but does however -- and gee big shocker -- feature "Cleveland Clinic" and the name of the donor, who gave a bunch of money to the clinic.

This is one of the primary ways that paid and conflicted editors abuse WP; getting a page in WP is seen as a desperately important means to obtain visibility on the internet. This is not what WP is for per WP:PROMO. I will not be replying to you further. You have dodged the disclosure question and everything you are doing is promoting this "program". Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have clearly answered the disclosure question on my Talk page (i.e., there is no connection). Secondly, it is your opinion, not a fact, that the school is not notable on its own. As someone in the medical community, I can tell you that this statement is absurd. If you don't believe me, please consult any reputable source, including residency program directors who evaluate applications from different medical schools. If you have experience that supersedes residency director expertise on this matter of notability, please do share.

Finally, it is clear your opinion is not unbiased, as you have a documented history of trying to remove any positive information about Cleveland Clinic with the overgeneralizing accusation of impropriety. Please do not pretend to be a completely objective party in this discussion; you too have your biases that are clearly evident in your contribution history. Tempest2552 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evidence for distinct Program Wow, this page has gotten quite heated. Before I contribute, I'd like to make the full-disclosure that I have a nonfinancial conflict of interest in regard to Cleveland Clinic. I am not an official representative or being paid for my contributions here or elsewhere on Wikipedia.

With that said, I'd like to submit some evidence for the notion that CCLCM is indeed a distinct program, and thus probably deserves its dedicated page. The first piece of evidence is from Doximity, a large social media platform for healthcare providers. On there, physicians can provide information on where they went to medical school. Cleveland Clinic Lerner and Case Western Reserve are two distinct options despite sharing the same parent program. This is because they are indeed viewed as separate programs. There is no easy to way provide direct links, but if you browse the profiles of doctors who graduated from CWRU, you will see that CCLCM and CWRU are distinct.

The second piece of evidence that supports this is how other medical centers classify graduates from CCLCM. I did some digging, and found that one year several students from both CWRU Med and CCLCM matched to the same program at Duke. On Duke's profile page of their residents for that year, their biographies reflect the distinct programs from which they came. CCLCM grads have CCLCM under medical school whereas traditional CWRU grads have Case Western listed. Here is the link: https://medicine.duke.edu/education-and-training/internal-medicine-residency/duke-residents/current-residents

Finally, I would like to voice my agreement with Tempest that Jytdog does not seem to be a completely neutral party in this matter. I reached out to him/her regarding contributing to the Cleveland Clinic page with the intent to fully disclose my COI. A few days ago I added this COI to my user page and it was also added to the Talk Page at Cleveland Clinic's article. I proceeded to make minor edits that did not in anyway change the substance or content of what was originally in the article. For more substantial changes I had in mind, I posted on the Talk Page to solicit feedback with my COI in mind, and made no direct edits. Despite this Jytdog, proceeded to edit war with me over trivial changes and proceeded to threaten to have me banned for posting promotional content on my user page. This discouraged me from making further contributions. This behavior, as well as behavior exhibited on this page, leads me to also question his/her objectiveness, or at the very least his/her capacity to participate in a professional and non-hostile manner in this discussion. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with content, I have high standards for sourcing and for the content generated from sources, based on the policies and guidelines; I want conflicted editors to learn what we do here and why, and follow the guidelines and policies. Too many of them are too driven by their external interest to stop, and actually learn, and reconsider what they are doing. My approach to this topic is indeed sharpened by the long string of people affiliated with Cleveland Clinic coming here, ignorant of and for the most part not caring about the mission of WP and the policies and guidelines through which the editing community realizes the mission, relentlessly dumping slag into our beautiful project and attacking editors trying to maintain the decency of the encyclopedia. The history of corruption is exactly what it is. That is your heritage here. You can be cognizant of that and behave accordingly, or not; experienced editors here will remain very aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I cannot speak for or control the behavior of anyone else, even if they have connections to the Clinic. As I said, I am not an official representative or paid for this. I have responded in more detail on my Talk page to other points which I don't feel are appropriate to litigate here. Nonetheless, I hope we can move past this animosity and work together to ensure Wikipedia provides accurate, detailed, but also non-promotional information about Cleveland Clinic. With respect to this page, although I do not condone Tempest's method of approaching this issue, I do strongly agree that CCLCM deserves its own page, and that its content should be generated using community input. Please see the evidence I provided above. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has anything to do with deleting or keeping this advertisement dumped into WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this article is an advertisement. Even the admin who dismissed the speedy deletion request said it was not a promotional page. If that is the crux of your argument for deletion, it has already been dismissed. If you would like to make revisions to the page or participate in its content generation to ensure neutrality, I would welcome that. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say that again -- Nothing you have written here has anything to do with how the editing community determines to keep or delete an article. As I noted above, conflicted editors generally don't care about the mission of WP nor the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission. They just argue and argue and argue for what they want, driven by their external interest, based on nothing within Wikipedia, never stopping to learn about the mission or the policies and guidelines within Wikipedia. The disdain for Wikipedia is just so obvious. (and btw, the person who removed the speedy tag is not an admin but an "inclusionist" editor who tries to "save" things)Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and EC-protect as proposed by Bishonen. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rome 2.0[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY by coverage in third-party source; ~~not even a website for this group is mentioned, hence possibly even WP:HOAX. Constantine ✍ 21:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)~~ this is a Facebook group without wider significance as yet. Constantine ✍ 11:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This is an article about a group of young linguistic scholars who live around the world, since their website is currently under construction, as is their kick starter campaign, the only remaining third party source is a Facebook page made by a fan. I have also added more sources discussing the subject of the evolution of the latin language to modern ecclesiastic latin, a subject that I feel is inadequately covered by this, or any other encyclopedia. I have also removed Rome 2.0 from the list of claimant nations or micro-nations, instead classifying it as a mainly academic phenomenon. Much of the accusation levied against this article is based on personal opinion and standards; specifically, use of the word "preposterous," to describe the legitimacy of a student-run organization. User talk:Modernantiquehistory

Keep: Despite the diminutive Facebook group, the fact that this organization has an entirely fan-run and unaffiliated (though they call themselves "official") Facebook group shows that Rome 2.0 has notoriety outside of its circle, to garner a steadily growing base of support. The student groups behind Rome 2.0 are currently receiving attention from local reporters affiliated with the Harvard Crimson and the Register Forum.

