Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 July 3 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Music Factory[edit]

Desi Music Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not establish notability for this subject per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The references provided do not discuss the subject in a significant way. A Google search also provides results that are trivial (directory listings, social media, song download sites, lyrics sites). Prod tag removed without comment/change. ... discospinster talk 23:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:38, 2 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Snowden[edit]

Jane Snowden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO. JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: Can you find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? JMHamo (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding much at all unfortunately, thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bikicsunáj[edit]

Bikicsunáj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial and non-notable Norden1990 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:10, 5 July 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. (non-admin closure) Seraphim System (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HC Bratislava[edit]

HC Bratislava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article is not in english Joeykai (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The original version of this article was in English. Emoxx1 (talk · contribs · count) added some Slovak-language text from the team's website. The only contributions of Emoxx1 have been to this article. I have reverted that addition, and asked that the versions with that text be removed as a copyvio. Perhaps some of these references could be added to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastman. -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 07:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion rationale no longer applies. Smartyllama (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Florida College of Integrative Medicine[edit]

Florida College of Integrative Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For-profit university fails WP:NCORP / WP:ORGCRIT. All of the listed references are to directory listings, and my own searching failed to find anything better.

The history is bizarre. On 13 February 2016, User:SwisterTwister (now banned as a sock), declined the AfC submission. Then, on 9 November 2016, with zero additional edits to the article, User:SwisterTwister moved it to mainspace. WTF? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The college certainly exists in some capacity as it's included in IPEDS. However it's a tiny institution (IPEDS lists only 92 students) so unless it has an exceptional or unusual history it's very possible that the college doesn't meet our bar for notability. I can barely find any information or news about the college at all so I'm comfortable !voting for deletion until and unless another editor can provide multiple sources that establish notability. ElKevbo (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, only mentions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, partisan sources, Bachelor of Science sans Science. ¨¨¨¨
  • Delete Fails wp:GNG - no solid RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable at all for stand alone article; trivia. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Basie (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 07:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. It has fewer than 100 students and is not regionally accredited. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 9 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Save Srinagar Front[edit]

Save Srinagar Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No Google News references. Doesn't assert a single indication about notability. Minima© (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:39, 2 July 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 draftify. Sounds like a good idea per ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aatagallu[edit]

Aatagallu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF just the usual reprint of PR release notes. Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify probably just WP:TOOSOON but right now the sources are only pre-release PR, most of it about one of the actors rather than the film itself.Seraphim System (talk) 12:43, 9 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (1967 Judd sculpture)[edit]

Untitled (1967 Judd sculpture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability - none of the sources in the references are indepth independent pieces about the artwork, they give the artwork a brief mention in writing about the artist. GRuban (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant work by a significant artist. Included by the museum in a group of "Highlights". Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to being in a museum collection and singled out as a "highlight", I've found a few sources that deal with this work in more than just passing. It seems that this work is important within conservation discussions and around ideas of original and copies in prefabricated artworks. "Do conservators dream of electric sheep? Replicas and replication", Louise Lawson (Studies in Conservation Volume 61, 2016), "Nothing but the Real Thing: Considerations on Copies, Remakes and Replicas in Modern Art", Lydia Beerkens (Tate Online Research Journal, Inherent Vice: The Replica and its Implications in Modern Sculpture Workshop, Tate Modern, 18–19 October 2007), and "Corrosion Intercept tent packing and handling system for Donald Judd’s brass and copper sculptures", Eleonora Nagy (Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Volume Six, 1999) all deal with this work in some detail. The article can be expanded with a discussion of conservation and considerations of what is an original, per those sources. As well, the book Furniture, Structure, Infrastructure: Making and Using the Urban Environment, Nigel Bertram (2013) mentions this piece. A couple of points: I don't believe that every work by a major artist should have an article and untitled works such as this are extremely difficult to find good sources on. I think in this case, however, a number of useful sources dealing with the work itself beyond a passing mention, and addressing topics that help expand the article, go a long way to establishing notability and satisfying WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT concerns. freshacconci (✉) 19:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying they should, but they probably could - once the mongraphs get written. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:CRYSTAL. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To a Judd article. One has to ask how this untitled Judd work is different from one of the dozens of other untitled Judd works. WP Is not here to be a catalogue raisonné of every work done by an artist. We are just here for the notable ones. This one is barely notable, which is demonstrated by the lack of writing about it: if this really were a significant work by Judd, there would be, you know, significant writing about it. The artist is highly significant; not everything he made is notable.198.58.163.19 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be included a museum's highlights collections, indicating the work is of some significance. Seraphim System (talk) 12:39, 9 July 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. While there was some suggestion of a possible merge, in this instance the consensus strongly favors outright deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS J140821.67+025733.2[edit]

SDSS J140821.67+025733.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD as suggested in declined PROD comment. I haven't followed this in detail but it appears to fail WP:NASTRO. I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage, only catalogue entries. Simbad lists only 16 papers mentioning it at all, which is pretty scanty. Lithopsian (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable. Satisfies GNG due to significant coverage in 16 sources in SIMBAD and 33 sources in NED. Plus which, this happens to have a very large mass. James500 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entries in catalogs are not by themselves notable. Is there anything beyond the basic numbers that go into a catalog (location, magnitude, size)? Tarl N. (discuss) 23:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I've gone through and thoroughly checked all of the sixteen supposed sources, and I can confirm that these are all merely listings in catalogues containing tens or hundreds of thousands of objects each. Not one source mentions this one specifically in the text. This is a textbook example of why you need to check your references before exclaiming how many there are, because not one of these is useful. Not notable. Reyk YO! 07:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I did check them. (2) I have no problem with the (extensive) information contained in 'catalogues'. 'Catalogues' are good. I have no problem with the photograph in NED either. James500 (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: at present there is no "substantial" coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. If that changes in the future, the page can be restored from the deletion archive. Praemonitus (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of most massive black holes, the only article in the Main namespace to link to this one. I navigated to this article from the list; as the largest known black hole, the article's information is interesting in this context. If this article gets deleted, the information in its lead section should be moved to the list page/table, or somewhere else where people would be likely to view it. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mooseandbruce1. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above; top supermassive status makes it desirable that at least some information be provided, and a couple of lines in the list should cover that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, object fails WP:NASTRO. The black hole mass estimate is almost certainly spurious, this is an oddball quasar with a weird spectrum and the usual methods to get rough estimates of black hole masses probably don't work well for an object like this. Note that Kozlowski did not even mention this object in the text of his paper. Presumably if the author had thought it was noteworthy to find a BH with mass 10 times bigger than any previously known from direct dynamical measurement, he would have mentioned that fact in the paper. Instead, this is probably just a case of an automated measurement and mass estimate going wrong and giving a spurious outlier result. As such, this doesn't really even belong in the list of largest known black holes. This is not a reliably measured mass and shouldn't be treated as though it was. Aldebarium (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NASTRO. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 07:48, 6 July 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. Consensus is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America1000 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Forest Folk[edit]

Wee Forest Folk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite some small coverage in the Boston globe I can't find significant coverage outside sources selling or promoting these products Polyamorph (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 2 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Oszkár Szántó[edit]

Zoltán Oszkár Szántó (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR criteria. Onel5969 TT me 10:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 2 July 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. Nomination withdrawn; multiple in-depth reviews of work exist. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Imhof[edit]

Dirk Imhof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication for suffcient notability as an academic; sources are the flimsiest of incidental mentions (and I must say that I've never seen the same wedding notice used as three references before...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that does look like a critical mass. Suggest I'll wait another day or so, then may withdraw. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thankyou David Eppstein, btw, editors are always welcome to grab info i include on afds and add them to articles:))Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimshi Khalid[edit]

Jimshi Khalid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cinematographer with one example of reasonably significant coverage, trivial mentions elsewhere, apparently one notable film, and no evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 2 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lota Chukwu[edit]

Lota Chukwu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, no -trivial support. References are listings, PR type interviews, or the slightest of mentions. reddogsix (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep she is absolutely notable enough in Nigeria as an actress and a media personality. I just spent a few hours editing the article; some issues raised have been corrected as it seems.Ercsco (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she is notable enough having starred in high ranking movies as a lead actor, I think she also has notable sources Buzzy anslem (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 06:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 06:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACTOR. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 07:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources in the article appear to be non-RS like blogs, imbd, irokotv (which is a borderline spam link to a pay per movie website) - and I haven't been able to find other sources. Seraphim System (talk) 12:54, 9 July 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 Gokulam Kerala F.C.. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Andres Santiago Valera[edit]

Fernando Andres Santiago Valera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined since he apparently passes WP:NFOOTY. That is not true. While the I-League is a WP:FPL, Valera has yet to actually manage in an I-League game while the league itself doesn't start until October. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by managing a team in a WP:FPL. There is no requirement (unlike players) to actually manage a game. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me but that honestly sounds ridiculous. Where was it established that for coaches and managers that it doesn't matter if they have managed a FPL club in game or not? I feel that that can be used for players then as well. It just doesn't make any sense. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per the above. @GiantSnowman: @21.colinthompson:, WP:NFOOTY quite clearly states managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, so not sure where the comment that they don't have to have managed a game has come from unless I am missing something. Will probably be notable once the season starts. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - oof, had previously understood differently on that. Apparently, I was way off. Vote struck as such, thanks for the correction. 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:21, 3 July 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. Discussion shows by consensus that WP:GNG and WP:ENT are met. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Sterzel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Winston Sterzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not appear to pass general notability guidelines and seems to be largely self-promotional. Shritwod (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC) NOTE There has been off-Wiki canvassing by the subject on Twitter: If anyone of you has knowledge of how Wikipedia works, could you please help me as my wikipedia page has been under serious vandalism and revision and nominated for Deletion again by the trolls, it's very frustrating as they have... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Sterzel … Shritwod (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Ding, A (2017-10-09). "British YouTuber helps foreigners settle in China". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2018-06-25. Retrieved 2018-06-25.

      The article notes:

      WITH 220,000 subscribers, Winston Sterzel, a Briton who was born and raised in South Africa, is an Internet celebrity on YouTube. His videos about daily life in China, which average 100,000 views, are favored by those who are interested in China.

      ...

      Fueled by his experiences as a newcomer in a foreign country, he started making videos that explained how foreigners could do simple tasks such as taking a Metro or a bus, or how to order food and ask for a beer in a restaurant.

      ...

      All of Sterzel’s videos are real footage of his personal experiences. When he has an idea, he simply hits the street with his camera.

      The most important thing for his videos is to have engaging themes, and he always gets new ideas from his viewers’ comments. His videos include trendy and practical content, such as warning people to avoid scams such as black taxis in China.

    2. McGeary, Kevin (2015-06-05). "PRD People: Medical Trainer and Online Celebrity Winston Sterzel". The Nanfang. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      Winston Sterzel, 33, a British-South African medical training manager who has been in Shenzhen for eight years, has been praised by plenty of Chinese netizens for the astuteness of his online videos which give an introduction to the “real China.” His motorcycle tours have taken him to dozens of cities and small towns, but the portal through which he understands the Middle Kingdom is Shenzhen, a city he fell in love with during a business trip and came to despite having no contacts here.

      Sterzel has a large following on YouTube, Facebook, and Youku and has been featured in Shenzhen-based media eleven times. He has kindly taken the time to talk to The Nanfang about road trips, cold beer, internet celebrity and Chinese nationalism.

      ...

