Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 December	31 December >

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 redirect to Ramsey Island. Tone 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meini Duon[edit]

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

These rocks, as far as I know, which are listed in the Ramsey Island article, have no particular features which warrant their own article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ramsey Island I have added a small amount of content about what they are made of but I can't find any significant coverage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; redirect to Ramsey Island and more can be added there. Most of the sources seem to have "Meini-Duon" rather than two separate words. Deb (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a better case for keeping the article now, thanks to you both. We could create Meini-Duon and redirect it to this article, if it stays. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although it is still "Meini Duon" on OS, a redirect could be created even if this is redirected to Ramsey Island. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:57, 31 December 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 Ramsey Island. No indication of any content beyond sheer existence as a rock (many consonants not withstanding, alas) and consensus that as such it should just be redirected. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trwynmynachdy[edit]

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

This rock is mentioned in the Ramsey Island article and I don't think there is enough for it to have its own article as it has no special features. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ramsey Island I tried a month or so ago to source this and can't find much. There is a recorded name but it doesn't say much about it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:CONSONANTS. --Doncram (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Brought a smile, but not saying it doesn't exist, just that it's not warranted its own article. HNY! Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Crouch, Swale as a search brought up a cool blog post about someone who paddled out to the rock and was surrounded by seals, but it's not RS and I couldn't find any RSses/non-mirror sites. SportingFlyer talk 02:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiremu Tamihana (Te Matawhitu)[edit]

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

Interesting, but there is absolutely no claim to notability in the article. He lived, there are some historical documents about his life, but that's it. Meets neither WP:GNG or any SN criteria. Disputed prod without any rationale or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to meet those criteria you have mentioned. I have read the links to notability criteria and I disagree that there is no notability. Can you clarify what would make it more notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matiupayne (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Check Wikipedia:No original research for the sources that Wikipedia requires to show that a subject is notable. They do not have to be online, but there must be reliable secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply From what you have written it appears possible that this Wiremu Tamihana may have played a significant role in the New Zealand land confiscations but Wikipedia would need reliable third party sources such as book references or journal articles to establish this. Searching for such is made difficult by the name he shares with Wiremu Tamihana. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the cited sources are primary: we need secondary sources, ones that have reviewed the primary sources and drawn conclusions from them. As it is, this article is a secondary source, which is inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and Nyttend. Article creator also created Hāmi Te Māunu which fails GNG for the same reasons. Appears to be at best inappropriate use of Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately I can find nothing on the net to make his story verifiable or notable by Wikipedia's standards. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)).[reply]

Knowing what I know now (see comment below) I would not have added my 'vote' (either way) to this page.Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The article is in a sad state, but the subject quite is quite clearly notable as should be evident in a WP:BEFORE. Article does assert significance (political leader, conquest). In terms of WP:SIGCOV - the subject is the subject of at least two full length books - by Stokes - [1][2] and Rickard - [3]. A book chapter - here. And a bunch of additional sources - clearly passes WP:SIGCOV, and possibly some SNGs (e.g. SOLDIER and NPOL come to mind). Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing the subject of this AFD with another Wiremu Tamihana (who already has a page). This Wiremu Tamihana (Te Matawhitu) does not appear to be related, and has no obvious claims of notability. Ross Finlayson (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - yes - indeed - it seems I am confused. Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This journal article does make mention of a Wiremu Tamihana Karewa who was appointed by Bishop Selwyn as a native teacher in the Chatham islands and who was the son of Nga Whairama: Occupation of the Chatham Islands, Journal of the Polynesian Society, Volume 2, (1893) JSTOR link "Among the Ngatimutunga, Nga Whairama, a leading chief and father of Wiremu Tamihana Karewa (subsequently appointed native teacher by Bishop Selwyn), embraced Christianity, and with him all his adherents." Not significant secondary coverage alone but I wanted to share what I found, particularly the alternate name. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Galvin[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR since she has not had significant roles in multiple productions. Subject does not meet WP:NAUTHOR since her only published work was not widely discussed by independent, reliable sources. Subject fails WP:GNG because she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her. This article attempts to establish notability through WP:REFBOMBING and reads like a CV. -- PS. I found another Rachel Galvin when performing WP:BEFORE, that other one is a poet. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now with the analysis of sources (only 56 of them)
- 1: subject not mentioned
- 2: press release, by the subject, of a non-notable musical
- 3: IMDb reference, showing that the subject was uncredited as a minor character in an episode of a TV series
- 4: subject's IMDb page (not a reliable source). Lots of uncredited parts, minor parts and shorts. No significant roles on sight.
- 5: Youtube. A 6-minute production, not independent
- 6: website by the subject, not independent coverage
- 7: Youtube, not independent
- 8: Kickstarter? Not RS
- 9: IMDb, again, not reliable
- 10: Talent management website, can't spot mention of subject anywhere
- 11: subject's personal blog
- 12: 404
- 13: the subject's magazine again, not independent coverage
- 14: apparently the subject is editor here, not independent
- 15: 404, award does not seem notable since I can't find much about it
- 16: leads to the front page of a local newspaper, subject not mentioned
- 17 to 42: works by the subject, not about the subject - yes, I checked them all
- 43: subject's magazine, not independent coverage
- 44: "photos courtesy of Rachel Galvin", not independent
- 45: 404
- 46: subject also works here apparently, so that's not independent
- 47: not independent
- 48: 404
- 49: This one is independent of the subject
- 50: interview, not independent of subject
- 51: 404
- 52: 404
- 53: subject not mentioned
- 54: subject not mentioned
- 55: 404
- 56: subject illustrated a book that is on Amazon.