@Modernantiquehistory: please read WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:GNG. Constantine ✍ 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the statement by the page's creator Modernantiquehistory confirms this is not currently a notable organization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search turned up nothing relevant about either the organisation or the self-proclaimed emperor. Fails WP:NORG. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing against the group, they just don't appear to meet notability guidelines yet. - Scarpy (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't see any WP:RS coverage.Tacyarg (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly, as this sounds interesting. However, if the only remaining third party source is a Facebook page made by a fan then it's obviously not notable. Chetsford (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this doesn't appear to have any relevance anywhere. For a long time there's been talk that the Vatican resembles the modern-day Papal States/Roman Empire and is, in fact, a successor to Ancient Rome more so than the actual city. The fact that this is a group doesn't make it any more notable. Redditaddict6 9 03:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A fourth relist appears to be excessive. Obviously, there is no consensus on whether to keep or delete this article. Whether the content should perhaps be merged elsewhere is something that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Details of the rules of a role-playing game. Not an individually notable topic (WP:N), as it lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources unrelated to the game. All cited sources appear related to the game. A classic case of WP:FANCRUFT, better suited to fan wikis. Possibly also copyright concerns given the apparent close paraphrasing of game rulebooks. Sandstein 20:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I do believe that the "Shared Fantasy" and "Dicing with Dragons" sources give notability to the topic, but at minimum we can merge some of it into Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. BOZ (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Can you tell us in which detail magic items are covered in these sources? From how they are cited in the article lead, I infer that they don't provide more detail than the superficial information given in the lead, which would not be the kind of substantial coverage needed for notability. Sandstein 06:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dungeons & Dragons is a well-documented role-playing game, and even some specific aspects of the game such as its magic items will have enough coverage - for instance in gaming magazines, not necessarily published by the company that markets D&D - to merit articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you provide specific references to such sources about this particlular topic? Sandstein 06:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep a broadly discussed topic. Really broadly. Things like [30] and [31] for example are very academic sources. Plenty of reviews of the D&D books provide coverage of the various items and their presentations. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider changing to Magic item (role playing), and expanding to cover the general practice of role playing games having these, and having the fairly common characteristic of such items granting specific point bonuses to specific character attributes. See Michael J. Tresca, The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games (2010), p. 151 (discussing the transition of magic items from traditional role playing games to computer gaming analogues). bd2412 T 19:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above as a notable topic, but definitely cut it down to the basic non-crufty stuff. The gigantic table under "artifacts" and most of the "overview by edition" should go, and unsourced content in other sections should be cleared out. ansh 666 07:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As content that violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and has no secondary sources. Presented sources in this AFD are not specifically about the article subject. Belongs in the D&D Wikia and has no reason to be in Wikipedia. It might be a notable topic if rewritten to encompass all RPG items, but that would be a matter that does not preclude the deletion of this total fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major facet of a major game. Definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On seeing the !votes I'd hoped to close this discussion (and perhaps a better NAC or admin still might) , but there seems a lack of actually justified arguments by the Keep crew and an absence of full WP:BEFORE checks throughout. Items are so bound up that they're slightly difficult to filter out from the general coverage of D&D. D&D for dummies, Magic Items gives detailed coverage in a fairly reliable form (strict editorial control and source checking on the books). Next to consider are probably the reliable game sites - those generally accepted to provide reviews (usually the way of establishing WP:NGAME) should also be deemed reliable/independent for any articles on the topic. E.g. Kotaku The 20 Most WTF Magical Items In Dungeons & Dragons. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This should be a section of the Dungeons & Dragons gameplay article. Aeonx (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Dungeons and Dragons gameplay. Vorbee (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in this case the Merge !votes look pretty silly to me. The article offers many reliable sources independent of the game publishers, which establishes Notability, and the GAMEGUIDE section of WP:NOT does not apply in such cases, as Zxcvbnm should know by now. In fact, the nominator suggested that the sources for notability needed to be independent of the game rather than independent of the game publisher, which shows complete ignorance of WP policy in this area. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dungeons and Dragons gameplay. The article as written isn't encyclopedic; it's a game manual. Very little independent sourcing. These problems were all noted during the first AfD in 2008, but apparently little was done to address it. AfD isn't cleanup, but ten years suggest the problems aren't fixable. Mackensen (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm a bit disappointed by the arguments presented here, with a couple of exceptions; few of the opinions are backed up by substantive evidence or reasoning. For this to reach a meaningful conclusion, there needs to be more detailed analysis of the source material, and on the feasibility of a standalone article versus a merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by BOZ and Hobit; I concur that these establish notability and cover necessary sourcing outside primary sources. That said, I also concur that the article as it currently stands includes far too much "in-universe" material. The ~~table is unnecessary (although might make an appropriate separate list article similar to the various creature lists) and the~~ examples/gameplay-related sections are too large. While AFD is not cleanup, this article definitely needs cleaning up.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Subsequent to a review of the article history and talk page, I withdraw my remark about the table, as it and various elements of it were previously moved to the current article as the result of previous XfDs. Deleting the table from the current location would remove material previously deemed notable enough to keep. My keep !vote on the article stands.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, depending on majority consensus - I have no opinion, but given how much information there is, if this passes WP:V then it should probably be merged with the official Dungeons & Dragons article if the majority agrees. I do, however, argue that this info isn't important to many people, so a deletion wouldn't be a bad idea either. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 02:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons - changed prev. vote After RoySmith's deletion of most of the article, I say strong redirect, not a merge. The article is useless now. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 22:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets sourcing requirements, and is too long to be merged well into the targets suggested. Should be summarised in those articles at the appropriate level instead. Useful to readers interested in this topic. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Del/Mer There are 24 sources, not a single one of which are WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic, therefore, this could not reasonably remain as a standalone article while preserving compliance with the GNG. My personal BEFORE on JSTOR, Google News, and newspapers.com fails to find any further coverage. WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:FANCRUFT applies. Merge as a concise couple sentences to Dungeons & Dragons is probably okay, though first preference is for delete. Chetsford (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note: I'm currently working on cleaning up sources. Please hold off on closing this.~~ -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time to do this justice. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject lacking independent notability. It could be deleted altogether but a preferable course would be to Merge the text into Dungeons and Dragons gameplay. -The Gnome (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've deleted everything from the article which was totally unsourced. Sadly, that means I hacked away about 2/3 of the text. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: why has this discussion been relisted 3 times? Debate has now been open for 25 days. Per WP:RELIST, debates should in general only be relisted twice, unless there is a pressing reason to do otherwise. I see none here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan's Forge - Generally it's viewed as reasonable to do so if there are comments still coming in as the end of the 2nd relist occurs, and a clearly firm consensus hasn't been established. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cubicle 7[edit]