      After moving to Shenzhen eight years ago, he immersed himself in the local Chinese community while learning the language. …

      He works for a medical training company, training doctors in international hospital rules, etiquette, medical terminology and other things related to internships in Australia and Germany. Another one of his main activities is taking motorcycle trips around China. Either through business trips or lone adventures he has biked his way to Dalian, Inner Mongolia, Shanghai and many other far flung places. His videos about riding to Guilin gained 10,000 hits per episode, almost 80,000 in total.

      According to this December 2016 article from Hong Kong Free Press, "The Nanfang – an English-language digital news and commentary website for southern China – is closing after almost seven years, citing commercial challenges."
    3. Gidge, Sky (2016-12-20). "Take 5: YouTube Vlogger Winston Sterzel". that's Shenzen. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      After 10 years of vlogging about Shenzhen, Winston Sterzel recently stepped into the wilds of making his YouTube videos a full-time job. Often appearing in a suit and drinking a beer, his video repertoire of city guides and interviews on taboo topics have earned more than 15 million views, making him the unofficial face of Shenzhen in the Anglosphere.

      that's Shenzen is a sister publication of that's Shanghai, that's Beijing, and that's PRD, which are all published by Urbanatomy Media.
    4. Ye, Shangqing (2015-10-19). "Foreigner's Shenzhen videos have 8 million views". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      WINSTON STERZEL is the face of Shenzhen on YouTube. Searching “Shenzhen” in YouTube brings up his videos, which have been viewed more than 8 million times.

      Calling himself “the original China vlogger” Sterzel has posted 584 videos to YouTube since 2006.

      The South African, who was born to British parents, uses a digital camera to film videos with a focus on life in Shenzhen. The videos range from him speaking into the camera while walking down the street to polished guides to parts of Shenzhen.

      ...

      Sterzel’s videos include advice on renting an apartment, finding a job and even interviews about intercultural relationships.

    5. Wang, Yuanyuan (2012-06-08). "British-South African telling people 'how China is'". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      WINSTON STERZEL, a British-South African, has always been a warm-hearted person who likes to help others. After living in Shenzhen for about six years, the 31-year-old is finding a new way to give that help — online videos that show newcomers what Sterzel calls the real China.

      Without any advanced equipment or complicated plots, Sterzel, a medical training manager and self-employed businessman, uses his mobile phone and years of rich experience in China to help foreigners visit or learn about the country.

      So far, he has made 12 episodes for his popular video series, “China: How It Is.” The series detailing Chinese lifestyles, customs and culture has generated about 900,000 views on YouTube, with more than 1,800 subscribers.

    6. Zhang, Qian (2015-11-04). "Expat filming S. China trip documentary". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      CAMPING in a cold, wet abandoned shack is what Winston Sterzel did on the seventh day of his South China motorcycle tour. Sterzel and four others are filming a documentary about their 16-day trip that they hope will be out around Christmas time.

      ...

      The South African is uploading “behind the scenes” footage from the trip to YouTube and Youku, with the YouTube videos already racking up more than 10,000 views.

      ...

      Sterzel is effectively Shenzhen’s face on YouTube, with his 584 mostly Shenzhen-centric videos having been viewed about 8 million times since he began posting in 2006. Searching “Shenzhen” on YouTube brings up his picture, linking to videos where he talks about living in Shenzhen, finding jobs and intercultural relationships.

    7. Gidge, Sky (2016-01-14). "Expat's video featured". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      THE adventures of a motorcycle riding, Shenzhen-based expatriate are getting noticed in Chinese media.

      Winston Sterzel’s video was featured yesterday on one of China’s most popular video-sharing websites, sohu.com. The preview for “Conquering Southern China” appeared at the top of Sohu’s documentary page.

      ...

      Traveling 5,000 kilometers by motorcycle, Sterzel and some friends documented their trips through southern China.

    8. "Falling in love with SZ in three days". Shenzhen Daily. 2008-01-07. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10 – via Shenzhen Municipal E-government Resources Center.

      The article notes:

      WINSTON STERZEL, a Briton who grew up in South Africa, was convinced that Shenzhen was the place to be after a three-day business trip in 2005, following which he moved here.

      It turned out to be a wise decision as his company Access Oriental is booming. He is mainly in charge of sourcing, technical proofing and quality control of the company.

      ...

      Sterzel has a Chinese girlfriend here, and plans to stay in China for a long time. He hasn't been back to South Africa to visit his family; instead his family came to visit him in Shenzhen. "It is my place," he said.

    9. Mullin, Kyle (2016-08-19). "Watch Two Crazy Vloggers Drive 5,000km Across Southern China on Handmade Motorcycles". The Beijinger. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      Winston Sterzel, and Matthew Tye have done what most of us only dream of doing – traversing 5,000km across southern China on ramshackle, handmade motorcycles, stopping to sample the most unique local dishes, filming every moment of their adventure. The pair of Shenzhen based Youtube vloggers – who go by SerpentZA and Laowhy86, respectively – recently worked with Beijing based editors Ricardo Afonso and Mark Masterton, turning their footage into a series called "Conquering Southern China," which is now streaming on Vimeo on demand.

    10. 魏博 (2015-06-25). "12集纪录片《南非人在中国》在北京发布(组图)". 中国网新闻中心 (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      纪录片主人公来自不同行业，他们中有酒店创始人、DJ、留学生、南非酒吧老板、高尔夫球场高管、拍摄中国的视频博主、中国功夫迷、国际学校老师、推广皮影戏的艺术家、建筑师、领事夫人等等。他们的故事既有特殊性又有代表性。例如，居住在上海的格兰特•霍斯菲尔德（Grant Horsfield）把生态旅游的概念引入浙江莫干山，他建造的“裸心谷”度假村给当地提供了一个绿色旅游的范例，并带动了当地经济；在深圳的温斯顿•斯得泽尔（Winston Sterzel），由于看到西方媒体对中国的报道与事实出入很大，决定利用闲暇时间拍摄真实的中国并介绍给世界；同是居住在深圳的马克•欧克莱尔(Mark O’Connell)，把自己在南非管理高尔夫球场的丰富经验带到中国

      This verifies that Winston Sterzel's name translated into Chinese is 温斯顿•斯得泽尔.
    11. "南非男拍视频记录深圳". Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2015-12-14. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      英裔南非籍男子Winston Sterzel住在深圳已将近十年，他从2007年开始制作关于中国见闻的视频并上传到视频网站，因为住在深圳，其视频的内容大多与深圳有关。Winston录视频的初衷是方便家人和朋友了解他在深圳的生活，没想到逐渐受到网民关注。最初，对深圳的好奇心驱使Winston四处游走，走得最远的一次，从东门走到了蛇口，20多公里路程，走过大厦楼底，穿过城中村，他一点也不觉得累。一个偶然的机会，Winston来到下沙村。跟其他地方相比，这座位于福田区西南部的城中村虽然破旧了些，却设施齐全。Winston看中这里的排屋租金便宜，又能接触到各种不同的人，就住了下来。

      From Google Translate:

      British South African man Winston Sterzel lived in Shenzhen for nearly a decade, he started in 2007 on the Chinese knowledge of the video and uploaded to the video site, because living in Shenzhen, most of its video content and Shenzhen. Winston recorded the original intention of the video is to facilitate family and friends to understand his life in Shenzhen, did not expect to gradually be concerned about the Internet users. Initially, the curiosity of Shenzhen drive Winston to walk around, go farthest once, from the East Gate went to Shekou, more than 20 kilometers away, walked through the building floor, through the city village, he did not feel tired. By chance, Winston came to Xiasha Village. Compared with other places, this is located in the southwest of Futian District, although the dilapidated village, but the facilities are complete. Winston fancy the townhouse rent cheap, but also access to a variety of different people, to live down.

    12. "外籍深漂：城中村是深圳最有意思的地方" (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. 2015-12-14. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      “Hey guys,welcome to another video（大家好，欢迎收看新一期视频）!”

      几年来，视频制作者“SerpentZA”的粉丝习惯了他在每个视频开头这样问候。视频背景或许是繁华街头，或许是城中村的啤酒摊子，他自说自拍，用英文对着镜头讲身边的趣事，细碎而平和，像在与一位老友聊自己的近况。这位英裔南非籍的视频制作者原名Winston Sterzel，居住在中国深圳将近10年。

      从2007年开始，每隔一段时间，Winston都会制作出一个关于中国见闻的视频，上传到视频网站YouTube，因为他住在深圳，视频的内容也大多与深圳有关。到现在，他的YouTube个人频道已经拥有了600多个视频和10万多万订阅者，最受欢迎的“China,how it is（别样）”系列视频已累计拥有约750万次的点击量。

      From Google Translate:

      "Hey guys, welcome to another video (Hello everybody, welcome to watch the new video)!"

      Over the past few years, the video producer "SerpentZA" fans accustomed to his greeting at the beginning of each video. Video background may be the bustling streets, perhaps the village of beer stalls, he said that self-timer, with the English side of the lens to talk about the interesting side, crushing and peace, as in an old friend to talk about their current situation. The British-South African video producer was originally named Winston Sterzel, living in Shenzhen, China for nearly 10 years.

      From 2007 onwards, every time, Winston will produce a video on the Chinese knowledge, upload to the video site YouTube, because he lives in Shenzhen, the video content is mostly related to Shenzhen. Up to now, his YouTube personal channel already has more than 600 videos and more than 100,000 subscribers, and the most popular "China, how it is" series of videos has accumulated about 7.5 million hits The

    13. "SerpentZA: Blogger ng Shenzhen" (in Filipino). China Radio International. 2015-05-14. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      Si Winston Sterzel ay isang "laowai" mula sa Timog Aprika. Siya ngayon ay nakatira sa lunsod ng Shenzhen, probinsyang Guangdong, sa may timog na bahagi ng Tsina.

      ...

      Noong 2005, isang business trip ang nagdala kay Winston sa Shenzhen. Mula noon, nahulog ang kanyang loob sa Tsina.

      Nang makabalik sa Timog Aprika, ibinenta niya ang lahat ng kanyang ari-arian, at iniwan ang kanyang tahanan sa Johannesburg upang mamuhay sa Shenzhen.

      Sa kanyang pananatili sa Tsina, maraming natututunan si Winston, gaya ng maling pagkaunawa ng kanluran sa Tsina. Gusto ni Winston na baguhin ang mga stereotype at kamaliang ito.

      From Google Translate:

      Winston Sterzel is a "laowai" from South Africa. He now lives in the city of Shenzhen, Guangdong province, in the southern part of China.

      ...

      In 2005, a business trip brought with Winston in Shenzhen. Since then, he fell in China.

      After returning to South Africa, he sold all his property, and left his home in Johannesburg to live in Shenzhen.