My WP:BEFORE did not find anything beyond these links, so that's a WP:GNG failure. I could not find any reviews of her book "Basics of the Biz:: A Holistic Approach to becoming an Actor" so that's a WP:NAUTHOR failure. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: on a close inspection I agree with nom's assessment of the sources. Good example of WP:CITEKILL. SITH (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tried to go through all the sources but so many are either missing from citation provide or self-sourced that I got exhausted. valereee (talk) 02:23, 31 December 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. Tone 21:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Michael Pavlovich Romanov[edit]

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

I don't know if I'm just missing something here or what but this doesn't appear to be a notable person outside of sharing a last name. The only source is a primary site which supports nothing in this article. This is bordering on a hoax/grand exaggeration. Praxidicae (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really wanted there to be notability here, but I couldn't find anything that supports it. FOARP (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously, he does not have notability just as a member of a royal family, WP:NOTINHERITED. I have found one source - 'For Russian Royal in US, Personal Struggle Unlocks Family History' [4]. I don't know whether that is considered a reliable source, but anyway it's only one. I haven't searched in Russian yet, but have searched on variations of his name, including Michael Romanoff-Ilyinsky and Michael Romanov-Ilyinsky. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional crap (he led a rather cheerful life, until he got into a car accident in 1982, which he miraculously survived) with no claims of importance or significance (apart from the claim of being descended from a royal house) and no independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTINHERITED. It looks like the claim of royal descent is valid, but this is still nowhere close to notable. Bradv🍁 01:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per a recent discussion about Elizabeth II's great grandchild. Cabayi (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG - G-searches turned up no independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. A NYT obit for his father mentions him and there was a opinion piece in a Russian focused tabloid (mentioned above), - neither of which meets requirements to establish notability. Didn't check Russian Language sources but there was one listed in article history,"(here)".. This appears to be an interview with subject which doesn't help with notability as it is not independent. CBS527^Talk 17:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Virgin Media television channels[edit]

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

This is merely a list of channels available on Virgin Media and I believe that it is not notable given that in 2012 the list of channels on rival UK platform Sky was deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky - as have been numerous other channel lists on various platforms. Rillington (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: consensus (1, 2, 3) is clearly that these kinds of lists constitute directories, something Wikipedia is not. SITH (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and for the reasons mentioned in above mentioned AfD's. Ajf773 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our past consensus on the DirecTV, U-verse and Dish channel list articles stateside and Sky; not needed here. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 12:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as noted above, we've long since established that we don't do these lists, because we're not a TV guide. Considering that many of the earlier similar lists were deleted in 2012, I don't know how this list, created in March 2013 (not long after those AfDs), managed to avoid an AfD nomination for so long… but here we are. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sri Centre for Media Studies[edit]

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

Does not seem to get anywhere near WP:NCOMPANY which, as a private establishment, it is required to comply with (per WP:NSCHOOL). The school has no online presence barring a single webpage (https://www.artofliving.org/in-en/sri-sri-centre-media-studies) last updated in 2013. I could find no reliable third-party sources as Google only lists school directories and a random old promo in local press. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP. The consensus is that schools aren't inherently notable and this hasn't proven it is. SITH (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable educational institute that fails independent coverage. and Also fails WP:PROMO. In addition the Nominator User:Kashmiri should be WP:TROUTed for not trying the WP:PROD route for such hopeless articles as suggested by an admin here.--DBig Xrayᗙ 22:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:56, 31 December 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. -- Scott (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agniputra (Nepali film)[edit]

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

Film fails to satisfy WP:NFILM - couldn't find any suitable reviews that satisfied the requirements, let alone the multiple ones needed to demonstrate notability. No indication of an alternate criterion satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet any of the speedy keep WP:NFILM criteria and as I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, I doubt it passes WP:GNG either. SITH (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletre: I couldn't find any significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:55, 31 December 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. -- Scott (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda O'Neil[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR. Source searches reveal little of note and the cited sources which aren't affiliated just point to the commercials she has been in. These commercials don't appear to have had a particularly big cultural effect or won any awards so they cannot confer notability upon her. SITH (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTRESS, and WP:NMODEL. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to meet notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miniforum.org[edit]