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

None of this article's 10 references are to a WP:RS. A BEFORE search finds a plethora of either fleeting mentions or inclusion on small hobby game websites or blogs, none of which are themselves RS. This appears to be part of an expansive WP:WALLEDGARDEN that also includes entries for all of the company's products and key people like Dominic McDowall-Thomas and Adventures in Middle-earth, etc. Chetsford (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Cubicle 7 is discussed extensively in Designers and Dragons, a paradigmatic reliable source in the field, and won numerous notable awards in its domain. The OP's characterization of the Cubicle 7-related articles as a "walled garden" shows profound ignorance of the tabletop RPG publishing industry in the 2000s and an inability to carry out a competent BEFORE in the domain. This particular article is not especially well-sourced, but AFDISNOTCLEANUP, as the nom should know. This one should really not even be under discussion, as the company is discussed in RS and published multiple notable and award-winning games. Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep !vote addendum there is non-trivial coverage in https://www.tabletopgaming.co.uk/board-games/ , which is a professional publication with editorial oversight independent of Cubicle 7. There is also non-trivial coverage in Volume 4 of Designers & Dragons. That is two policy-compliant sources, so the GNG is met. Can we go home now? Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the company is discussed in RS - Such as? (Just the "Designers & Dragons" book from the "Evil Hat Productions" entity or are there others?) and published multiple notable and award-winning games. See WP:INHERITED Chetsford (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This company has been discussed in many, many reliable sources besides Designers & Dragons; Ken Hite's former Out of the Box column is one example that I can remember clearly that definitely meets the RS threshold, though Cubicle 7's work was reviewed through the professional game press. Hell, Cubicle 7's business side was discussed in proper journalistic outlets with editorial oversight, which I would not say about many RPG publishers of the period.

And NOTINHERITED means that works cannot inherit Notability from creators, but creators most certainly can inherit Notability from works; see NARTIST. I don't know why people find that one so confusing...Newimpartial (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cubicle 7's business side was discussed in proper journalistic outlets with editorial oversight - Do any of these outlets have names or publication dates? Chetsford (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one genre of good example would be the coverage of Cubicle 7's non-renewal of the Starblazer and Doctor Who properties (among others). To me it is obvious that this coverage contributes to WP:N, but according to you the coverage has to be independent of Cubicle 7's actual products, which is of course a perverse travesty of what NOTINHERITED actually means. Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial. BOZ (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ - Newimpartial said Cubicle 7's business side was discussed in proper journalistic outlets with editorial oversight. Do you know, or could you please identify, specifically which "proper journalistic outlets with editorial oversight"? Chetsford (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep to quote the article itself, "Cubicle 7 has won 12 ENnie Awards,[4] 2 Origins Awards,[5] Best in Show, Lucca 2012[6] and a Golden Geek.[7]", this is above and beyond what is needed for reasonable call for notability. Web Warlock (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think the nom actually read the article. Certainly not with comprehension. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORGSIG there is no inherent notability standard for companies on the basis of awards won, or any other reason and "no organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is". Companies only qualify for WP by meeting the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're the one misreading. What the policy says is simply that no organization can have an article written without two independent, reliable sources, per GNG. That isn't a problem here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it doesn't say anything about "two" sources. It says "The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product." It also says that "The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated. Hypothetical sources (e.g. "the company is big/old/important so there must be more sources, I just don't have/can't find them") do not count towards the notability requirement.". Right now there are no RS in this article. While I have been told that they exist, my two attempts to ask them to be presented have met with no reply. Chetsford (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the only reason you can say there are "no RS" is because, in spite of clear evidence presented here and the results of many previous AfD closures, you refuse to accept that Designers & Dragons is a RS. Rather, you prefer to believe that it is some kind of self-published screed, of the kind that is usually cited authoritatively in path-breaking academic texts. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no company article that would be closed as "Keep" on the basis of reference in just one (1) RS. We have, literally, dozens of company articles (correctly) deleted daily with more than that. Game companies are evaluated by exactly the same standards as restaurant chains, sludge pump manufacturers, and accounting firms. Chetsford (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More interesting OR policy development, but still no. Anyway, most of those deletions are COI, promotional, or peacock articles, and are definitely not publishers where the owners/designers had created award-winning books and games. Which you would know, if you had read AfD closures in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Designers and Dragons series is borderline as an academic source: since its publishers Evil Hat Productions (which, NB, ~~is not~~may not be completely WP:INDEPENDENT from Cubicle 7 per our article on it) and Mongoose Publishing are not academic publishers, looking at how it has been cited per WP:SCHOLARSHIP shows hits in in a few dozen theses, some tiny start-up journals, and a collection of essays on RPGs from McFarland & Company. I can't find the text, but taking it on good faith that one of the volumes of this series discusses Cubicle 7 at length, GNG and WP:ORGCRIT require a minimum of significant coverage in at least one more independent reliable source.

All the candidate additional sources I can find fail either by not being RS (blogs or sources with minimal editorial oversight [32] [33] [34], fora [35], wikis [36], etc), not being independent (interviews with brand-new Tabletop Gaming magazine [37] and the Ennie awards blog [38]), or possibly both (lots of interviews in iffy sources: [39][40][41]). INHERITED is definitely a concern, as the closest-to-reliable sources I can find are reviews of the company's games (e.g. [42]) with little real content about the company itself, just things like "Cubicle 7 Entertainment, one of my favorite game companies".

I can't find the Out of the Box columns that supposedly discuss the company, but columns ordinarily fall under the category of opinion content, and thus per WP:NEWSORG can be reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact, which are what we need to write a useful article and hence what matters for notability. FourViolas (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hite is a paradigmatic case where a professional publishes reliable and independent commentary on his industry, meeting the strict criteria in WP:RS. And if you have any evidence that Cubicle 7 had any editorial influence on the publication of either edition of Designers & Dragons, I would love to hear it.