      During his stay in China, learn more about Winston, like misunderstanding of western China. Winston wants to change the stereotypes and errors.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Winston Sterzel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is utterly irrelevant and not a reliable source. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 2:08 pm, Today (UTC−4)
The Matthew Tye article is a massive abuse of process, it has been deleted twice and recreated. The two subjects are linked as per the quote "Matthew is best known for his work alongside his filming partner Winston Sterzel, also known as SerpentZA." In my opinion neither subject is notable, and the Tye article requires salting. But if you have evidence for your "fishy" comment then I suggest you report me to the admins. Shritwod (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isofarro, please don't make any more personal attacks. As a side note, having a profile on IMDB is, indeed, completely meaningless, and I am puzzled that a citizen of the 21st century thinks that something being for sale on Amazon is somehow a mark of fame or notability. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Barely passes notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because of the large number of SPAs editing the article, I have protected it (not this AfD) for one week, being the duration of the AfD.----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:ENT; promotional article. Associated with another nn YouTuber, whose articles is also at AfD, for the 3rd time:
Sources presented above are not sufficient to establish encyclopedic relevance of this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - don't see any problem with this page; if one finds any problem, simply edit it. Alexkctam (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That an article comes from WikiEd student does not establish notability or guarantee a non-promotional article. Unfortunately, even good faith editors often write in a manner that is indistinguishable from promotionalism, due to the prevelance of advertisingh in the world generally, and in WP specifically. DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wish this could be unprotected so it could be recast based on the sources, including those listed by Cunard, but I see substantial info about him in the bike business article (whose content is not being used), at least one of the Chinese sources Cunard lists counts toward notability, so does the "crazy guys" thing, so does The Nanfang, so do the Shenzheng Daily articles (though it should be noted how many of Cunard's list of sources are from that same paper), and so to a lesser extent does the USA Today mention. That's enough. So whatever the state of the article now or at previous stages, I advocate keeping it per WP:GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anthony Bradbury, would you mind unprotecting so that Yngvadottir can get to work? Cunard's list is one thing, but seeing it incorporated into the article (through the filter of Y's judgment) is quite another. If there's more disruption we might could handle it in our usual heavy-handed manner--with blocks for those who deserve it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected as requested. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I can only make a start right now; I hope someone else will jump in. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your significant improvements to the article, Yngvadottir (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sterzel aka SerpentZA is not notable for achievments in a jobs or as a YouTuber. Controversial Subject #1 - Winston Sterzel There are only a few local newspaper reports in China. He is not mentioned in major newspapers, neither in China nor in English-speaking countries like his mother country South Africa, USA or Britain. Sterzel is a full-time YouTuber and has no other job. This article is advertising his YouTube channel, because he is dependent on support of his patreons to make a living in China. His documentary films Conquering Northern China and Conquering Southern China with fellow English-speaking expatriate Matthew Tye didn't reach much attention and were not shown on TV or in cinemas. An IMDb entry can be made by anyone who is registered there and does not prove any notablity. Matthew Tye already moved back to the US and lives near his parents, because he couldn't live in China any more. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: y'all are making me use my Chinese. Anyway, subject does not meet WP:ENT, but the sources provided do allow for a presumption, however slight, of notability, and for an article to thus be written. Having said that, I am disappointed by the blatant canvassing carried out by the subject of the article. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 05:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have seen his Conquering Southern China series locally on TV here in California as well as having attended his premiere screening in the Los Angeles Independent Theatre for CNC Jason Sonic2k (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article about Winston Sterzel contains irrelevant and false information about him being "head engineer and one of three owners with Tye of acustom motorcycle business in Shenzhen called Churchill Custom Motorcycles" which was closed several years ago. "medical training manager" is also an exaggeration. As far as in his videos on YouTube was mentioned he taught English in a hospital. He didn't not have a contract with this hospital any more and relies on his supporter at Patreon which give him money for producing his videos and make a living in China. All this informationion cannot be proved by independent media, but has to be sourced by his YouTube videos.serpentza (25 July 2016). "I'm QUITTING my job!". Retrieved 27 June 2017 – via YouTube.
    • Teaching english is not the same as medical training.
      • From The Nanfang article (June 2014): "He works for a medical training company, training doctors in international hospital rules, etiquette, medical terminology and other things related to internships in Australia and Germany." Isofarro (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there are not many reports about Sterzel in the media false information will stay in his article for ever. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not medical training, but English training. He is not a doctor or medically trained person. He just taught them English terminology. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the concerted effort being made to discredit this page only goes to prove that he meets the GNG guidelines. Nobody would try so hard to get a page deleted if he was a nobody あいこく (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: I've blocked Jason Sonic2k, Serpentza, and あいこく as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep we all know this guy in China 小粉红龙 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)— 小粉红龙 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Shritwod (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need a source for that claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete most of these keeps are pretty weak and not at all based on established process or policies. His IMDb page is irrelevant and few, if any, of the sources are significant or in depth. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per Cunard's sources, and current sourcing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, article around 250 words (exc. refs.), afd around 4250 words, still aways to make it on coolas longest afd list but pretty good being around 17 times article length. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 3 July 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 Louie Giglio#Passion Conferences. Consensus is against retaining this as a stand alone. The only difference being whether or not to delete before redirecting. With no clear consensus on that and the discussion already relisted once I am opting for the last drastic course. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sixstepsrecords[edit]

Sixstepsrecords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. From searches, available sources consist of name checks and passing mentions. Could be redirected to Louie Giglio. North America1000 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 2 July 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. Based on the weight of argument supported by WP:PAG, in particular the new and somewhat stricter NCORP, I believe a rough consensus in favor of deletion exists. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoscraps[edit]

Ecoscraps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently deleted as spam but it has been around since 2015 so it deserves a deletion discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has been created by a paid editor for the article subject, using an alternate account dedicated exclusively to this kind of edits: You can presume any edits I have made are on behalf of the article-subject or their employer, unless I specify otherwise. (from User:BC1278); see also Special:Diff/718631179 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made this disclosure at Talk:Ecoscraps and when it went through AfC. A reviewing editor wanted to see that the company was active in between major media articles. I complied but this led to a lot of marginal information IMO. I think a lot of the material reads as very promotional and I'd like to remove that material myself, if it's acceptable to move this to Draft for the time being.BC1278 (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
The tier-one, independent, reliable sourcing for this article includes Inc. Magazine, CNNMoney, Reuters, Food & Wine Magazine Forbes. I have made several suggestions for deleting passages that seem to me to be promotional at Talk: Ecoscraps#Request_Edits. These help address the objection that the article is spammy. While some admins say they have no problem with a COI editor making mainspace edits during an AfD discussion, other editors have said should not be allowed. So I leave it to someone else to evaluate these Request Edits, unless someone can cite a firm policy that says I can do this myself.BC1278 (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
It is a common misunderstanding of policy to interpret "independent" in the way you have done. Please take a read of WP:NCORP. None of those references are *intellectually independent* as they rely extensively on interviews/quotations from company sources, or rely on company announcements, or are routine company news such as investments. These types of articles (commonly referred to as "paid news" or churnalism) fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability and specifically fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The core premise of the "intellectually independent" policy is that "the content must not be produced by interested parties," which is clearly not the case with these tier-one media feature stories. The idea that a feature article by a staff journalist at a tier-one publication does not count as "independent" if it has extensive interviews/quotations from the company is not to be found in WP:NCORP. In fact, no tier-one publication would ever allow a feature story to be written about a company or individual without requesting such access. Journalists are obligated to speak extensively with profile subjects. The stories above are feature articles (not tied to announcements or press releases), appearing over an extended period of years. They are not "dependent" (there is a very specific list of such instance in WP:NCORP and they do not apply here), but rather independently produced journalism. For example, the Inc. Magazine story was featured on the cover of the May 2011 print edition of Inc. Magazine. And the CNNMoney story is a multi-interview feature (meaning it's not tied to a news event and takes a broad perspective.) The Reuters article compares two other companies to establish a trend. These are all examples of good, independent journalism, not "dependent" sources. -BC1278 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
  • Keep Looks pretty well-sourced to me, with CNN, Reuters, and Forbes. They are also listed on the EPA sustainable food management page, for what that's worth. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See my comment above. The CNN, Reuters and Forbes articles fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment After reviewing the updated notability guidelines, I don't see anything that would discount the reliable sources listed in the article. The two criteria for independent coverage in the policy are independence of the author, which is clearly met, as these are top-tier media corporations with no financial dependence on EcoScraps, and independence of the content. While much of the material in the articles does come from interviews, that is not the same as getting the material from press releases. While Inc.com is specifically mentioned in the policy, the author of that piece is a staff editor, not a non-staff contributor. (Forbes is also mentioned, but I can't see that article since it is behind a paywall to tell if it would qualify under the policy.) PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a well-sourced article, as illustrated by PohranicniStraze. The subject is main topic in numerous reliable-sourced articles. Easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the company is probably notable but the way it has been written is overtly promotional and reads like a company website or PR piece. It needs some serious copyediting to remove the fluff and overtly promotional phrases such as "Using Ecoscraps, stores dispose of their food waste, except meat and diary, at no cost, a waste hauling and landfill service that stores previously paid for". I doubt very much that a volunteer editor would have written such phrases. This highlights the difficulty of dealing with paid editing that uses Wikipedia as free and permenant advertising space for services and products and people. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as the author of the content suggested, for further work. Sometimes AfD does serve as the most effective impetus for cleanup. This is especially true since one of the reasons for deleting as promotional is that the article cannot be fixed, and sometimes the original contributor or another editor is able to show that it can. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Since you advocate "draftify" and RHaworth, an admin who specializes in AfD, says I may User_talk:RHaworth/2018_Jun_28#Deletion_request "certainly edit in the mainspace while AfD discussion is open", despite my COI, do you object if I made the proposed Talk edits now, while the article is being discussed? The heavy amount of promotional content is clearly influencing the vote, and the problem can quickly be addressed with some substantial cuts. If two admins who do a lot of AfD say I can make the proposed changes now, then it won't create a problem for me later.BC1278 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
If you really want to follow RHaworth's advice you might want to go beyond cherrypicking what he said and also take into account this the issue with this article is the inherent notability of its subject: no amount of tinkering with the text can fix that. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He also said, more recently "looks like AfD was the best route for you: it may get a "keep" !vote without you doing anything!" Despite that, I'd like to make the changes to the article since some of it is promotional, for the reasons I explained above, and that's the primary objection of some editors here.BC1278 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
  • Delete The Keep !votes above are clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of the criteria for establishing notability. While the references provided are all tier-one reliable sources, they all fail to meet the criteria/interpretation for "independent" sources (clarified in the recently updated WP:NCORP guidelines). The references are not intellectually independent, relying extensively on interviews/quotations from company sources with no independent opinion/analysis as attributed to the journalist, or are based on routine announcements such as funding. These types of references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages. This is a run-of-the-mill young company with normal advertorial-type "news" with company profiles, but is not intellectually independent as there is no independent opinion/analysis within the article itself. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and WP:SPIP. The article is entirely promotional, bordering on WP:G11, as in: "In 2013, the company announced its product line would be available at 1700 Target stores"!. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have already proposed a clean-up of the promotional language Talk:Ecoscraps#Request_Edits, including removing that specific sentence. It is inaccurate to say the cover story of the print edition of Inc. Magazine, in-depth features on CNNMoney.com and Forbes.com (staff written), and a trend story in Reuters is routine, a passing mention, or in some was not independent of the company.BC1278 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278.[reply]
  • Delete as per the clearer and stricter WP:NCORP guidelines. I originally said I thought this company was "probably" notable but the above arguments swayed me. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by Shirt58; rationale was: G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban (CSDH). (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Mia (politician)[edit]