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

The reason this was kept at the last AFD was on the basis of the 2005 unreferenced claim that it is the third most popular site in China in the Alexa rankings. I don't have a subscription to Alexa but the free alternative (link) shows that it's actually way down in the 10,000s. Last time I checked, a high Alexa ranking alone was not reason enough to satisfy either WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom is correct. There aren't any good secondary sources, and I don't think a one-time high alexa score (if it was!) would demonstrate reliability. I'm not sure if its GNG, NWEB or NORG that has to be satisfied, but it fails to do either, afaict. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: WP:GNG not pass per subject. We don't publish those article, which depend on Primary sources. No news: [5]. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 15:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Scott (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rust (2010 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I deproded this I indicated that I had found coverage, which the nominator apparently chose not to check on, also not really providing much of a deletion rationale. There is significant coverage of the film from Regina Leader-Post, The Globe & Mail, and several others. I don't know whether these would all be considered reliable sources, but coverage includes [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. --Michig (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - So, in this case, only the reviews would generally be relevant. Of the sources stated, only #3 of the above (Christian Cinema) is both a review and a reliable review site big enough to satisfy the requirements in NFILM. There are a couple of similar christian reviews I found online, but they are all fairly small blogs that aren't sufficiently reliable, I believe. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would only reviews be relevant? Articles about the making of the film are just as relevant. --Michig (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered that this would have been a rare film that could have qualified during production on that grounds, but went off the usually executed notability rules on films. You are correct of course that NFILM specifically uses GNG as its base. Most of the sources are however primarily interview based, and given their vested interests, fail independent - along with much of the remaining content being synopsis (irrelevant) or functionally routine. I do think CBC (#5) passes. As to whether a merging of the two satisfies - I'm unsure. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misunderstanding how "during the production process" coverage works. If the article gets created while the film is still in the production pipeline, then it's true that we do a depth test to determine whether there's enough production coverage to make it special despite not actually having been released yet — but once the film has been released, we don't run the production coverage through the wringers anymore. Once the film has been released, production coverage counts for exactly the same toward establishing notability as post-release coverage does — it doesn't necessarily always count as enough to get an unreleased film over the bar all by itself, but for a released film it has the exact same value as any other coverage. You're correct that some of Michig's sources aren't as strong as others are, but there are enough strong ones to get this over the bar and even the lesser ones aren't entirely unusable — but since the film has been released to the general public the question of whether any given piece of coverage happened before or after the release date is not relevant to the determination anymore. In actual fact, a genuinely good article about a film should, if possible, contain content and sourcing about its production process — that's obviously not always possible to do for every film, but an article should contain that kind of content if production sourcing is available to add it with. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage found by Michig. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Michig. The interview sources aren't ideal, but can absolutely still be used as long as there are other solid sources in the mix — Q&A interviews don't carry a notability pass all by themselves if they're the only sources that can be found, but they are perfectly acceptable for use as sourcing for stray facts if there are enough quality sources elsewhere in the sourcing pool to cover off passage of WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, which there are in this instance. As I noted above, pre-release production sourcing is only weight-tested if the film is still in the production pipeline as of the time we're checking the sources — if the film has been released, as this has, then pre-release sourcing doesn't count for less than post-release sourcing anymore. And no, the fact that some of the sources are Christian-specific specialist media doesn't invalidate their use either — we certainly have to be cautious about using that kind of sourcing in some instances, such as POV political disputes, but sourcing the content of a Christian-themed film is not a case where their use would be problematic. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as detailed above so that the film passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included but the article needs much improvement/expansion Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources brought to discussion show that it passes WP:NFILM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless quality advancement[edit]

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

Single ref is dead. Google search shows no instances of this term being used at all. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this appears to have been created solely to provide credibility to 7signal's marketing campaign and probably should have been deleted as spam a long time ago. Either way, this definitely fails WP:GNG. Brad v🍁 16:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Page can't be kept with the current title at least. Orientls (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that GNG has been satisfied, despite promo issues (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Pro Human Rights Center[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is significant, second party witness to the centrality of this center's work in defending the press and the lives of those advocating for civil rights in Mexico. I see no good reason for eliminating from Wikipedia information about this center. Jzsj (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up – there are plenty of sources available, especially when searching for the Spanish-language initialism PRODH. Brad v🍁 16:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Plenty of independent coverage from reputable sources. Rathfelder (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: on the one hand, I don't agree that it fails WP:GNG but on the other hand the article is a promotional mess. However, it's not G11-worthy so best to keep and improve. I'll start by cutting out the most promotional stuff I can find. SITH (talk) 20:13, 30 December 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. -- Scott (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lakestar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Ref are all funding news. scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage that isn't trivial or attached to bare existence, as nom mentioned. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the creating editor, I wanted to leave my comments. After covering them while studying, I was amazed Lakestar didn't have a Wikipedia article. So started the Wikipedia article as they are considered one of the biggest tech VC funds in Europe. There are various publications that give them this title and anyone who researches the subject properly will find this. Significant coverage - The article currently references 22 articles which are either mentions of investments (as mentioned above) or articles solely based on the investments. There are many more that could be used, this was merely a starting point. Articles based solely on Lakestar include New York Times, Bloomberg and TechCrunch. I would therefore say that coverage demonstrates their notability within European funding circles.

There is also information on them and their equity in Spotify. I only used one reference but again there are more. They were also a major investor in Airbnb, again adding to the notability.FiveRoses (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ranked #6 in Europe in 2016,[12] seem to be covered as a topic (e.g. [13][14][15] (the last is Forbes staff, not a contributor)) and growing larger. Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, alas. The notability, though overblown by some supporters, is evidently there. -The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. Not quite a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; coverage is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. For example, this self-congratulatory prose is cited to Forbes.com/sites which is non-editorial portion of Forbes:

The venture capital's first seed fund recorded a 70% internal rate of return from its investments. The firm has capitalized on this success and has continued to raise funds to invest predominantly in European tech start-ups.[1]