Also, your argument that Tabletop Gaming is not an independent source because it was "brand new" is unsettling, to say the least. What did you mean? The coverage of Cubicle 7 in that magazine is sustained, and is by no means confined to an interview as you imply. Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tabletop Gaming article I linked was not independent simply because it was an interview. It would help if you could provide examples of TG's sustained, significant coverage of the company, as their back issues aren't searchable online or in my university library, but that wouldn't be decisive because, per WP:NEWSORG, reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact, and it's hard for a two-year-old niche publication to be "well-established".

The evidentiary standard of WP:INDEPENDENT does not require me to produce meeting notes at which Evil Hat ordered Appelcline to talk more about Cubicle 7 because Evil Hat had licensed some of its games to them and wanted to boost their profile. However, your point that this it's Appelcline's relationship with Cubicle 7 is more of a grey-area WP:IS#Conflicts of interest than straightforward "close affiliation" is well-taken. FourViolas (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first volume of Designers & Dragons was from Mongoose Publishing, so if you want to discount the Evil Hat version of the book, then we can just go with the original for establishing independence. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FourViolas, your name pains me so much, because I have only one viola. :( And nobody every buys me the Viola d'Amore from my Wishlist.

In any event, I have re-examined NEWSORG, and it is intended, along with other sections of RS, to establish a hierarchy of sources for purposes of WEIGHT and BALANCE. It would be a serious misreading of NEWSORG to imply that a news organization with independence and editorial oversight doesn't count for notability because it is less than 5 years old. Hundred-year-old local newspapers count for notability, though their factual claims can't be presented with equal balance to contemporary scholarship. Let's not forget what our guidelines are for, nor use IDONTLIKEIT criteria to disadvantage certain topics against others. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FourViolas, I don't think you understand the relationship between Evil Hat and Cubicle 7: Cubicle 7 licensed the FATE SYSTEM under the open gaming license, a Public copyright license that allowed Cubicle 7 to use the FATE system for free. This did not create a financial relationship or any kind of interest that would have been in violation of INDEPENDENT, and at any rate publicatiom of the game concerned was discontinued before the Evil Hat edition of Designers & Dragons was released. I don't expect you to have known all this ahead of time, FourViolas, but I do expect you to accept the facts and move on. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the Routledge book (Transmedia Foundations), edited by an associate professor and a PhD in Media Studies, looks okay and relies heavily on Appelcline; that seems just adequate to say Designers has entered mainstream academic discourse. Also, I'm convinced that the Designers—Cubicle connection is thin enough to qualify as independent, especially if there's significant coverage in the first edition.

That's still only one source, though, and I wouldn't expect a two-year-old online magazine with a circulation of "thousands", regardless of the topic, to qualify as a well-established news outlet without significant evidence to the contrary (e.g. mainstream media citing it for points of fact).

It might be helpful, if it wouldn't violate WP:FORUMSHOP, to get a WP:RSN discussion on Designers going; it looks like a lot of AfDs might depend on it, and it would be nice not to have to litigate it at each one. FourViolas (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Designers & Dungeons issue was settled before so got here (around the time 2nd edition came out): the nom's comments about novelty T-shirts seem to have been highly competent trolling on his part. But if RSN is truly necessary to prevent a recurrence of this splitshow, then it might be worth it.

As far as the sources you and High King are asking for, the most appropriate and accessible additional sources might be the coverage of Cubicle 7's management buyout and separation from its previous parent company, the Rebellion Group(e,g,[43]) or previously when if was bought by Rebellion in the first place ([44] for example). Though really I believe it is against policy to ignore the coverage of Cubicle 7 in connection to their games and the awards they have won, as I have pointed out elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first source, Geeknative.com, is an article by Andrew Girdwood on "a blog [... run by Andrew Girdwood]" with no evidence of editorial oversight. The second is pretty obviously a reprinted press release from Cubicle 7, right down to the "For further information, interviews or images please contact Chris Birch [email protected]" at the bottom. The other sources I can find about this event are verbatim or lightly reworded press release reprints (gamesindustry.biz, dicetowernews.com), hosted on the Cubicle 7 website, or manifestly unreliable (e.g. boardgamegeek.com).