Amin Mia (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COI-created article about a politician who fails to meet WP:NPOL criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for G5 and G11. This article has already been deleted several times before. Bradv 22:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    G5 does not apply as the current article creator is not blocked. wumbolo ^^^ 22:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wumbolo: I wasn't aware of previous versions. I see now that the current article is substantially identical to the deleted ones, which suggests sockpuppetry. Pinging @Anthony Bradbury: who deleted a previous version Amin Mia (without the disambiguator in the title). ~Anachronist (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason the creator's not blocked yet is because of the backlog at SPI. G5 is used to delete articles created by socks all the time. Bradv 04:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per above. wumbolo ^^^ 23:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Politician using Wikipedia to appear more notable than he really is, sockpuppet issues are disturbing as well.--VVikingTalkEdits 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gram panchyats in India are a unit of local government, not state or national, so the inclusion standard he would have to satisfy to get a Wikipedia article is the one for the local level of office: being reliably sourceable to enough media coverage to mark him out as a special case over and above most other local councillors. But that's not what's being shown here at all, and even if he did qualify for a Wikipedia article he still wouldn't get to write it himself per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI rules. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 3 July 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 without prejudice to further discussion of a possible merge on the appropriate talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SIP Animation[edit]

SIP Animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge back and redirect. Per notability, " Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, " All sources are primary, media or animation news news website. This is not gaining significant attention by the world at large I recommend that the SIP Animation information be place back at Saban Entertainment where it was. Spshu (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: by the world at large has too often been misinterpreted to mean "covered by mainstream news", which would result in the deletion of the vast majority of Wikipedia articles if applied consistently. Modernponderer (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, as this is the wrong forum for merge discussions. Merge discussions should happen on the talk page, or failing that, at an RfC or WP:MFD. See, e.g., WP:MERGEINIT for details on starting this process. --Mark viking (talk) 20:21, 2 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Williams Whitcher[edit]

Benjamin Williams Whitcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable priest, tagged since 2017 Staszek Lem (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Strikes me as NN, unless he achieved a lot after be became a Roman Catholic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I'm going to withdraw list--I was apparently confused by some other articles I was working on at the time. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easytrade[edit]

Easytrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for non-notable firm, founded to deal with government purchasing in a single country. No acceptable sources for notability. A companion article to Tradeshift--see adjacent AfD. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a firm, but an infrastructure. The article claims it is mandated by the law in Denmark. Hence inherent notability. See serious independent ref. [1] Staszek Lem (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
are you seriously claiming that all trade and other standards issued by all national goverments are notable? Then WP would be not an encyclopedic . but an indiscriminate .collection of government information. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 02:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ecovision[edit]

Ecovision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, poorly sourced article about a non-notable company. Probably covert advertising, given edit history and creation by SPA. MER-C 16:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. Yet another example of a promotional article created and maintained by SPA's Lyndaship (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:40, 2 July 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 18:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons (Poland)[edit]

Nicktoons (Poland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is small part of a notable corporation. It is not notable standing on it's own. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. 344917661X (talk) 21:38, 3 July 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 Draftify. Per the reasoning provided, This is a notable topic, but it's current state is not helpful to the project. I am moving this to the draft space. Pinging @DGG:, and @Icewhiz:, there should be no objections if this is moved back to mainspace upon article improvement, loosely defined. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Succession of Ali Khamenei[edit]

Succession of Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am renominating this article for discussion. The previous nomination was malformed. The original nomination was...The article is not based on any facts and is pure speculation. I think it should be deleted per WP:CRYSTALBALL Goharshady (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I take no position on the merits of the nomination. Courtesy ping Goharshady. - Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just as a article about a future election is appropriate, because people being talking about this considerably in advance, so is an article of the succession to a national office in a non-democratic system. It becomes a matter of political concern long before the persona actually leaves office. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the succession of the successor of Khamenei is WP:BALL, the succession of Khamenei, a 78 year old gentleman, is far from BALL turf (unless we view the present supreme leader as immortal?) and is widely discussed. Indeed, the date of said succession is unknown (Khamenei being on of the longest reigning dictators in the region) - it may occur tomorrow - or in another decade or two - however the list of possible candidates for consideration before the Assembly of Experts is indeed known and is quite limited due to various requirements (unless they were to be flexed at the time of election). Possibly one might add an usurpation (democratic or a different type of dictator) to the lists of possibilities. In any event, this is a much discussed succession - [2][3][4][5]. Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Move to draft space, since it is plausible that this can become a reasonable article. The sourcing has to be improved, and the list of possible successors has to be attributed in the text. Also, the title of the article is incorrect, since the succession of Ali Khamenei occurred when he became Supreme Leader. The next Supreme Leader (Khamanei's successor) will then 'succeed' to the position. So the article is about the next leader's succession, not Khamanei's succession. Zerotalk 13:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Ok I have had a chance to look at this and form some opinions. The subject is probably notable but the article is an unencyclopedic mess. Move it to draft space pending appropriate improvements. In its current state it just doesn't belong in the mainspace. (preceding comment is mine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Good suggestion. I'll modify my vote accordingly. Zerotalk 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The topic seems considerably notable, but the article is confusing, questionably sourced, and of low quality. Draftifying will allow editors to to make it a good article. Henry TALK 15:26, 10 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nabagram FP School[edit]

Nabagram FP School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No source found  — FR + 15:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are multiple primary schools with this name:
    • Nabagram F.P. School in Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal, established 1980 [6]
    • Nabagram F.P. School in Paligram-ii, Mongalkote, Barddhaman, West Bengal, established 1946 [7]
    • Nabagram F.P. School in Ketugram-ii, Barddhaman, West Bengal, established 1949 [8]
    • Nabagram F.P. School in Nabagram-iii, Baruipur Block, South-Twenty-Four-Pargan District, West-Bengal, established 1942 [9]
    All seem to be primary schools so this doesn't seem to be helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability and AngusWOOF's excellent research shows that it is not helpful as a redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 21:19, 6 July 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 18:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer[edit]

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer is a hugely successful singer songwriter with multiple albums to her name, who has featured prominently on a Dutch talent show, is an acclaimed filmmaker and ground-breaking therapist. Or so I inferred from reading the article - but looking deeper it appears this is all a serious exaggeration. In fact, I can find no evidence she even meets any inclusion guidelines.

Does she meet the WP:GNG? There certainly are articles about her, particularly about her appearence on a Dutch talent show. So we can at least be confident she exists. But is she notable? These articles are almost exclusively local publications featuring local-interest stories. Such publications routinely feature local residents in this manner; the articles do not of themselves appear to demonstrate any sort of global or even national significance and the lack of national coverage is telling. Even the prominent claim that she was featured as one of the "most interesting poeople" of 2016 by a Cleveland Magazine loses it shine when you realise 30 people were all the most interesting in that year.

As a musician, WP:MUSICBIO provides the clearest guidance. She certainly hasn't had the level of success demanded there - her albums appear to be unpublished or self-published (see here, for example) and her highly lauded appearance on The Voice of Holland seems to have been a brief early-round few minutes in the spotlight - way less than the third place or better demanded for notability.

Her film work, similarly, appears to be at best self-published. It's hard to verify - the article says she directed and produced "the documentary on the USS Indianapolis" but it's unreferenced and gives no clue as to what the documentary actually is. Her "musical tribute to the victims of gun violence" appears to be a self-produced video for one of her self-produced songs.

Her music therapy work is an interesting string in her bow but again not an indication of notability - huge numbers of people are involved in the running of clinical studies; there does not appear to be anything especially notable about hers.

I wish her good luck in achieving her aims, but it appears to be way WP:TOOSOON for an article yet.

Then there's the question of how we have come to have an article that is so overly exaggerated. It becomes clear when you look at the edit history: it was created by someone with the ID Jacklynlala, a WP:SPA that has made no other edits before or since. It was subsequently significantly developed by another SPA going by the name of musicpressinc (now blocked) and then by an SPA IP that knows the subject well enough to know how she thinks. Finally it has been edited by a new user who has also not edited anything else but did feel sufficiently proficient to remove a maintenance tag in support of the IP which had twice removed it and twice been reverted. In fact, of 150 edits in total, 116 are accounted for by just these four editors, and together they have developed the article in turn. The obvious conflict of interest, most likely an autobiography, severely undermines any suggestion that the article may be balanced and neutral, and explains the clear promotional content within it.