Source: Konrad, Alex (November 6, 2017). "How Midas List Investor Klaus Hommels Became Europe's Startup Secret Weapon". Forbes.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for esablishing notability which is a stricter standard that that used for references that support facts/information. References are based on announcements and interviews or inclusion in lists and they fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by FiveRoses (talk · contribs) and Icewhiz (talk · contribs) demonstrate that the company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
The articles contain independent analysis of the subject. For example Forbes notes (my bolding), "Where other investors have partnered with high profile friends or turned to the support of a U.S. firm, Hommels built his own, Lakestar, with competitively strong returns and a fraction of the notoriety."
The Bloomberg News article notes (my bolding), "Venture capital firm Lakestar is attempting to raise the largest-ever European fund for startup investments -- another sign that the region’s entrepreneurs are continuing to attract floods of potential suitors."
Cunard (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you take a look at WP:NCORP, the guideline for organizations/corporations, it states that references must be in-depth and not mere mentions-in-passing. The Forbes reference in an interview with Klaus Hommels and only mentions Lakestar in passing, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I would also say that a Forbes article relying extensively on an interview with a connected source such as a founder/CEO/etc contains any content where you can be sure of its independence. The Bloomberg reference is not a reliable source since it clearly states that the information is from unidentified "people with knowledge of the plans, asking not to be named because the matter was private" and the reference therefore fails WP:RS. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cited the Forbes article as having independent analysis of the company though I agree that it is not in-depth. I consider the Bloomberg News article to have sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject despite the "people with knowledge of the plans, asking not to be named because the matter was private" quote. Journalists frequently rely on anonymous sources for information and only print information from such sources if they trust those sources.
    Here is additional coverage about Lakestar:
    1. Shahaf, Tal (2018-11-28). "Swiss VC fund Lakestar to invest in Israel". Globes. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
      The article notes:
      
      Swiss venture capital fund Lakestar will begin investing in Israel and is believed to have allocated tens of millions of dollars for this purpose. The fund, which has invested in companies such as Facebook, Skype, Spotify, and Airbnb, raised €500 million in two recent financing rounds. Lakestar's investment manager in Israel is Gilad Novik, who up until now represented Horizon Ventures, controlled by Chinese billionaire Li Ka-shing, in its investments in Israel.
      In Israel, Lakestar will focus on early-stage and early growth stage fintech companies planning to expand their business to Europe. It will also invest in automotive, artificial intelligence, and big data technologies.
      The article contains a quote from Gilad Novik.
    2. Butcher, Mike (2015-08-23). "Lakestar Joins Europe's Heavy-Hitter VCs With New $385M Fund". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
      The article notes:
      
      As the European startup scene has matured over the last few years, so too has the VC scene. But a handicap has always been the issue of follow-on funding. Gradually, however, the most successful firms have managed to raise new funds based on past successes. One such has been Lakestar, the early investors in Spotify, Skype and Facebook. Today they announce Lakestar fund II, a new €350m ($385m) fund, which takes its place as one of the largest funds in Europe.
      ...
      With offices in London, Berlin, Zürich and New York, the firm could be said to be in a position to bridge the continents for investors and startups alike. Just as the other, aforementioned VCs.
      It helped that Lakestar I took positions in the successful Maker Studios, which was acquired by The Walt Disney Company in 2014; and Harry’s, the US-based subscription shaving service, which has since purchased the Feintechnik razor factory in Eisfeld, Germany.
      The article contains quotes from founder Klaus Hommels.
    Cunard (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response The Bloomberg reference fails as a reliable source even for supporting details within an article never mind the higher standard of NCORP. We don't accept "anonymous" sources for information. The Globes reference is based entirely on information provided by the company and is standard churnalism where an "executive" is interviewed and provides forward-looking details of future plans as well as a profile. It is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The TechCrunch article also fails WP:ORGIND as it is "dependent coverage" since it is based on a company announcement - "Today they announce ...". Lots of similar churnalism available on the same announcement such as TechEU, Venturebeat, lots more references in the article itself and their own press release. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Our source would be Bloomberg. Bloomberg relying in part on anonymous sources has no bearing on its very high reliability.Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        That makes no sense. How can Bloomberg have "high reliability" when it relies on information provided by an anonymous source which is not regarded as reliable? This source would be rejected if used to support facts/information attributed to the anonymous source within an article, which is a lower standard for references that those used to establish notability. The other information in the article about the company is standard template copy on the company (where they've invested, office locations, size of funds) which can be found in the PR statements. ORGIND states that a reference, for the purposes of establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and there's no evidence of that in the Bloomberg article. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Take Bloomberg to RSN - good luck. Bloomberg conducted research - part of journalistic research is relying on sources - which usually are anonymous. The use of anonymous sources (as well as analysis and synthesis of various stmts by Lakestar) are the hallmarks of a WP:SECONDARY independent journalistic piece by a RS. Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Your response highlights the difficulties in analyzing references for the purposes of establishing notability. Never have I said that Bloomberg, the company, is not a reliable source. I am merely stating that the *reference* in question fails the criteria for establishing notability (and would also fail the criteria for supporting facts/information within an article). HighKing⁺⁺ 21:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Bloomberg is relying on a source known to and vetted as reliable by them. Bloomberg is not disclosing that source to the reader. Using unnamed sources is a common journalistic practice. As Icewhiz noted, "Our source would be Bloomberg", not any named or unnamed source mentioned in the article.
        The TechCrunch article provides independent analysis of the subject:
        Lakestar II is the largest fund to be raised by the firm, after following on from the €135m ($150m) Lakestar I fund, which was launched in 2013. This new raise now sky-rockets it into a position close to Europe’s heavier VCs, such as Index Ventures, Accel Partners and Atomico. It means more options for European startups looking to scale in Europe, rather than having to move elsewhere. Lakestar II will be led by Lakestar’s shrewd Founder and Chairman Klaus Hommels.
        Comparing Lakestar to other "Europe's heavier VCs, such as Index Ventures, Accel Partners and Atomico" and explaining Lakestar's impact on European startups is independent analysis. This information is not present in the press release, the tech.eu article, or the VentureBeat article.
        Cunard (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        To further add to this, the Globes article clearly states they interviewed the Swiss ambassador, Jean-Daniel Ruch, so the assumption that Lakestar's PR team is the only source doesn't add up. As for the Bloomberg article, "Lakestar is targeting a close of around $800 million, according to three people with knowledge of the plans, asking not to be named because the matter was private." You can look at this in a number of ways, but ultimately this demonstrates that Bloomberg have researched the subject. If they hadn't, they wouldn't make this statement and would say "according to reports" or "Lakestar state," but they don't. The Bloomberg reporter clearly states he has fact checked the claims, which demonstrates original reporting.FiveRoses (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the sources offered above are mostly WP:SPIP, such as:

"Venture capital firm Lakestar is attempting to raise the largest-ever European fund for startup investments
Swiss venture capital fund Lakestar will begin investing in Israel and is believed to have allocated tens of millions of dollars for this purpose.

Emphasis mine. This is all about company's hopes and aspirations and, as such, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment for this to be WP:SPIP then you are suggesting that the New York Times, Financial Times, Bloomberg, TechCrunch and many others are all allowing Lakestar to self promote on their media platforms. There might be the odd exception of this happening with contributors, but the problem cannot be that widespread as you are suggesting. Also when the Financial Times runs an article titled "Tech investor Klaus Hommels raises new €350m fund," that is not hopes and aspirations, its financial reporting. As for Israel article, it also states "Swiss Ambassador to Israel Jean-Daniel Ruch told Globes" and then follows on "Ruch says that the Swiss embassy has so far organized visits to Israel by 12 groups and delegations of businesspeople and administration figures." Surely that demonstrates wider reporting on the subject? For SPIP to apply to that article, it would have to essentially be a redistributed press release. The announcement also came at the "Swiss embassy in Israel," so this is major news of financial investment between two countries, even if its private money.FiveRoses (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not the fact that they are reporting it, it is financial reporting, but the reporting is generic, not just here, but in almost every business article that goes to Afd, and it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The business articles that are solid on WP, and that survive from the instance they are created have independent coverage outwith financial reporting. Most financial report on here are generic, and are covered as trivia on WP:NCORP, and is explicity designed to negate the trivia as notable sources. scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hakim (politician)[edit]

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

Created by a sock. Non-notable politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azizul Islam (politician) ~ Nahid ^Talk 12:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leading a political party's local chapter in one individual district is not a notability freebie per WP:NPOL, but nothing else stated here is a stronger notability claim and the sources aren't strongly about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG as a special case who was somehow more notable than most other district leaders in most other districts. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom and Bearcat.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NPOL, however nominator: the creator of the article doesn't appear to have been blocked or been previously accused of sockpuppetry, so it's important to be careful. If you think the creator of the article is linked to the confirmed sockpuppet who created the article which was deleted at the other AFD you mentioned, please file a report at WP:SPI. SITH (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse: I'm careful (as I was the one who blocked this user). Please check this user's CA. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NahidSultan: ohhhhh. Oops. Yeah that makes sense, I'm always mindful of retention. But yeah, my bad! SITH (talk) 15:05, 30 December 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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Catrìona (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst von Manstein[edit]

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

It violates Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.

The subject seems to have done nothing of historical interest. He served in the army without being distinguished, was a teacher without being distinguished, and converted to another faith, for which four decades later he suffered discrimination. These characteristics are shared with millions.

~~It also violates Notability in general – From Your first article~~

We generally judge this by asking if there are at least three high-quality sources that a) have substantial discussion of the subject (not just a mention) and b) are written and published independently of the subject.