If Cubicle 7 is covered in significant depth (multiple paragraphs of non-trivial information) in a RS article about one of their games, that certainly counts. But passing mentions in articles about notable games they've produced do not count towards WP:CORP, and of course per INHERIT it's not enough that the games are notable. FourViolas (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that an ORG mention must have "multiple paragraphs of non-trivial information" independent of their products simply does not exist in NORG and is a misreading of NOTINHERITED. In fact, for creators, NCREATIVE is quite clear that in fact the creator of works can inherit notability from these works, a!though the article needs to have RS information about the creators or WP can't have an article. Something participants in this discussion have trouble understanding is that a typical RPG publisher is half way between a musical group and say a newspaper, in terms of its process, where the "publisher" is as much creative, rather than corporate. NCORP notes that it "does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)." which would be the case here. And the major differences between NORG and NBIO in this context are that creative works avowedly count for Notability in NBIO, and not all of the independent RS need to be independently "significant" to hit the threshold for Notability, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This is exactly the case we have here, in fact: a small group of creatives whose work is award-winning and covered in multiple RS and who receive extensive, independent, reliable coverage in one major sources but where the DEPTH or the reliability of the other independent sources can be questioned, once the sources about the group's works have been set aside. In such a case, the policy-compliant course is to Keep the article through the spirit of WP:N and the letter of NBIO, rather than applying NORG mechanically as if we were discussing a cement factory. Newimpartial (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on, lets keep our guidelines in order. The point about "multiple paragraphs" is to meet SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH and "independent of their products" is to meet ORGIND. FourViolas was providing a reasonable (and helpful) interpretation of policies/guidelines that a reference/article on a game published by Cubicle 7 cannot be used to establish the notability of Cubicle 7 *unless* the reference provides more than a passing mention of the publisher. NCORP itself is clear that The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated so that interpretation is fine. NCREATIVE is for people, not organizations, and therefore does not apply here - if this topic was about an individual, then it would. Also, the danger to arguments you are putting forward is that it sounds a lot like NPUBLISHER - which was a failed proposal and therefore those arguments did not achieve a consensus then and will likely not now either. In summary, you cannot mix and match pieces from a guidelines you like for a different category of article to use here. Guidelines dealing with creative people do not apply to "creative" organizations. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh my memory, O High King, but I don't think NPUBLISHER concerned small groups of collaborators who were recognized as a studio within their realm of creation and who worked together to create award-winning works? Assuming that it did not, then your reference does not apply. NCORP itself seems very clear that it intends to exclude very small groups of collaborators who are intended to be included in NBIO. We are not talking about a large organisation here; we are really talking about two or three people as the central node of a network. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug up the correct link for that - it is WP:NPUBLISHING. It would have applied to any type of publisher had it been adopted in its current form. There's no special treatment for small groups of creative collaborators that perform the roles of both creatives/publishers and larger organizations that might have different people in these roles. And yes, NCORP has a list of particular exclusions such as sports teams and religious organizations and also excludes small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors but no, it doesn't have a generic all-purpose exclusion for "small" and definitely not for "small creative collaborators publishing RPG material". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the NPUBLISHING proposal has nothing to do with studios of creatives, just as I thought. Cubicle 7 sits nicely in the middle of the terrain mapped out by "entertainment groups, co-authors and co-inventors" - NORG is using examples for a category, not giving an exhaustive list of exclusions. You would see how the subject fits in that terrain, were you to read the chapter from Designers & Dragons Volume 4. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response This is getting a little silly. The NPUBLISHING proposal was specifically in relation to publishers. Which is the type of company that Cubicle 7 is. The example provided in NCORP are because not all "organizations" are easy to define. But some things we can say for definite. Such as, Cubicle 7 is definitely a company registered in Companies House, with a registered company number. Clearly Cubicle 7 a for-profit limited liability company. Unlike the other "organizations" such as listed in NCORP. If you can point to "entertainment groups, co-authors and co-inventors" that have an article here and are also incorporated as for-profit limited liability companies listed in Companies House, put a link here. Otherwise, can we just stick with the reality of applying NCORP? Also, I definintely don't get that idea from reading Des&Dra (but you know, I haven't a clue which chapter you're referring to because you couldn't be bothered to be more precise). HighKing⁺⁺ 09:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High King, I literally gave the page references for the chapter in this AfD; it is in Volume 4, is 20 pages long, and is entitled "Cubicle 7". I'm sure you can find it. Doctor Who: The Card Game And to suggest that a small group of creatives, whether they are a musical group, an art collective, or a game studio, cease to be covered by the exclusion in NCORP the moment they incorporate is a deliberate misreading of NCORP and, frankly, wikilawyering of the worst sort. As far as your rhetorical request for examples, perhaps let's start with the Beatles. Newimpartial (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And back to FourViolas: I still do not agree that the Geeknative falls below the RS threshold (though I concede that my other link included a press release verbatim). The relevant passage from WP:SPS reads, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - Andrew Girdwood is a communications practitioner who has been published professionally on gaming in en world and The Scotsman [45], maintains transparency and consistency of standards in Geeknative, and should be considered part of that reliable exception deliberately recognized in WP:SPS. While I understand and applaud WP's skepticism about self-published sources, it doesn't make sense to me to construe the guidelines to exclude the ones that are the best sources of any kind available in a certain niche, as is the case for Geeknative. Something of a nose-spite-face situation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, HighKing, BOZ, and FourViolas: as this is a topic (the suitability of Designers & Dragons) you are in the active discussion of, I feel I need to notify you I have opened a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard here. Chetsford (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It would have been even better if the notification had been more timely, and if the initial filing has demonstrated a more comprehensive BEFORE. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Award-winning major player in the RPG industry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am looking specifically for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability *of the company*. To date I have not managed to find any references that meet the criteria of WP:RS and the criteria of WP:GNG as clarified in WP:NCORP. It is important that references must be independent (as per WP:ORGIND) and provide significant and in-depth coverage of the company.

Of the references I've seen in the article, none meet the criteria. Newimpartial claims that Cubicle 7 is discussed extensively in Designers and Dragons. I cannot find that reference. I *can* find references where Cubicle 7's *games/products* are mentioned/discussed. I can even find a reference where Fred Hicks (who runs Designers and Dragons) says As I’ve said before, I like the guys at Cubicle 7, and there are things I like about another game of theirs — Starblazer Adventures — that I’ve talked about before on Deadly Fredly. Heck, I was almost a part of the Dr. Who RPG project, and helped with their initial pitch to the BBC, but ducked out early on due to other time demands. This is a convenient and recent example, is all (which puts a cloud over whether he is "intellectually independent").
In another comment Newimpartial says that Ken Hite wrote about them in his "Out of the Box" series at one point. Well, references must exist in order to count (whether in an archive or library, doesn't have to be online) but there's no evidence that this reference exists today so it cannot be taken into consideration. Perhaps if someone can point to an archive? My Google skills can turn up an archive of the website - but a MySQL error fails to return any copy.
The Warhammer interview with Dominic McDowall in Tabletop Gaming magazine fails to meet the criteria for establishing. There is zero detail provided about the company in this article other than comments on their Warhammer products (which is not the subject of this article). It specifically fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I have found other references in other copies of the magazine (e.g. Page 13 of June 2018 mentions Lone Wolf:The Realm of Sommerlund), but again, they only discuss or mention the games and provide a mention-in-passing to the company.
Finally, the awards. From what I can see, none of the awards are to the company. The awards are for some of the products. For example, the Ennie Awards. In 2012, "The One Ring: Words of the Wise" was nominated in the category of Best Free Product. None of the award categories are for the company. Similarly, the Origins Awards have categories for games and supplements ... but none for a company. Again, similarly for the Lucca "Best in Show" award and the same again for the Golden Geek awards. It would be more correct for the article to state that "Cubicle 7's products have won X awards".
I'm happy to change my !vote if any references turn up but for now, while some of the games may be notable, the company fails to meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, on Designers & Dragons. Cubicle 7 occupies a 20-page chapter (Vol. 4, 341-360) which discussed the history and contribution of the company as well as games and their creators. If you don't think that counts as a source for CORPDEPTH, then I am at a loss to imagine what does. Also, Fred Hicks was the publisher, not the writer of the volume, so the publisher's comments about people he likes would not under normal circumstances count against INDEPENDENT.

Also, and With all due respect, O High King, I don't think you are reading NCORP in a balanced fashion as intended, especially under ORGSIG. There is one paragraph weighing against INHERITED notanikity, of course, but there is a second paragraph as follows:

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING.