So for reasons of notability and spam, this article does not belong. It should be deleted. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly Dorsetonian, I don't know what this chick did to you to make you so angry that you had to write this thesis I just had to read. Read 3 lines of this and you know it fails WP:Promotional by miles. Maybe could be considered with serious, serious rewrite. Seafox289 (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve If the article has been created by people who do not understand Wikipedia policies, that is a reason for us to re-consider and improve, not summarily delete. If there is a Wikipedia policy saying that WP:GNG should ignore local-interest publications, I do not know that policy. Also, honestly, Seafox289, "this chick"? Let us show ourselves better representatives of Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the local-interest publications, I should clarify. WP:MUSICBIO is pretty clear that only winning 1st-3rd place in a "major music competition" is of itself notable. When someone appears on such a show there will be a degree of local interest, and so it follows there a level of routine coverage of contestants placed fourth and lower which does not confer notability. I don't see evidence there is anything exceptional here, so the GNG doesn't appear to be met. If the subject isn't notable, no amount of article improvement will make her so. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure what to make of the nominator's obsessively long explanation, and charges of a conflict of interest might be a little beyond the tradition of assuming good faith at Wikipedia. The nominator has a convincing analysis on how this woman does not meet the notability requirements for a musician, but since she has done many things the article could possibly survive on her work in film (WP:FILMMAKER) or science (WP:NACADEMIC). Alas, in all three endeavors she comes up just a little short on notability for a Wikipedia article. Without that, the article does seem like an attempt at promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with DOOMSDAYER520 and also with Dorsetonian that the topic of article does not rise to NMUSICIAN, NFILMMAKER, NACADEMIC, or for that matter WP:NPOL. My Keep !vote is based on WP:GNG criterion, specifically "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This criterion is clearly met by the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also according to article 1 of criteria for notability, this artist has many independent reference/news sources and has made national/ international headlines, more of which I found and have been added. Subjective wording and advertisement wording has been removed mostly by House of Change. -more editing may be needed in this respect but subjectivity improved. These items contribute to verification of notability. Up for further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triptopia (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Triptopia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD nomination could be a poster child for contemptuous dismissal of biographies because we're offended by amateur editing, even if the subject clearly meets GNG. Multiple independent sources wrote about JBP because she did a lot of different things that happened to interest multiple independent RS reporters, even if her activities fail to interest someone so offended by amateur efforts at editing Wikipedia that they want to torch rather than improve a BLP. Then instead of policy arguments, we get reasons why multiple "reliable sources" shouldn't count: local interest articles shouldn't count, being one of the 30 most interesting people in Cleveland shouldn't count, etc. Another way to ignore GNG is by concentrating on the (irrelevant) failure to meet a bunch of other categories of notability. So what, if the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL? She meets GNG. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:HouseOfChange: I suggest that you quit while you're ahead. The nominator did indeed mention that the article has been constructed by new editors, which is relevant if new folks are unaware of Wikipedia's long-standing policies. But even so, the entire discussion since then has been about notability, as it should be in a deletion discussion. You have given your opinion on Ms. Palmer's notability three different times, and your unfounded accusation of discrimination against newbies does not make Ms. Palmer more notable. Your opinion on that matter is here for all to see, thrice. Now let the consensus process play out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:HouseOfChange: please don't assume the motivation for my nomination, still less criticise me for what you perceive it to be. FWIW, I am not "offended" by the "amateur editing" - if anything I am impressed by the apparently expert editing which I think has made the subject appear far more notable than she is. You accuse me of avoiding policy arguments but the deletion rationale addresses precisely the relevant policies and guidelines for inclusion, and in response to your initial comment I had clarified why I assert that the GNG is not met at all, again with reference to policy and guideline. If anything, your arguments do not address the concerns that the GNG is not met, just merely assert that it is, and resort to personal attacks, from which I conclude you have no reasoned response to give. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my inappropriate comments, Dorsetonian, and have edited the page to strike them out. My "reasoned response" has been to try to improve the article, removing puffery and adding information from WP:RS, hoping to be able to demonstrate my belief that she passes GNG. If you look at my userpage, you will see that I like to do article repair when I think it will help. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, HouseOfChange - I appreciate that. Dorsetonian (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's certainly been some COI editing here, and a bunch of trivia/puffery is included (appearing on an episode of House Hunters is almost certainly not worth mentioning on any biography). The source [10] and the coverage of her other minor publicity events seems to be enough to pass GNG, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by blocked sockpuppet struck out. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially PR, based on PR. This is an attempt to make a non-notable career sound important. The lede paragraph epitomizes the technique: "one of the Most Interesting People of 2016.[5]". (and it then turns out from the ref that "one of the" means one out of 30. Such a listing of people really means, one of the 30 people their publicists have most strongly pushed us to include" That amounts to an utterly trivial so-called award from a local paper. Similarly, one of the arguments for keep was "the coverage of her other minor publicity events seems to be enough to pass GNG," Coverage of trivial publicity events is not substantial coverage. Her claimed significant medical work has only 28 citations for its most cited paper. None of her films or recordings are notable. The argument for notability depends upon an uncritical misuse of the gNG, ignoring the requirements for the publications being significant and independent--the susceptibility of the GNG to such misuse is the key reason I think it's essentially worthless, because peopel can interpret those terms according to the result they want.
In any case, notability arguemnts are unnecesary here. This is pure promotional biography, and NOTPROMOTION is a basic part of policy, and requires deletion regardless of notability , just as does copyvio. I don't like to cut short a discussion with even a well-merited speedy, but this is really G11 territory. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOPROMO. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform period. Notability is a secondary issue. The article cannot be kept in its current condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The less famous a person is, the more suspicion that an article is promotional there will be. You could write two articles of random people using exactly the same types of sources, the same tone of voice, and everything, and the article about the less famous person will appear to be more promotional. Here, significant amounts of the article were written by sources close to the subject of the article. I understand that maybe the article contributors were not deliberately attempting to be promotional, but evertheless this article fails WP:Promotional in tone and in content and so should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an original platform for promotion: it can reflect notability, but it cannot be the source of original promotion. Egroeg5 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve Currently, the article is indeed promotional and needs some serious rewriting, but the subject is notable enough and does merit a wikipedia page. Goharshady (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StrikerforceTalk 15:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently, discussion seems to be focusing on:
  1. Does the subject of the article fail WP:Notability and WP:MUSICBIO?
  2. Does the article fail WP:Promotional?
If the article fails either criteria, then the article is eligible for deletion.
I am not going to comment on WP:Notability, even though I personally find it doubtful that the subject is sufficiently notable.
That said, it is very clear that the article fails WP:Promotional. In fact, the article so fails the second criteria that, quoting from DGG above, this is really G11 Speedy Deletion territory.
To those who suggest that we rewrite or improve the article, the problem is that the subject is not very notable and it would be very difficult to rewrite the article in a less promotional way. In fact, take out the promotion, and it becomes doubtful that she is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Again quoting DGG above, this is "an attempt to make a non-notable career sound important." Maybe she has just enough notability for Wikipedia, but I think a fresh start-over of the article (deletion) is the best option, until the subject becomes more notable. Egroeg5 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PROMO \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 07:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to draftspace There is a conflict of interest going on, failing WP:AB as well as WP:PROMO as stated above. Perhaps if it was moved to draftspace, the article could be sufficiently reworked, and after which if the editors could prove notability, they could go to WP:PR before moving it to mainspace. But as of now, it should not be in mainspace. Henry TALK 16:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this idea from HenryMP02 is good. I am not one of the original article creators, but I have plenty of room in my sandbox for the draft so far. If more WP:RS cover the activities of this very energetic person, then it will be a shame to lose the work others have done so far on the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:54, 10 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brave (web browser)[edit]

Brave (web browser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable as it stands. No secondary sources. Present sources fail WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Sources are mix of churnalism, blogs and press releases. scope_creep (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NCORP. A promotional piece by a SPA Lyndaship (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviews by Network World, cnet.com and Ars Technica are both independent and in-depth. They are not reprints of n press releases. Disregarding the Google Play and Apple Store links, there is enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is established, and there was recent improvements to make the article less infomercial. Basicbbr (talk • contribs) 21:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC) - Removed vote for Keep after reading other opinions, article exist because of inherited notability (If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner)[reply]
  • Keep The only primary sources are the versions and operating systems compatible with the browser, which is the case for other wikipedia articles on web browsers such as Firefox and Google Chrome. The rest of the sources are okay and although this article may require a little clean up. The browser definitely deserves it's own article. 344917661X (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC) (unsure)[reply]
344917661X, your rationale doesn't make the least bit of sense. This is primary sources, WP:PSTS, not what it executes on. The sources are trade papers, it is their business to report on major software products, and as such they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The product isn't known outside the software world, it is completely transparent to the average web user, and the only reason it has got traction is because it was created by Brendan Eich. Chrome has 88% of the market, and Firefox has a very long history, and a one time 77% of the market. This doesn't and the only weight that is carrying it at the moment is Brendan Eich. Without him, it would unknown to almost everybody. scope_creep (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only argument of yours that I agree with is the trade papers one, but because the only secondary sources in the article are trade papers, I have crossed out my keep sentence and have withdrawn my support of keeping this article. 344917661X (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
344917661X Please don't let any arguments of mine stop you. If you think it is a keep, please say so, but you must specify the policies, and a good rationale. scope_creep (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, now let's see how this AFD turns out. 344917661X (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that this browser wouldn't be notable without the involvement of Brendan Eich is unfair, in my sincere opinion. Brave is an ad and tracker blocker, similar to uBlock Origin, AdBlock, and AdBlock Plus. Brave has repeatedly found itself leading charts in both the Google's Play Store and iTunes. On the Play Store alone Brave has more than 5M downloads. The software is of interest to those in traditional advertising and publishing circles too on account of Brave's forthcoming digital advertising model, which is currently in user testing. Jonathansampson (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathansampson, I feel I should point people to the COI disclosure which you very properly placed on your user page, just so there's no uncertainty as I only discovered it by chance. Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basie, thank you. If you find anything I've said or done to be inappropriate, please do let me know. My aim here is not to market a browser, but to state and defend what is factual and objectively true. Jonathansampson (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least—I just find it's better to be overt about these things :) Cheers, Basie (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain. I don't find the argument convincing that sources which report on major software products do not count toward NCORP. Further, it's not a requirement that to be notable a piece of software must have significant visibility to "non-computer people" (otherwise, we'd have no React article among many others). Finally, software surely does not have to be comparatively popular to be notable. Brave does not require a specific percentage of the browser market share before it "deserves" an article. It simply requires coverage in independent RS, which it has. It's worth noting that, even if it got so much press because of its creator, the coverage is of the browser, making the issue of inherited notability somewhat moot. Basie (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:23, 8 July 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 snowball keep, then withdrawn by nominator. There was a fundamental misunderstanding here (playing out across multiple pages), about the difference between an ethnolinguistics classification and a human geography one. Not the same topic, just similarly named.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Anatolian peoples[edit]

Anatolian peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ancient peoples of Anatolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - WP:CSD#G8 as redirect — IVORK Discuss 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination has now been withdrawn (see below). Either delete or merge with List of ancient peoples of Anatolia. It is claimed that this article is about ethno-linguistics but it bears little if any relevance to the subject and the list it contains is virtually the same as that in List of ancient peoples of Anatolia. There has been considerable movement of the page following an initial attempt to both define and categorise it appropriately and this activity needs to be taken into consideration. There is already a substantial Category:Languages of ancient Anatolia which provides coverage of linguistics by peoples (e.g., Phrygian language) so this article seems to have no real purpose. The title is entirely misleading because it says nothing of linguistics and expected scope would be the peoples concerned albeit including some description of their languages. It is important, I think, to avoid the false equivalency of a people and their language which an article like this might ultimately achieve. Please note that there is a related CFD in progress. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anatolian peoples, as shown in the article, have have been addressed directly and in detail in reliable secondary sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. The defining characteristic of the Anatolian peoples is the fact that they spoke Anatolian languages, not that they at one point lived in Anatolia. Merging them into List of ancient peoples of Anatolia does therefore not make sense. Anatolian languages are part of the Indo-European languages. Below is a list of Indo-European languages and the corresponding ethnolinguistic groups/ethnic groups:
There is no reason to assume that every Indo-European language is connected to an ethnolinguistic group except the Anatolian peoples. Scholars certainly do not assume such an exception, so why should Wikipedia? Krakkos (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. List of ancient peoples of Anatolia (which is not, in fact, a list) has much more linguistic content than Anatolian peoples so it makes complete sense to use that as the ethno-linguistic article, subject to it be renamed as it isn't a list. The two articles counteract each other in terms of scope and content. The titles do not help at all and are probably half the problem in themselves. Re GNG, no one has said that these peoples and their languages are not notable so that argument is a distortion. The issues are titles, scope, duplication, purpose. Not notability. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Peoples of Anatolia" and "Anatolian peoples" are two different topics. The ancient Phrygians and the modern Turks are peoples of Anatolia, but Phrygian is not an Anatolian language, and neither is Turkish, so they belong under "Peoples of Anatolia" but not under "Anatolian peoples". In the same way, Estonians are a people of the Baltic, but they are not Balts, because Estonian is a Finno-Ugric language, not a Baltic language. Baltic languages are Indo-European. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the argument that this fits the established convention of such articles on Wikipedia compelling. It is well covered in RS so notability is not really an issue either. SpinningSpark 18:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the reasons listed by Krakkos. Dimadick (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn. Given the work now being done to both the articles discussed here, I think I should withdraw my nomination. Thanks to a transfer of information by Krakkos from List of ancient peoples of Anatolia to Anatolian peoples, the latter now fulfills its purpose and has the potential to become a very useful article. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:52, 3 July 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. The clear consensus seems to be that the article is notable due to the listing in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Also per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Zimmerman[edit]

Benjamin Zimmerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

single source whos-who, nothing that speaks to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 'nothing that speaks to notability'? A dedicated article in a national-level biographical dictionary is notability. Agricolae (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On top of the above, there is a bibliography in his DCB entry which seems to suggest numerous additional RS about the subject. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone with a lengthy section in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography or similar reference work is notable, especially if that section has a lengthy list of sources that can be used to expand the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have not been editing for awhile. DoCB articles have always been considered notable. This one seems well above the minimum. Does it need work? Certainly! Stormbay (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per ANYBIO(3).Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the entry in the bio-dictionary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:ANYBIO. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:BASIC. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 04:52, 8 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qez Mi Or Togheci[edit]

Qez Mi Or Togheci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All references listed are links to YouTube, iTunes, etc. I have been unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Appears to be simply promotional based upon content (and author's username); there had been citation spam in what appeared to be an attempt to sell dresses from the artist's online shop (I since removed it). Regardless of the promotional content, my concern is more with the lack of notability as per WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Songs are not entitled to an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, or because their existence can technically be verified by iTunes and YouTube. Songs become notable enough for Wikipedia articles only when they can be reliably sourced as the subject of media coverage which verifies that they've achieved something that passes WP:NSONG. But there's no claim like that here, and the creator has an evident conflict of interest based on their username. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising platform. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bearcat Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:00, 9 July 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. The consensus here is not the strongest but it does exist. If someone down the road wants to renominate this once we have a clearer idea of whether or not the coverage meets SUSTAINED, that can be addressed in the future nomination. However I advise in favor a reasonable delay before any hypothetical renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rakem Balogun[edit]