~~Here, there are only two in English and these are in the nature of biographical notes rather than establishing any significant achievements or roles.~~ Jontel (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I greatly appreciate that Jontel has given a detailed explanation of why they believe deletion to be warranted. However, I wonder to what degree WP:BEFORE was performed. I see at least three references: Jewish Quarterly in 1950 (three pages of coverage), ILBA, Israelitische Lehrerbildungsanstalt Würzburg, 1864-1938 (three pages of coverage), Jewish Quarterly in 1985 (a page of coverage). Even if these sources are not immediately available to us we know they exist and thus WP:NEXIST applies. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to with what someone did in their life. We have articles on people who get significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore an article just by virtue of being born. Notability has only to do with what is written about them. In this case there are at least two sources that provide coverage of his life. I believe he meets the notability guideline. ~ GB fan 12:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other sources do WP:NEXIST, including an article in The Jewish Monthly, 1950, Volume 4, Issues 1-12, pp 265-267 [16], and four pages in the book Jakob Stoll und die Israelitische Lehrerbildungsanstalt: eine Spurensuche (2002) [17]. There is no requirement for sources to be in English - WP:NONENG. The sources cited, and these additional ones, do "have substantial discussion of the subject". The fact that there are these sources is an indication of his notability, and in fact they do state what was notable about him, that a member of an aristocratic German family converted to Judaism and was interned during WWII. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To aid the discussion, my primary case as stated above is WP:BIO i.e. that
the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”
Is conversion by a member of an aristocratic family to Judaism in the 19th century significant, interesting or unusual and, even if the latter is the case, is that really noteworthy? Internment by the Nazis, even of aristocrats, is not unusual of itself. Jontel (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide these things. We let reliable sources decide for us. They decided that this man is notable, and they did so by giving significant coverage to him. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC. Assessing the subject's worthiness or distinctiveness is irrelevant; what matters is whether there are sources and there are. Sources in other languages are acceptable for this purpose. Andrew D. (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being Jewish and getting Nazis to like you is such a rare achievement it practically guarantees historical coverage. But as I'm a stickler for it I'll have a look. Here's some academic coverage. A dedicated biography linked at one of the biggest Holocaust Museums. That's enough to pass WP:BASIC, IMO. SITH (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The University of Würzburg in northwestern Bavaria maintains a biographical database called "Jüdisches Unterfranken" (Jewish Lower Franconia). The entry "Ernst von Manstein" (see here) is not only based on individual information in English but also on two additional reliable, scientific resources in German: "Biographisches Handbuch Würzburger Juden 1900-1945" by Reiner Straetz and a proposed dissertation project by Lida Barner from the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (see the "Quellenangaben" [1016] and [1066]). --Kolya (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contributors are putting undue weight on the existence of sources. It is unsurprising that these Jewish publications celebrate an example of conversion to Judaism. While such a conversion is gratifying to them, I suggest that such celebration does not make it generally significant. On another point, Nazi recognition of him at his funeral was presumably due to his familial relationship to Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, who was the adopted son of his brother i.e. his nephew. As per WP:BIO,
That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability.
Jontel (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not putting "undue weight on the existence of sources". So long as WP:NOT is not breached, the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources is the be-all and end-all of the analysis that takes place in AFD. We do not apply arbitrary measures for what is and is not notable, we let reliable sources decide what is notable - I they appear to have decided that the subject of this article is notable. FOARP (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that that is what the WP:BIO says in its Basic criteria. However, as WP:N says

“Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.

If the Basic criteria was the be-all and end-all, it would seem to make a nonsense of WP:BIO’s introductory definition that

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.

Moreover, many of the additional criteria in WP:BIO imply that people who meet the Basic criteria should not be given a page automatically. Further, Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process says

Generally speaking, notable subjects will be those for which sufficient sourcing is available, but there are exceptions in both directions

I think that this is such an exception. Jontel (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of notability is backed by the reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:58, 31 December 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 deleted. per G11 (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malinda Kathleen Reese[edit]

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

An active YouTuber with <1M subs. One of her videos posted in 2014 went "viral" and currently has 11M views. Other than that, no indication of passing WP:GNG Daiyusha (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG at this point (and the text present that says the editor wants to produce a fandom a page fills me with horror!) - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 30 December 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 2010 United States Senate election in Alaska. -- Scott (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McAdams[edit]

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

McAdams was a former mayor of a city with less than 9,000 residents. No mayors of small cities meet WP:NPOL.
He was a failed U.S. Senate Nominee; NPOL states that unelected candidates aren't guaranteed to be notable unless they pass GNG.
McAdams likely doesn't pass WP:GNG as the only coverage surrounding him is WP:MILL coverage on his failed Senate candidacy and WP:ROUTINE coverage of the local events that happened in his two-year stunt as mayor.
In my WP:BEFORE search (which has filtered out Senate Candidacy-related articles), I haven't found anything anywhere near notable that he has accomplished outside of the 2010 Senate election.

In light of these points, consider voting DELETE on this AfD. If anyone finds any reason to keep this article, I may consider withdrawing the nomination. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 08:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sitka AK is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors, being an unsuccessful candidate in a political party's senate primary is not a notability freebie, and the article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to make him more notable than most other smalltown mayors or unsuccessful primary candidates. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All above true. However, the US Senate election was "historical" in that it was the first successful write-in campaign, won by Murkowski. This may add significance to McAdams article, as readers may want more detail available when researching the event. Dleit Ḵaa (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dleit Ḵaa: that would then classify as WP:BLP1E. See this AfD about the highest percentage receiver of votes in a U.S. Senate race by a Green party candidate – while she did set a historical and unprecedented record, clearly this one event didn't deem her notable on Wikipedia. Being a candidate in a notable election doesn't make a person notable, either, as no policy states this. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Redditaddict69: Sure, absolutely. And thanks for looking up those examples. Being a major party candidate in a notable election might, however. My only point was that point number 2 in the nomination above didn't quite cover the entirety of the situation. Dleit Ḵaa (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dleit Ḵaa: – on the McAdams article, there isn't even 5 sentences covering the election. That content is already present in the article so a merge isn't even necessary. Other examples of candidates in notable elections include Danny O'Connor, from the Ohio-12 special election last year and Tobey Bartee, from the MS Senate special election back in November, both of which were either deleted or redirected to their respective elections. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 10:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who gains notability from Lisa Murkowski winning a write-in campaign is Lisa Murkowski — her victory does not hand special notability exemptions to everybody else in the election campaign, because notability is not inherited by simple association with a more notable person. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2010 United States Senate election in Alaska as a usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate for the United States Senate. I believe that any verifiable information about the subject can be added to the page about the election, as there is not much about the Democratic party primary on the page currently. --Enos733 (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Comment – I'd support a redirect to the Senate election ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmott v Johnson[edit]