This means that the effects of the company are to be considered in Notability; the article on a leading company in its field that produces award-winnin≥g games is not, contra the opinion of the nominator, to be treated in exactly the same way as an article on a minor sewer contractor; discussion of the games relates to the notability of the studio producing them, just as is the case with video games for example. Your comment that "None of the awards are for the company" and that therefore they don't count for Notability runs directly counter to the spirit and the letter of ORGSIG, which is, after all, the issue here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add a paragraph-or-so summary of the company from Designers & Dragons at some point today, but I am pretty busy for the moment. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response I agree that the Designers & Dragons 00s book meets the criteria. A very comprehensive history containing much detail of their work. The website doesn't, which is what I was referring to. You make a good argument regarding whether Cubicle 7 "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment...." in relation to the awards won by their games. Certainly, it isn't an argument I've encountered before - that the fact of their games winning awards demonstrates that the company has had a significant/demonstrable effect - but it is compelling and I believe remains in the spirit of the guidelines. I'm now leaning towards a Keep but I'll think a little more and wait to see what others have to say. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Newimpartial - here you seem to be [46] negotiating an AfD, offering to !vote redirect in an entirely separate article provided I withdraw my delete nomination on this article. While I appreciate your willingness to work collaboratively, !vote trading between AfDs is not in the spirit of the AfD process. When I choose to withdraw a nomination it's because a reasonable argument has been advanced which has changed my mind; I don't withdraw in exchange for favorable !votes in other AfDs. You were previously warned by Tyw7 [47] about using AfDs as a stage for personal attacks and, I think, in the spirit of that collegial guidance it also bears noting that AfDs should not be used as a barter market. (edit conflict) While I'm sure you extended this idea in GF, other editors may not perceive it in that way and the perception you might be bartering !votes risks spoilation of all your recent AfD contributions across the board. Thanks for your passion on this topic. Chetsford (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Newimpartial --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Chet, that is not what I meant. I am simply unwilling to have the content in question merged to an article that is then itself deleted, which is what you appeared to be doing at Doctor Who: The Card Game and which is itself an inappropriate WP:GAME.

There is also nothing wrong with either of us admitting that an article on Cubicle 7 that also includes WP's only discussion of the card games would have stronger references and notability than any of the three articles separately, although if you insist on being the pettier humanoid, I am certainly unable to stop you. Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to calibrate the intent behind your comment. "if you insist on being the pettier humanoid" - Once again, it's important discussion be limited to issues related to the AfD and not expanded to include denunciations of other editors as this can create an unwelcoming atmosphere that discourages others from participating. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I mean personally, I know all my games industry friends are raving about some of Cubicle 7's latest offerings; I'm aware that's not enough for a !vote but I thought it worth mentioning that these guys are major players in the industry right now with a lot of eyes on them. That said, they won Origin awards, which is pretty significant, are often mentioned in Designers & Dragons, and I don't think anyone should underplay the value of Boardgamegeek as a games news site. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have struck my previous !vote to Delete. There is definitely one good (great!) reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, Designers & Dragons 00s. It is difficult to pinpoint a second and also difficult to find a source that provides details of the company and not one of their products but there are a relatively large number of intervews and reviews that satisfy me that the company is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way, if Cubicle 7 aren't notable then about the only RPG company operating today that is notable would be like... Wizards of the Coast.Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. (Maybe White Wolf and Fantasy Flight, too? But other than that, yes, I'd probably agree.) Chetsford (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which, once more, suggests you probably shouldn't be imposing it upon yourself to adjudicate what constitutes a notable RPG publisher since you clearly have some odd opinions on notability in this domain.Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to two points of clarification. In this discussion my role is as participant, not "adjudicator". Also, what "constitutes a notable RPG publisher" on WP is identical to what constitutes a notable company of any kind as we do not currently have inherent notability standards for game companies. Therefore, special knowledge beyond an understanding of WP:CORPDEPTH is not required. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some game publishers operate at arm's length and are properly evaluated on NCORP; others (the paradigmatic case being White Wolf in the '90s) operate more like an atelier or studio and are properly evaluated by CREATIVE. But we can hash all of this out at the RfC or Village Pump discussion on the question, "are RPGs created works subject to NBOOK, and are their creators within scope for CREATIVE?" Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep has become redirect target for several games. Probably squeaks by on notability but barely. More 'benefit of the doubt' to help consensus than any strong feeling on notability. Fails WP:NORG. Specifically the sources provided fail WP:ORGIND because they are essentially niche or trade magazines where they are not straight from the Cubical7 website. The awards are cited to a wiki and the Geeknative interview is just that, an interview, which again fails ORGIND. Jbh ^Talk 12:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC) last edited 12:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here the editor appears to be ignoring the 20-page chapter in the main independent, RS that discussed RPGs, as well as the many awards that the publisher has won and its role as a game studio per CREATIVE. Their !vote should therefore be evaluated accordingly. The awards are reliably cited elsewhere, though so had already decided to re-source the Origins awards (three, now) to the authoritative site. In any event, it isn't the sourcing of the article but rather the potential sourcing that matters at AfD, as we all know. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (Fixed indent Jbh ^Talk 23:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Please properly indent your replies as you have been asked to.

No, I am not ignoring it. A single entry in an industry specific publication, which as I understand it aims to be comprehensive, does not on its own establish notability. Also, I believe that there is some question above about whether that publication is completely independent of the company and its people so, it would fail ORGIND for the purpose of establishing notability. So we have somewhere between zero and one suitable sources, depending on how one weights the particulars. Jbh ^Talk 23:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those reading the above discussion in depth would observe that the question about the independence of Designers & Dragons was based on a misunderstanding of the nature of Public use licenses, which do not create a financial interest and therefore do not fall afoul of the intended scope of INDEPENDENT. A!so, the publication in question does not at all intend to be "comprehensive", and while there are chapters for several game studios over the last two decades it is certainly true that most studios/publishers do not receive a full chapter's coverage.

Also note that NBIO, which covers groups of collaborators working closely together, notes that significance may be achieved by a combination of minor mentions, as long as the work is itself significant. Newimpartial (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming the Designers & Dragons source is good it is only one source and I am not willing to concede that it is a significant enough work to make a company 'notable' simply by virtue of having an entry. Also NORG, and that is the criterion this topic falls under, specifically disallows aggregating minor coverage for purposes of notability. There are two tables in User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Red pad 05 which can be used to analyze sources under NORG. There are seven check boxes which all must be true before a source can be considered adequate for notability purposes. Jbh ^Talk 23:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that are are clear, the chapter for Cubicle 7 in Volume 4 of Designers & Dragons is not simply "having an entry": it is one of the longer chapters in the book, shorter than those for Paizo Publishing, Mongoose Publishing or Green Ronin, but longer than those for Necromancer Games, Goodman Games or Troll Lord Games, for example. Certainly this source considerably exceeds the minimum standard set in WP:N as substantial coverage.