Rakem Balogun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A textbook WP:BLP1E. The subject is notable in so far as he was the victim of police persecution and nothing more. It would be impossible to write a full and balanced biography from the sources available. – Joe (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 12:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is absurd. The article was titled Rakem Balogun Facebook incident until a clueless administrator decided to move it without leaving a redirect (or fixing any incoming links). Now it's threatened with deletion because its title (and putative subject) is the person and not the incident. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage extends over several months, from the arrest to the dismissal of charges, and is likely to continue as the FBI continues to be criticized over its actions. This article from a newspaper in Spain, as well as the Guardian coverage referenced in the article, both indicate international interest in the story. This 2016 article from the BBC quotes Balogun as a founding member of Huey P Newton Gun Club, so he has been in the news long before the arrest. And if he seeks compensation for the arrest and detention, the fight for compensation is likely to generate coverage over a protracted period. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nothing "clueless" about it. There were never links from other Wikipedia articles, and the article was written about the person, not the incident. Create some links if you have a problem with it. Deb (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Like he said, a textbook WP:BLP1E. If someone thinks the incident is worth writing about -- and, frankly, I don't -- then someone can write that, a different article than this. But this is NOT a biography. --Calton | Talk 13:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Eastmain. I for one tagged this article for lack of clarity, and concurred with MShabazz on the article's talk page that the edits do not reflect fully the sources cited. However, that in itself does not warrant deletion. The issues can be fixed with editing to reflect the sources cited. The subject passes the notability guidelines, received ample coverage from several reliable third party sources and is a bye product of the Black Identity Extremism nonsense cooked up by the FBI under the administration of Trump. As the first person to suffer miscarriage of justice under this fabricated policy/agenda, it is notable enough to receive great coverage from several reliable third party sources. If the article is edited as it should be as per the sources cited, it would provide counter criticism of that foolish policy/agenda. When he decides to pursue legal action, it would also attract further coverage. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject passes the notability guidelines, received ample coverage from several reliable third party sources .
  • Cool. Then tell me some things: where was he born? How old is he? Where did he go to school? What are some of his biggest personal accomplishments? What's he done OUTSIDE of this one incident which happened to him? Where are the reliable sources that actually discuss the man himself, in any depth whatsoever? --Calton | Talk 23:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do original research here. We go by Wiki policy: notability and great coverage from reliable third part sources. If you are asking for original research rather than what the sources have reported, then you are in the wrong place. If you have an issue with how the sources reported the case, take it out with them. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are not asking for original research, they are asking how the subject satisfies WP:BLP1E, which was the concern I raised in both the nomination here and the PROD you contested. Having a large number of sources is useless if they offer no depth of coverage, especially if the subject is a living person. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you overlooked is that, this is more about the incident than the person involved. This incident is bigger than the person involved hence I agreed with MShabazz below. This article should be moved back. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom WP:BLP1E and fails WP:LASTING .There is news coverage, but it was not biographical in nature.About his arrest ,his posts in facebook against police and later that the charges were dropped in court.Only coverage of the arrest and droping of charges that is all.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move back to Rakem Balogun Facebook incident, which has been the subject of sustained international news coverage since February. It was foolish to pretend this was a biography. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 08:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. That makes more sense. Senegambianamestudy (talk)
@Septrillion, Eastmain voted for keep. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 01:53, 8 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Nelson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bobby Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An actor who only appeared in a minor role in an episode of a minor TV show, and a musician who did not have coverage aside from trivial announcements, fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO. Note that the article was previously deleted as an article for a video game character and the previous AfD is therefore unrelated to this. Hzh (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete frothy article about an individual whose only claim to notability is an appearance in a single episode of a true crime re-enactment show. The sources here are not meaningful, nor could I find any better references in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when you are best kown for guest apparences in a TV show you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as copright violation. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BHALESULTAN KSHATRIYA[edit]

BHALESULTAN KSHATRIYA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Previously created as Bhale Sultan and deleted via PROD etc under that title. It doesn't appear to be Bhale Sultan Khanzada etc and is a copyright violation anyway. Doing this as an AfD so we can look into salting the thing if necessary and because using kshatriya in the title is very pov-y if retained as a redirect. Sitush (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is another name for the Bais Rajput, although again without the kshatriya bit (which is pure POV). - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 2 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mochila Inc.[edit]

Mochila Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No working references. No evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can see a couple of brief items relating to the company's partnership with Belo in 2007 ([11]  – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) and being commissioned to develop an Emmy archive website ([12]), but nothing that rises about routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:01, 6 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comer Range[edit]

Comer Range (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One-sentence article that only consists of a lead, and a bad one at that. Drsorio (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather more than one sentence. Being a stub is not grounds for deletion. All mountain ranges are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - Yes, it is substantially longer than one sentence and being a stub is not grounds for deletion. That said, I am not award of any consensus that all mountain ranges are notable. WP:GEOLAND says named features are "often" notable (which is true enough) but calls for sourced info. My search for "Comer range" finds this article and the blurb from USGS it is copied from. The articles for the peaks mentioned in the article do not mention the name (the article is a pure orphan). It seems the name is not widely used, but exists. In effect, it's a detailed disamb page for those two peaks, with the story woven in. Arguably, this could be merged and redirected to Gary Comer, but we'd likely lose the story. As much as I hate to do so, I'm leaning toward an IAR keep. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as SummerPhD states, WP:NGEO sets a very low bar for geography articles, which this one seems to pass with a fairly meaningful history as far as Antarctic mountain ranges go. I would be okay with merging Jabet Peak and Noble Peak with this article if others wanted, but since this page is (in my mind) the logical target of such a merge, this page should definitely be kept either way. MarginalCost (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as others before me have mentioned, article length does not describe notability, and in this case, the subject passes WP:NGEO. --HunterM267 talk 16:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, although this looks likely to be a "keep" (unless a whole lot of deleters pile on:)), i would be happier with a redirect to Gary Comer that could have a "Legacy" section with a sentence about this range being named after him, if sentences that don't discuss the range but rather Comer the person are removed then what is left is an article of a few short sentences with (yes i know article length does not reflect notability but really....), if a gsearch is anything to go by, no real expectation of expansion. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NGEO \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All mountain ranges (that are properly named / covered in sources) should be inherently notable, and the coverage of its naming should be enough for general notability. —innotata 15:57, 9 July 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Normally I would relist at least once but in this case we have a discussion with significant participation and opinions that are all over the place. I do not believe a relist would end with consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent[edit]

Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:OR / WP:NOTESSAY, essentially. The whole thing boils down to "A Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0 does not mean variables are independent" (adding the normal distribution is a bit of a red herring). I do not see sources sufficient to establish that this very topic is anywhere close notable. It might be mentioned in a lot of places (e.g. ref 2) as a common student mistake, but not as an encyclopedic subject worthy of careful study.

If not kept, some cleanup is needed, as there are quite a few incoming links. A selective merge to the PCC article or the PCC section of correlation and dependence or might be workable. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the same point that the nominator missed: If this were to be merged into another article, it should be the articles on the normal distribution and the multivariate normal distribution. Nothing about the normal distribution need be included if they only point were to show that uncorrelatedness does not entail independence, but this article is explaining a fact about the normal distribution, not a fact about the relationship between independence and uncorrelatedness. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere in Multivariate_normal_distribution#Joint_normality, then? TigraanClick here to contact me 07:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pages that have been merged to other articles should almost never be deleted (WP:MAD) Qwfp (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. This is an insightful article that highlights the difference between joint normality and marginal normality. And no, bringing in normality is not a red herring: the whole point is that while joint normality plus no correlation does imply independence (something that does not hold for non-normal distributions), marginal normality plus no correlation does not imply independence. The examples serve to illustrate how this can be. Loraof (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point (repeated below by others) duly noted. However, that makes me doubt even more of the subject's notability; "PCC=0 is not independence" is certainly more interesting in the grand scheme of things[original research?] than (joint normality + uncorrelated) <-> (joint normality + independence) (of course, my subjective judgement on that point is not worth zilch, what matters are the refs). We are not a repository of interesting mathematical facts. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Loraof: Several people have advocated merging instead; do you oppose that as well? If so, it might be clearer to just change to a keep, but if not, it might be worth saying so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deacon Vorbis: If it is merged, it should be to the currently brief section Multivariate normal distribution#Two normally distributed random variables need not be jointly bivariate normal. I’m not opposed in principle to doing this, but I’m concerned that the multivariate normal distribution article is already very long. Loraof (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with another relevant article. The article is very nicely written and very helpful. I strongly oppose deletion. Goharshady (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important family of counterexamples, properly sourced. There are multiple textbook sources on exactly this topic [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disputing this is well-sourced (as in WP:V), I am disputing the notability (as a standalone article) of that bit of math. I do not think multiple short mentions in specialized textbooks demonstrate notability, per the "in-depth" requirement of WP:GNG. You might well say that nothing else could be expected for a run-of-the-mill theorem and wishing for more is an impossible bar to pass, but is that not an indication of non-notability? TigraanClick here to contact me 07:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a reasonable short encyclopedia article on some interesting mathematical objects. It would probably also be okay as a section of some other article, but it's hard to see a pressing need to merge. --2601:142:3:F83A:95A9:DA87:64C2:9A47 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tigraan's statement about a "red herring" shows that Tigraan has no clue what this article is about. In a multivariate normal distribution, linear combinations of the components are independent if they are uncorrelated; this article shows that for each component to be normally distributed is not enough; rather, joint normality is needed. People should wait until they understand what an article says before nominating it for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. Whether I have no clue what this article is about is hardly a rebuttal about my concerns of notability. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article makes a point about the nature of the normal distribution, not about the relationship between uncorrelatedness and independence. I wonder if it should be dumbed down somewhat to make that clearer. I would never have guessed that it could be misunderstood in the particular way in which the nominator and one of the other posters above have misunderstood it. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not an encylopaedia topic, it's an essay or perhaps something for wikibooks. Anything relevant can be put into say Pearson coefficient. The merits of knowing this does not in of itself make it a notable or appropriate topic for an encyclopaedia. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This material certainly does not belong at Pearson coefficient, and the suggestion that it could makes me more sympathetic to Michael Harry's comment than I was before. --2601:142:3:F83A:8985:D0DD:B024:F94C (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then some other appropriate article about a theorem, method or technique (thanks JohnBlackburne). Just because you can come up with an example of something does not make it worthy of its own article. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even this more general wording is wrong: if it were to be merged somewhere, it would be to an article about the (multivariate) normal distribution. Are you sure you have the competence necessary to judge whether this is of encyclopedic importance? Lots of "examples of something" are. --2601:142:3:F83A:181:62BC:A65:DA3F (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck: You have missed the article's point entirely. The examples in this article are NOT notable among examples that are of importance in the topic of correlation, but they ARE relevant to the topic of the normal distribution, because JOINT normality plus uncorrelatedness does entail independence. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Not a named theorem, method or technique, not independently notable by any stretch. Just examples of Correlation and dependence, and not especially interesting ones being very contrived. There’s nothing special about the normal distribution in this, no evidence in the article that there is.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I feel like this validates Michael Hardy's comments. You clearly have failed to understand what the article is about. --2601:142:3:F83A:611C:BD4F:C063:4BF2 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, please take a look at my comment above. That comment, and the article, point out that the joint normal distribution has a property that is not generally true across distributions, but the marginal normal distributions do not have this property. It’s entirely about the joint vs. marginal normal distributions. Perhaps the second sentence in the article (which I have now deleted) led some readers astray by going off on a brief irrelevant tangent about another distribution. Loraof (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnBlackburne: You have missed the point of the article if you think there's nothing special about the normal distribution here. The topic of the article is NOT notable as a comment about correlation and dependence, but it IS notable as a fact about the normal distribution, because JOINT normality plus uncorrelatedness DOES entail independence. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. Counterexamples are a perfectly reasonable topic for a wikipedia page and this is a counterexample to the supposed theorem 'Normally distributed and uncorrelated implies independent'. Having said that, it might be nice to make such counterexamples easier to find; Game without a value, for example, is a counterexample to the supposed theorem 'every zero-sum game has a value', but it's not clear to me how a user might discover this by searching. The page is well-written and informative about notoriously difficult statistical concept independence. Robinh (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would be nice is a short subsection in multivariate normal distribution with a {{main}} link to this article. Indeed, that's what we have now. --2601:142:3:F83A:181:62BC:A65:DA3F (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been meaning to read it since it's something I want to understand better. That already shows it's useful. I don't agree with the notion that common student mistakes aren't worth writing up in articles. 0.999... is a featured article with a lot of traffic and a long history, giving a dozen or so proofs that 0.999.... is equal to 1, because so many people are confused over this issue. Simpson's paradox is another of these probability counterexamples that's similarly of good value. And Counterexamples in Topology is a famous book that spawned a lot of similar books in other topics like analysis. Added: also, based on Multivariate_normal_distribution#Two_normally_distributed_random_variables_need_not_be_jointly_bivariate_normal mentioned by 2601:142:3:F83A:181:62BC:A65:DA3F, splitting it out looks ok per WP:Summary style. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But 0.999... has an incomparable level of referencing. For instance I would assume (I cannot access it) that Beswick, Kim (2004). "Why Does 0.999... = 1?: A Perennial Question and Number Sense". Australian Mathematics Teacher. 60 (4): 7–9. discusses it in an encyclopedically-compatible way (i.e. shows notability). Same for Simpson's paradox - this article is entirely devoted to a meta-analysis of the paradox (not just a proof of the math).
I do not think anyone is arguing that examples and counterexamples should be excluded on principle from math articles - the question here is whether we need a standalone article. (And WP:ITSUSEFUL does not help.) We should not use summary style when the spin-off is not notable is itself (WP:AVOIDSPLIT). TigraanClick here to contact me 08:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal to me whether it's a separate article but what you nominated the article for was deletion. If we merge it to another article while not losing any significant content then ok, but as someone else said, I don't see much urgency to it. Note also that the purpose of the those policies you keep mentioning is to improve the encyclopedia. So I'm unimpressed by arguments from wiki policy for any particular action, unless they can be supported by an explanation of how that action improves the encyclopedia directly. I haven't seen any attempt from you to do that so far. Following policy for its own sake is basically the definition of bureaucracy, and arguing purely from policy is wikilawyering, that should almost always be seen unfavorably. Policy is not an axiom system whose consequences are theorems. It's more like a low order regression-fit of past experience whose suggestions are at best approximate in any situation, and at worst completely off. So it always has to be checked against specific cases before applying it, if there is any doubt at all.