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

Unclear notability, quick internet search yields little/no coverage Noahhoward (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly needs expansion to explain why this case is notable. @Kiwisheriff:, who started the article.-gadfium 07:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: although there's no subject-specific notability guideline for court cases, good indicators are if they have made it to the top tier of the legal system, whether they are considered by legal scholars as landmark cases and whether a lasting legal precedent is set. This only satisfies the third and that alone, along with the failure of GNG as source searches bring up little when it comes to academic coverage or legal sector analysis of the case, leads me to conclude that the case isn't noteworthy. SITH (talk) 13:20, 30 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Palmgren[edit]

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

Stumbled upon this and the page's content isn't any indicative of the subject's notability. We don't give random white supremacist YouTubers a platform here. If merging to a larger related article isn't viable, this article should be deleted. Pinging page creator. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as proposer Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like an advertisement for the subject's videos. Fails notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. There are mentions in reliable sources, but not significant, and I can't see that he meets WP:BIO in any way. Sjö (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. The coverage is reliable but not significant. Tsumikiria: just FYI, per WP:AFDLIST it's generally considered that the nominator, unless otherwise stated, supports the deletion so adding a delete !vote isn't necessary. SITH (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that there's no in-depth reliably-sourced coverage of this person, just fleeting mentions within a few articles. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The key to passing our notability criteria is not just having his name get mentioned in reliable source coverage — he has to be an actual subject of a source, not just a person whose existence gets glancingly namechecked in a source whose core subject is somebody else, before that source supports his notability. But the sources here are all of the latter type, not the former, and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to earn him the "keep and flag for reference improvement" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to My Life My Say#Founding. czar 06:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mete Coban[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only for serving on a local borough council. This is not a level of political office that automatically confers a free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is not sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over the WP:GNG bar: four of the six footnotes are to primary sources that cannot support encyclopedic notability at all, one is a piece of his own writing about something else, and the last is a short blurb in the local community pennysaver about him campaigning with a reality show contestant -- which is not nearly enough coverage to get him to the finish line all by itself as the only media source in play. People at this level of political office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but none of these sources are cutting it in terms of making him special. Bearcat (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Life My Say#Founding, as founding that organisation seems to be what he's most notable for (I'm not convinced a non-parliamentarian can found a parliamentary group), and there's much the same info about him there. Agree there's not sufficient significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG / WP:BASIC, but I found some coverage of him in the context of founding that organisation in The i, The Sunday Express and Shout Out UK. --Qwfp (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 05:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Life My Say#Founding. Local politician so fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN, not independently notable from the organisation, so redirect to there. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 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. Sandstein 10:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boundstone (area)[edit]

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

No meaningful content sourceable about it per WP:N; at most should be a couple of lines of Rowledge, it is just a residential sub-neighbourhood. - Adam37 Talk 15:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rowledge Although it is an OS settlement, it isn't a census designated place, it isn't in the Domesday Book or in Vision of Britain. It should also be moved to Boundstone, Surrey. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced so nothing to merge. I couldn't verify Boundstone is part of Rowledge. It is, for example, in a different electoral district ward [18]. A better target for Boundstone, Surrey would be Farnham. There is something of note with regard to the geology and the prehistoric occupation of Boundstone which could merit discussion somewhere.--Pontificalibus 11:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 05:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would agree with a merge, but as Pontificalibus points out, without citations, nothing to merge. Couldn't find anything to verify the info in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned at Rowledge but unsourced, if noting else we could just redirect to List of United Kingdom locations: Bou-Boz#Bou. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect from this title would be misleading. The OS says it's a village - we have no sources supporting the claim that Boundstone is an "area".--Pontificalibus 11:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was only moved to this title in January, I'd be happy with moving this to Boundstone, Surrey without leaving a redirect, then merging/redirecting. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Charles (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Residents' comments submitted to the Waverley Borough Council Rowledge Local Governance Review make it clear that the relationship between Boundstone and Rowledge is clearly not the one described in the current article. I consquently regard this edit to be POV-pushing and an example of why we shouldn't allow articles like this to exist without sources.--Pontificalibus 14:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added some content for the church. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:10, 31 December 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. Edit: Apologies, script didn't do what I wanted. This is a Speedy Keep #1. Nominator provided no rationale. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hypixel[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Hypixel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

The article itself is an article about a server on an RPG game, which isn't necessary. Little citations , most from gaming websites, even on the first sentence (which is repeated). Lafayette Baguette (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 05:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 05:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Maybe you like to withdraw your nomination, @Lafayette Baguette:, because on the article talk page (Talk: Hypixel#Proposal for deletion), you're saying "I feel like this article may have some potential, if all reasons for deletion proposal can be changed". Well, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If it's a question of WP:NOTABILITY, it has thirteen references currently, mostly reliable sources (see WP:VG/RS), including mainstream media outlets like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter and it has four Guinness World Records. Notability has been proven. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. It is notable. wumbolo ^^^ 10:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable game server network passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. As mentioned above, AfD is not cleanup. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:22, 30 December 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 The Jitters. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Packham[edit]