Also, as noted earlier in the discussion, WP:NCORP specifically excludes "small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)", a description which seems intended to cover exactly the kinds of close networks of collaborators in creation that Cubicle 7 represents. This understanding of game studios affects the way the whole art form of game creation is written about off-Wiki, including standard treatments of the field long before Designers & Dragons, and has also influenced the way articles have been written at WP for over a decade. And I say this as someone more interested in individual than in collective contributions to creation in this area; in spite of my own opinions, I have to respect policy and the reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is a company therefore NCORP applies. They sell things, they are a commercial enterprise, they are not a band or a sports team they are a company and, quite frankly, no closer familiar with the criteria would give your exclusion argument any credence or weight.

Designers & Dragons is one source and I do not believe that source is sufficient based on my understanding of Wikipedia's content criteria, even if it is found to be RS at RSN. (See [48] for my opinion at RSN) You may think otherwise but I do not. If you want me to change my mind do not make special pleadings or tortured readings of the notability criteria – find more suitable sources per NORG. My typical threshold is three sources all independent from each other and the organization with at least one outside of the niche market. The sources should have something like 150+ words of coverage in each. For this I would probably accept shorter pieces for the other two maybe around 100 words because of Designers & Dragons but they still must pass sigcov. Others may well disagree and I am sometimes wrong but that is my rule-of-thumb. Jbh ^Talk 05:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: Add note about RSN 05:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what to make of that reply, Jbhuntly, but lots of the small corporations that are specifically excluded from NCORP "sell things", including very many of the artist cooperatives and inventors that are used as examples in the guideline itself. Even very many musical groups have a corporate structure, including indie ones that operate - for their recorded products - in almost exactly the same way as a small game publisher. The fundamentalist reading "they are a company, they sell things, and therefore NCORP applies" is simply incompatible with the exclusion for small networks of collaborators that is built into NCORP.

Now any editor or administrator is entitled to have their own "rules of thumb" when it comes to AfD discussions. Personally, I do not feel that one source is sufficient by itself, but the text of NBIO - which covers small groups of collaborators - is clear that multiple shorter but reliable references can be treated as equivalent to one of the longer ones, and that only two significant RS are generally required; this is particularly true given that CREATIVE, which also applies in this case, clarifies that RS for works contribute to the Notability of their creators. Those would be my rules of thumb, and there are many AfDs before I came along that fit those typical parameters. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example of an "artist cooperative" or "inventor" that operates as an incorporated for-profit company? Musical groups do not btw - you will not find "The Rolling Stones Inc" in the company register. Cubicle 7 is not a cooperative or any other type of organization that is specifically listed as a exception. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To start at the top of the food chain, the Beatles were the Beatles Ltd. and then Apple Corps as their corporate identity. This could very quickly turn into a very, very long list. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the source for your obvious confusion. Far more interesting than had you picked, say, The Rolling Stones. "The Beatles Ltd" was originally named "Apple Music" and was renamed in 1967. The original "Apple Music" was incorporated in 1946. The corporation, "The Beatles Ltd", has a separate legal identity from "The Beatles" (the band) and was the music publisher and licensor of at least some of their work. None of the members of The Beatles (the band) were shareholders of the company in 1967 although George Harrison and Yoko Ono were directors.

So keeping with the comparison between music creatives and RPG creatives: The band members = the creatives = the authors. The don't fall under NCORP but CREATIVE.

But, any article on "The Beatles Limited" *would* fall under NCORP. Same as Cubicle 7. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty much per HighKing and the argument about the CORP having non-trivial impact demonstrated via their awards. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a gamer here, but to my eyes this looks non-notable and the discussion regarding the 20 page chapter is not particularly relevant here as there is so much WP:SPS in this article. If a comprehensive article could be written using multiple reliable independent sources with in depth coverage, would reverse me decision. - Scarpy (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy-compliant !Vote, per WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's copy pasta from another AfD. Will add, notability is not search results. If you can't write an article based on WP:RS, then it's only hypothetically notable and still fails WP:V and WP:OR and any number of other guidelines. If you want to ensure the future of this article, look for WP:RS and write encyclopedic content with it, don't waste time arguing on the AfD page. - Scarpy (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the life of me, I don't know what you're talking about; the current version of the article [49] has five RS, with more to be added. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right off the bat, 4, 5, 10, 12 are WP:SPS. 6 is a blog, and there's no specific link to the content it's citing. These references and the content based on them should just be removed. That's already more than 1/3 of the citations. citations 2 and 13 seems like plausible WP:RS. Are gamesinsdustry.biz, gama.org, boardgamegeek.com and geeknative.com WP:RS? Do they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Are they peer-reviewed? Can it be demonstrated that this is true or are the just glorified blogs? It's hard to tell. So... no, I don't see much obvious WP:RS here. I'm going to be hardnosed and assume no until shown otherwise. That leaves you with two WP:RS which is only "multiple" but the most charitable of definitions. So my vote is to delete. If you want me to change it, do better research. - Scarpy (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gama is an authority on the awards it administers, which is highly relevant to Notability in this context. The same is true for the ENies - you can't just read the word "blog" and assume it's unreliable; WP:RS is quite clear that some organizations disseminate content through pages called "blog". :)

Gameindustry.biz is an independent publisher with editorial oversight, and geeknative falls into the category of SPS that are considered reliable because published by an expert who has published in the field professionally for established RS - but that wasn't included in my count for Notability because it's an interview. 2 and 13 are reliable, and the chapter in 2 is 20 pages long.

Is that satisfactory? Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I can see a citation that's just a link to an index of articles, especially when it contains the word "blog" in the URL, I can be completely justified in my skepticism of the content that precedes its citation as it's not specifically citing anything and anything it did cite would have to prove it's a blog that also happens to be WP:RS. You can assume something doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy if it doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is basically what WP:NEWSBLOG says.

Award-giving alone does not make a source reliable. WP:ORG actually lists awards as examples of trivial coverage.

To your claims about the gamesindustry.biz and geeknative, I can only say what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. looking at gamesindustry.biz, yes they do claim to have the highest journalistic standards, but a claim that one fact-checks and is accurate is different than a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I also see that the person who runs geeknative doesn't claim to be an "expert" on anything and I haven't seen anything that would establish him as one.