I therefore find your line of argument distasteful rather than persuasive. The most mathematically knowledgeable contributors here all seem to want to keep the article or at least preserve its contents, and that's good enough for me. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what you nominated the article for was deletion: Yes and no. If you know a better place than AfD to discuss cases where it is unclear whether the endgame is deletion, merge, redirect and to which target, please let me know, because I am not aware of one; WP:RM is pretty much a binary "move or not move", and WP:RFD rarely addresses historical content of the redirects.
I'm unimpressed by arguments from wiki policy for any particular action, unless they can be supported by an explanation of how that action improves the encyclopedia directly. You are reversing the burden of proof of WP:IAR / "guidelines are not absolute" here. If you want to argue IAR (i.e. that policy says to do X but the best outcome for the encyclopedia is Y), the onus is on you to demonstrate that special circumstances apply, or (reusing your metaphor) that the current datapoint does not fall on the fit line. Policies exist for a reason, and we do not rediscuss them at every application.
The most mathematically knowledgeable contributors here all seem to want to keep the article or at least preserve its contents, and that's good enough for me. - Well, that's an argument from authority, but more to the point mathematical competence is weakly correlated to Wikipedia article content handling. That line of reasoning leads straight to "we should defer to homeopaths/crystal healers/dowsers when it comes to content about homeopathy/crystal healing/dowsing", which is not going to happen and fortunately so. A better argument to make would have been "long-time Wikipedia editors with an interest in the subject topic want to keep" - in which case the argument of authority follows from Wikipedia tenure, not mathematics directly - but it still is fairly weak. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for meta-philosophy but I think you are a little confused. IAR (simplified) is when you have an edit that's against policy but you decide to make it anyway because it's a good edit that improves the encyclopedia. The complementary situation, where your edit is allowed by policy but you decide not to make it because it's a lousy edit that doesn't improve the encyclopedia, is not IAR but is just common sense. If an edit doesn't improve the encyclopedia you shouldn't make it. It's never against policy to not make an edit. Therefore the only sound way to justify a proposed edit when people are unconvinced is to explain how it improves the encyclopedia, not what policy says about it. And I'd call it bloody obvious (WP:CIR) that in a question of math exposition (which is what this is), the views of the knowledgeable math editors have to carry greater weight than those of editors who are merely interested in the subject but don't understand it. "Wikipedia content handling" is supposed to serve the goal of exposition, not the other way around.

The usual place to propose an article merge is on the article talk page, not AfD. You can use the {{merge from}} talkpage template for the purpose. The talk page of the relevant wikiproject (WT:WPMATH for this) is probably also a good place to leave a notice. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Multivariate normal distribution. We don't generally have articles on false implications that admit unnamed counterexamples. If an article has to be named "A and B doesn't imply C", then it's a pretty good bet that the information within should be kept at some other appropriate place. For example, we have an article for Tychonoff plank and we can mention that it serves as a counterexample to various implications, but we don't keep articles for any of those particular implications. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Is sourced and is long enough that merging doesn't make sense. OR issues are not persuasive due to sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite a few years ago there used to be math-related deletion discussions in which lots of people who had no competence whatsoever in the field would pontificate and talk down to mathematicians about the subject. One of those was a 19-year-old who said he had NEVER heard of a theorem, proof, formula, etc. being called "elegant" (that word is an over-used cliche in reference to mathematics, in my view) and therefore it doesn't make sense to use that word, and furthermore he said no Wikipedia article should be about a topic in mathematics, and he told me I needed his assistance if I could not even understand those points. I thought that might be a thing of the past. But here the nominator himself and at least two others posters have entirely missed two simple points that make me think maybe we should dumb down the article to make those points clearer to naive readers:
(1) The examples in this article are not particularly interesting as examples to illustrate the relationship between correlation and dependence. There are better examples for that purpose. They are better because they are simpler.
(2) However, these examples are of interest to understand something about the normal distribution: Despite the fact that JOINTLY normally distributed random variables are indeed independent if they are uncorrelated, nonetheless that conclusion is NOT true of MARGINALLY normally distributed random variables. Illustrating that point is what the examples are for.
If there is some article into which this should be merged, it would be about the multivariate normal distribution, not about correlation. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Hardy: Having read your previous comments, I agree about the better merge target.
In the interest of keeping the debate civil and on-point, could you please say whether, in your opinion, the topic described in the current article is notable (as in standalone-article-worthy), based either on current sourcing or other sources to specify? TigraanClick here to contact me 11:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I voted above to keep the article. I think it could also be merged into Multivariate normal distribution. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did, but I do not see you having addressed the notability issue. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with trimming. The material is valuable but the title is not the sort of thing we generally have whole WP articles about. WP:NOUN is not just a stylistic point; it's the sort of thing that makes good encyclopedia articles. If you try to make the title into a noun phrase, say Non-entailment of independence from zero correlation of normal variates, it just doesn't work at all. This is usually a decent indication — not as a rigid rule, but at least as a rule of thumb — that the topic doesn't make a good article. --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about “Correlation and independence in marginal normal distributions”? Loraof (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, that is a bit better title, I agree. I guess on the merits I also think it's too small a point for a standalone article, independent of the title.
        It's not surprising by itself that zero correlation should fail to imply independence; that's a more general point. Michael's point is that zero correlation does imply independence for joint normal distributions, so it's possible that you could get confused about whether it's true just given that the individual random variables are separately normally distributed.
        But the result for joint normal distributions is just a simple consequence of the fact that those distributions are completely determined by their mean and covariance, and it so happens that a covariance matrix with zero correlation also determines a joint-normal distribution in which the individual variates are independent.
        So it seems to me that there is nothing especially surprising or worthy of calling out as a separate article here, just a refutation of a mistake that statistics students might be prone to make. We don't usually write standalone articles just for that sort of thing, unless it's a mistake that has raised a special ruckus for some reason (like 0.999...). --Trovatore (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-sourced \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to the most appropriate article on the meaning(s) of statistical independence. Clearly the notions of joint versus marginal normal distributions remain as difficult to grasp as they were when I was teaching them forty-some years ago …! While the article's title is too clumsy to ever grace a best-seller, if that's the best way to describe the topic, so be it. But its very awkwardness suggests that there's something more fundamental involved; and that something, I believe, is "statistical independence". yoyo (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing more fundamental is involved, since as I suggested above, the title could be changed to the unawkward “Correlation and independence in marginal normal distributions”. Loraof (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Correlation and dependence, as suggested above. This is a corollary to an existing topic, not a topic in itself. Definitely useful material, but does not make a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely inappropriate merge target, as has been explained several times above! --128.164.177.55 (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me, but I'm not bothered if the target is a different article. There's plenty of candidates. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how people who fail to understand what the article is about, and to follow a discussion about it, believe that they can have a sensible opinion about whether its subject is notable or not! --2601:142:3:F83A:716E:8F86:6A20:1BE3 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being a modeler, I understand it just fine, thanks. In my judgement it fits well with that topic. Unlike you I am however not going to blow a capillary if it is integrated into any one of a number of other primary articles on statistical independence, correlation, or the normal distribution. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are not "blowing a capilary" (by the way, let me leave this here) because you are not in the situation of having to explain to someone that a short article on the eating habits of Pantera leo should not be merged into an article on Cuisines of Central Africa. If we did the merge you suggest, any reasonable editor of the target article would immediately remove it as off-topic. Do you understand this? If your substantive grasp here is that weak, on what basis should anyone value your !vote? --2601:142:3:F83A:E1C6:E1B2:1AC1:FC7E (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, italics don't work inside Wikilinks -- has that always been true? --2601:142:3:F83A:E1C6:E1B2:1AC1:FC7E (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there are other valid targets, as long it gets merged. You are welcome to continue raging about that particular choice of merge target; not going to respond to the histrionics any further. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask the closing admin to take into account this user's obvious lack of WP:COMPETENCE when evaluating the consensus here. -2601:142:3:F83A:38D7::BE37:3E0B:C907 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask the hyperventilating editor to stop confusing "differing assessment" with "WRONG!!!". Amazing how everyone who disagrees with you lacks competence... it must be very lonely at the top... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, if being a complete asshole while refusing to address the substantive issue makes you feel better, there is nothing that I can do to stop you. Nevertheless, the opinions of a person who behaves like that should be given 0 weight in any discussion of technical issues. --2601:142:3:F83A:7CB5:5BF:7962:D897 (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The examples in the article seem to me to have been contrived specifically for the purpose of demonstrating that dependence without correlation is possible. This leaves me doubtful that the possibility of dependence without correlation has any "real world" relevance, other than when the author of a study is suspected of cherry-picking the definitions of variables. NeonMerlin 20:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt it makes very much difference to the current discussion whether or not the fact has real-world significance. It's a refutation of a possible error on the part of students learning the material. My view is that this point does deserve to be treated, but probably in less detail and probably not in its own article. --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The examples are constructed to make it easy to verify that they have the relevant properties. (Of course.) It is not clear what "real world" you speak of, but in the real mathematical world they have exactly the following relevance: their existence indicates that a certain implication (two random variables are known to be marginally normal and uncorrelated; therefore they are independent) may *not* be employed without verifying additional hypotheses (that the variables are jointly normal). This kind of example (contrived for easy verification) is extremely common in mathematics textbooks. --2601:142:3:F83A:7D60:3341:364B:EE37 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. SNOW keep, references have been demonstrated, and nom is an admitted troll/sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia (Sesame Street)[edit]