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

Résumé-esque BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any standalone notability independent of the band he was a member of in the 1980s. The existence of solo albums is not an automatic free pass that exempts a musician from having to have reliable source coverage in media — but the references here are entirely primary sources right across the board, and even on a ProQuest search I can't find any non-trivial coverage of his solo career at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing WP:NMUSICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a pass of WP:BASIC. For example, there's coverage from his Jitters days (that is mostly about him) in "THE BAND WITH A HIT SONG -- IF ONLY THEY'D PLAY IT ON THE RADIO" by Greg Burliuk in The Whig-Standard from prehistoric December 5, 1985 (p1), and "The Jitters have finally settled down" by John Mackie in The Vancouver Sun from December 17, 1987 (pF2). There's also coverage of his solo days in "Blair Packham's song pain, anger and regret" by Greg Quill in the Ontario edition of the Toronto Star from April 22, 2004 (pG3). Looks like enough for a WP:BASIC pass (and solo coverage means no simple redirect to the Jitters). Admittedly the article needs some work. Bakazaka (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominatior AD ^Talk 05:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This “article” is a resume.Trillfendi (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to The Jitters in the most charitable of decisions, for I'm not entirely convinced that article has enough good references to remain (although in fairness most of their non-routine coverage likely pre-dates extensive internet sources.) But clearly, what editor Bakazaka found above, the references that do exist are mostly in context of the subject's membership in that band, or from a trivial, small-time source ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant verifiable information to The Jitters. There's some coverage of Packham's solo/production work around (e.g. [19]), but not enough for a standalone article, but as a key member of a notable band, his activities since leaving the band are of encyclopedic interest. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tibor Gaal de Hatvan[edit]

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

No clear notability (not even an article in Croatian), unsourced biography, poor article quality (unsubstantiated claims) Noahhoward (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He did exist, and was indeed the acting governor of Fiume several times (see hu:Fiume_kormányzóinak_listája, Gaál Tibor), but can't find out much more about him. – Alensha ^talk 14:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While importance actually is asserted ("can be considered as the single most important person at the gubernium in Fiume in the period 1896-1906"), it is not substantiated in any way (i.e. how and why). I'd imagine this bio could not pass WP:GNG - at any rate, there is no evidence it passes now, because there are no sources - and the same could be true for most listed in List of governors and heads of state of Fiume (which is what lists are for, anyway). I'd be, of course, more than willing to change my position here if sources should be found. GregorB (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with good access to archival Italian or Croatian sources (books, old media reportage from his own era, etc.) can do better than this. There is a potentially valid notability claim here, but it isn't one that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly. Wikipedia's notability criteria are not passed by what the article says, they're passed by how well the article references what it says to reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unsourced BLP?!? I can only find directory listings of him - note Fiume was more heavily Italian during this time frame than Croatian. SportingFlyer talk 00:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is of course not a BLP, since the subject has been dead for over 100 years. Still the article has been unsourced for at least 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Magazine[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest that this is a notable magazine. Only source provided doesn’t support the 4 million a month claim. The source is also more about the company that produces the magazine rather than the magazine itself. only (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trillfendi (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. YtoSu (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? YSSYguy (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 18:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the airline had 33.2mill passengers in 2017 a readership of 48mill/year appears exaggerated. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the only source is not about the magazine, but about how some people went to Svalbard to get material for a story that was printed in the magazine. As User:only says above, it's about the company that produces the magazine - a puff piece about how clever they all were. YSSYguy (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacks coverage in independent sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of oldest cats. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corduroy (cat)[edit]

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

Per the List of oldest cats, the info in this article claiming this is the oldest cat is incorrect. Also, as there are numerous older cats, this subject does not seem notable. RobP (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : agree that this page is not notable. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable; merge the gist to List of oldest cats; we have list articles in part to preserve encyclopedically meaningful information – non-trivia, that does not fail WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, but which doesn't rise to WP:GNG level and which probably has no possibility of article expansion. A former "world's oldest cat" who no longer is, isn't something any RS is every likely to write an article about ever again, so we'll never get better sourcing and more detail than we already have, in all probability. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:11, 30 December 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. czar 06:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Davis (skater)[edit]

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

Article recreated with identical content immediately after being deleted via PROD; 2nd place in a single competition is not sufficient under WP:NSPORTS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks sources and is skimpy overall.TH1980 (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~He apparently dated Mischa Barton at one time[20] and hangs out with Paris Hilton,[21] but you can't inherit notability.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since that's a different Brandon Davis. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All you white folks look alike. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I LOLed at that one, thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little documented success at the highest levels of his sport and, more importantly, lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton McIlwain[edit]

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

Fairly low h-index. Fail WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:AUTHOR due to multiple reviews of multiple works. Thsmi002 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR (h-index is the wrong way to measure productivity for the kind of academic whose main output is books). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems a solid keep. Nomination Withdrawn

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

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

The result was delete. This is a list consisting entirely of external links and no blue entries - WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Just Chilling (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Whitchurch–Stouffville[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:NOTLINKFARM. No notable churches on the list. Ajf773 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As it stands, this is a directory of external links. Qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, we would either expect a sufficient number of entries to have/merit their own articles, or the grouping to be notable as a set. Here we have neither, so there is no basis for this list to exist here. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rowland[edit]

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

May not meet WP:ENT and WP:ATH; many of the current sources are unreliable, and acceptable ones don't necessarily indicate notability. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't see anything that would qualify as an independent reliable source. A google search only turns up sources for a former Cleveland mayor by the same name. Fails WP:BASIC. Brad v🍁 16:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:CREATIVE / WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 30 December 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.