All of this is kind of irrelevant to me because, as I've said before, if this organization is so eminently notable that it is unquestionably deserving of a Wikipedia article, it should be discussed in-depth in multiple sources that leave no question as to their reliability. The sources used wouldn't be the ones that are used here. Even the 20 page chapter in the book that's so frequently mentioned had to go through RSN from the discussion I'm reading. - Scarpy (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gameindustry.biz is an independent publisher Gamesindustry.biz appears to be a trade media site; we should probably treat it like we treat Business Journals (good for facts, not notability). Chetsford ([[User ::talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 23:08, 21 August 201:8 (UTC)

Scarpy and Chetsford, you are both employing criteria that are contrary to policy (and Chetsford, you appear to be doing so under questionable circumstances, since you have !voted for the merger of other articles into this one). But have a great day!Newimpartial (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Do you remember that ANI which just closed today about your you failing to AGF? " you appear to be doing so under questionable circumstances, since you have !voted for the merger of other articles into this one" is a failure to is just such a thing. I would have no issue opening up another one if such behavior continues. I strongly suggest you simply ignore Chetsford and let the closer sort things out.

Also, just hours ago you asked about any issues I observed with your ANI participation and I pointed out disruptive bludgeoning [50]. This and this other thread are good examples of such behavior. Jbh ^Talk 23:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure that noting a new, different non-compliant !vote constitutes a BLUDGEON, but I will also take your perspective into account, jbh.

What I find harder to understand is your failure to AGF about my own comments here, and your apparent need to generalize about "my behavior" rather than simply have a discussion about the merits of the AfD. I hope in any further AfDs to which we both contribute, we will be able to keep the discussion on the page to the issues of the specific AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of "non-compliant" is well … questionable but that does not matter, clogging up AfD threads does though. It is the responsibility of the closer to weigh !votes and, as I mentioned before, your WP:BLUDGEONing is disruptive. You asked me to comment on your AfD behavior and I have given you feedback on what I see as an example of problematic behavior. If you are no longer interested in feedback I will not give it — you have had enough people point out the problems they see so you can not claim not to know it is a problem so, if it continues I am all but certain the sanction you avoided or worse will be imposed in the, likely near, future.

PS You get no AGF for accusing the same editor you repeatedly called a troll etc of making an argument "under questionable circumstances". Not. One. Tiny. Bit. Because, well, you have said repeatedly you would stop assuming bad faith and you have repeatedly been unable to keep your word. Asking for me to assume good faith once you have demonstrated bad faith repeatedly is either naive or trolling, I will presume it is naivete for the nonce. Jbh ^Talk 00:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying - I really do - but I'm confused that you're saying it at AfD, rather than, say, your Talk page or mine. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just randomly Googling, not sure what value it is, but Geek & Sundry has a few links tagged for Cubicle 7: [51] and I found this on ICv2: [52] and [53] and on Bleeding Cool, I found [54] Then I went on Google News, and found this at The Escapist: [55] and [56] and [57] and that's about all I felt like looking at for now. BOZ (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are 4 product announcements which are simply mentions of the company; The ICv2 are the definition of 'trivial coverage' per NCORP; and one page that just has some game box pictures. The notability guidelines require sources which provide independent, reliable and significant coverage of the company. None of the sources presented above do that. Jbh ^Talk 03:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it was random. BOZ (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, firstly, a big thankyou to the above editors for a fascinating afd (at around 8,000 words compared to 700 words for the article being discussed it almost makes the "Coola's big afd list but will probably go into my "Hmmmmmm, interesting.....AFDwise" list anyway), now, i am amazed that a company that has won/been nominated for multiple awards and has numerous wikiarticles about its products may not be deemed notable for its own article (if C7 was a person this would have been a slamdunk), although both sides of this ~~argument~~, ahem, discussion put forward excellent points, i am leaning towards a Keep, as WP:ORG "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.", i believe C7 is one of these exceptions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the games in this article that are represented on Wikipedia. Interesting that during this long debate, nobody bothered to update the Age of Sigmar 2nd edition info, from a reliable source. [[58]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hill Minor Hockey Association[edit]

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

Amateur youth sport organization which fails WP:GNG, due to all coverage being WP:ROUTINE, and has WP:GEOSCOPE limitations. – Flibirigit (talk) 21:56, 20 August, 2018‎ (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. - Scarpy (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a league in a small community, and isn't notable. PK T(alk) 14:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing fails to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:32, 28 August 2018 (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. A fairly strong consensus that, while the article could do with some significant cleanup, notability standards are satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Ashley[edit]

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

None of these are reliable sources, and appearing in buzzfeed videos does not indicate notability. Natureium (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.COmment @Natureium: Please see the potential references at [59] and the following pages. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked, and didn't find any that appear to be reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she's an actor but not what we'd call professional or notable. All of her work is online, which anybody can create. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her bio meets WP:BASIC, while some of the citations are from the video postings at the sources themselves--this is natural seeing as she rose to fame via those internet sources. All of the combined sources and additional outside coverage clearly indicate that Brittany Ashley is a Internet celebrity, she is also the main subject in pieces that appear in the Washington Post, Bustle, The Wrap, Variety, Newsweek, La Weekly, Huffington Post, among others. Most of her videos have over 1 million views (such as "Dating Problems Every Lesbian Will Recognize" -- 6.4 million views. While Youtube may be a public platform, BuzzFeed Video is not--not anyone can create these videos and not anyone can amass the amount of views, shares, and followers as her work does. She was also interviewed by Carson Daly for her performances.

In addition, other YouTube/Buzzfeed shows/personalities also have their own pages: The Try Guys Tyler Oakley Michelle Phan Broke (web series) PewDiePie Ryan Higa Onision Like these aforementioned Youtubers, Ashley also has a large fan base and thus meets WP:Entertainer cbratbyrudd (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but trim) - there are enough third party reliable sources to establish notability, but also appears that there's some web citations that are unnecessary. Content based on sources not representing periodicals should be removed. - Scarpy (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreeing that there are sufficient sources for notability, but the article does need some cleanup. I've done a little bit to try to help out. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR#1 and 2 and GNG. I added another source about her dismissal from BuzzFeed. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, Sources online and in the article confirms her notability, Meets NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:51, 27 August 2018 (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.

[Dutt1999-1] Kartik Chandra Dutt (1999). Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999: A-M. Sahitya Akademi. pp. 585–. ISBN 978-81-260-0873-5.

[1]