Julia (Sesame Street) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Character does not seem to meet WP:GNG; the only significant coverage about her is the headlines from various secondary sources that highlight her status as the first autistic character on Sesame Street, and most of the sources are from news coverages that have been burned out for a year. She does not hold a candle to the status of "established" as Cookie Monster or Big Bird. Drsorio (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no delete votes (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Project of India[edit]

National Project of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete OR. A list could be created, but what is the use? And what is the inclusion criteria? This is a can of worms. 2Joules (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 3 July 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 and its main author called for delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Schröder[edit]

Albert Schröder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is clearly a hoax, combining material about a bourgeois family from Hamburg and the royal House of Hanover into a fictitious entity. Vanasan (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax and consider blocking creator. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The creator of the article, User:Infinityplatinum, has now added a db-author speedy deletion tag to the article, with the edit summary "Application to delete webpage. The page has been created to explore the spread of disinformation for a university project. please delete this page". --Vanasan (talk) 12:18, 2 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Private shopping club[edit]

Private shopping club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

largely unsourced essay Rathfelder (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while "private shopping clubs" do appear to exist given a google search, their mention (or lack thereof) in secondary sources fails WP:GNG in my opinion. --HunterM267 talk 16:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by confirmed blocked sockpuppet, with no delete votes (the single delete vote was changed to weak keep) (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Barakat[edit]

Mohamad Barakat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable entity, rumoured to have provided steroids. If wikipedia allowed rumours, we would not be wikipedia any more. (I copy pasted this rationale from another XFD I have just created, of a cookie cutter article) 2Joules (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources have reported about him for many years. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reported the rumor, not reported him. 2Joules (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you don't understand the non-English sources. There is quite in-depth coverage about him in both German and Brazilian media, involving long interviews and investigation, not just rumors. How about informing yourself before starting petitions? Omikroergosum (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::I understand German well enough and Google helps with the brazilian papers. I did not nominate this on a whim. I have satisfied WP:BEFORE. 2Joules (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand the sources that clearly show your claims are wrong, it is not just rumors, why do you spread lies (only rumours, and below "sources not reliable"...) before even trying to communicate with editors who know about the subject? Omikroergosum (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established aside from his alleged involvement with doping. Citing WP:PERP: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Count Count (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doping is not only relevant as a crime but, especially in Brazil, where he is high society celebrity, as a part of lifestyle. Omikroergosum (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An official investigation is underway according to various sources. Count Count (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that makes him less notable? There is a also an official investigation underway concerning Donald Trump... Omikroergosum (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but an article can wait until he is convicted. Also the comparison to Trump falls flat. Trump is of course notable even without the investigation. Count Count (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, notable not as a criminal but as a prominent person in Brazil about whose controversial practices media report internationally, independently of conviction. Eufemiano Fuentes also still has an article after acquittal, it's relevant no matter whether it's legally a crime what they did/do. Omikroergosum (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say he is notable not as a criminal but as a prominent person in Brazil but this is not properly expressed in the article at all. Once that is expressed with due weight I am willing to reevaluate. --Count Count (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added his book publication and two of his many interviews as sources to show he is a prominent figure in Brazil. A google search shows many more. Omikroergosum (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::@User:Omikroergosum The first 5-6 pages of the search have no reliable sources. I'm afraid this does not have any bearing on the AFD debate. Might I suggest that you improve other areas of wikipedia instead of participating in AFD from the very start? 2Joules (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that you cannot find reliable sources when I used several of them for the article. It was you who started the AfD, for which I see absolutely no reason after it is established he published a book and is mentioned and in some cases portrayed in depth in dozens of reliable sources internationally. Interesting that you are concerned with the contributions of a user who has edited here for more than twice as long as you have, when you in the few months since your start already attracted a sockpuppet investigation, accusations of paid editing, and four denied speedy deletions on your talk page (plus several others in the past)... Omikroergosum (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Omikroergosum An account like yours that has substantial edits only in one article, and comments a lot to keep that article online, is called a single purpose account. SPA's are encouraged to spend their time editing other areas, like main space articles, instead of spending all of their time in a single AFD debate. It allows others to assume good faith. At present, you have only 150 or so edits. Mostly on this article and its AFD, so I encourage you to edit in other areas, especially articles. SPA's that refuse to edit anything but one article may come under suspicion of paid editing and conflict of interest. 2Joules (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only started editing on that article three days ago and only edit it so much because there is resistance to it. As you can easily see in my contributions I have edited on a variety of topics since December. Why do you whose account started in March accuse others of your own wrongdoing? Omikroergosum (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to Weak keep after the changes to the article. He seems to be famous in Brazil and his celebrity status plus the scandals generate just enough notability IMHO. --Count Count (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no delete votes (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angelniemen Ankkuri[edit]

Angelniemen Ankkuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable club. Only a handful of hits on google. The only claim to notability is winning a couple of relays, and that too only once 40 years ago. 2Joules (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly 20 years ago it won the Venla relay. What criteria should you follow for relevance for sports clubs on enwiki? --Per W (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::@User:Per W, WP:GNG requires non trivial coverage in multiple, independent, third party sources, that are reliable enough. 2Joules (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will look in a book about Jukola relay and see how often Angelniemen Ankkuri appears there. There are at least eight orienteers with an English article that have competed for Angelniemen Ankkuri. I looked for more concrete guidelines as (Google Translate makes a reasonable job.) According to that Angelniemen Ankkuri is relevant. Per W (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Per W English wikipedia has stricter and somewhat different policies. You should familiarize yourself with WP:GNG. 2Joules (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG has a general definition, whereas sv:Wikipedia:Att_skriva_om_sport#Idrottsföreningar is more specific. Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) is somewhat between them. I have added one reliable, independent source that covers the club. There should be more sources available. Per W (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::@User:Per W Only Reliable sources that fall under WP:RS can be used. Your edit did nothing to improve the article. Perhaps you can focus on other articles of similar nature that need improvement? Instead of this one, which seems destined for deletion. 2Joules (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:2Joules Why is not a newspaper a reliable source? Also the article tells that the chairman of the board of the Finnish orienteering federation attended the 70th anniversary of the club. Per W (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::@User:Per W not all newspapers are reliable sources. This one fails WP:RS standards. 2Joules (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:2Joules Which standards are not fulfilled? Per W (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC) BTW, did you look at sv:Wikipedia:Att_skriva_om_sport#Idrottsföreningar? Per W (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::@User:Per W It is not my duty to explain everything to you again and again. However, I will make an effort. Listen carefully please. The standards of inclusion and the requirements for getting an article are different on wikipedias of different languages. Something that is acceptable on Svensk wikipedia can be considered forbidden on the English wikipedia. Generally English wikipedia has higher standards, no offence meant. You cannot argue on English wikipedia using policies of another language wikipedia, so you should not direct me to another language wikipedia and thier policies when I am directing to policies of the English wikipedia. Last but not least, you should familiarize yourself with English wikipedia policies before debating AFD's. As you are very new, you should spend some time editing and creating content before you come to AFD. 2Joules (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC) @User:2Joules Now I divide the issues that we discuss (if you do not understand something, please ask me, since English is not my mother tongue):[reply]

  1. Different policies on different language wikipedias: I agree that there are different standards and recommendations and I will follow the ones given for enwiki. You claim that enwiki is stricter. In what sense?
  2. Different levels of specifications: The Swedish guide sv:Wikipedia:Att_skriva_om_sport#Idrottsföreningar (whose Google-translation is reasonable good, ) is more specific for sport clubs, whereas WP:GNG is very generic. (I have read it and think that it is a good general rule, although some more examples would be fine.) I can't see a big difference in the notability requirements between enwiki and svwiki, they are only expressed in different ways. What do you think about the Swedish guide?
  3. fi:Salon Seudun Sanomat as a source: You claimed that it is not reliable. Could you explain why? What kind of sources do you require?
  4. Why do you consider that this article seems destined for deletion? Which reason in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion is valid? Have you considered alternatives?

I checked a Swedish newspaper archive and Angelniemen Ankkuri appears nearly every year since the 1990s due to good results in Sweden. So the club is notable. Per W (talk) 11:38, 5 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Condes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lina Condes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was soft deleted, and then instantly recreated. Soft delete does not give editors a free pass to flaunt WP:GNG guidelines. The subject remains non-notable, so the article should be, again, deleted. 2Joules (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC) striking the nom as a confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has coverage in reliable sources such as Vogue, Forbes and Miami New Times already in the article and has had many notable exhibitions so passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. The recreation after a soft delete was completely valid, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:@User:Atlantic306 The vogue article bears the label, "Promotion" under the title. Same is the condition of other articles. This is typical churnalism. 2Joules (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other reliable sources in the article including Russian and Italian references, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no other contributions (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Giacometti[edit]

Enrico Giacometti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overly, rather totally promotional cruft on a non notable person written by a new user with less than 100 edits. We all know what that means. 2Joules (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:42, 2 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lopez-Pierre[edit]

Thomas Lopez-Pierre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed political candidate. That's it. Calton | Talk 07:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A failed political candidate who passes GNG can be notable. The coverage cited in the article relates more to his anti-semitic comments and a domestic violence incident than to his actual candicacy. As well, the coverage includes The Washington Times, Daily Mail Online (a British site), and the Times of Israel. So he is an unsuccessful political candidate with particularly unpleasant views, and he has international coverage, something that most candidates for city council lack. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculation about whether a failed political candidate can pass GNG fails when the failed political candidate does not, in fact, pass GNG. This is supposed to be a biography, not a documentation of a brief spurt of coverage regarding stupid comments said failed political candidate made. Ref-bombing this non-biography doesn't magically make it GNG-compliant. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm inclined to argue that this individual fails WP:POLITICIAN. With that in mind, while it is true that a fair number of secondary news sources discuss the subject, I would argue that there are insufficient sources that discuss much beyond the anti-semetic comments, as well as mentioning domestic violence. This fact, in my opinion, places the article in the territory of WP:BLP1E and/or WP:BLPCRIME. --HunterM267 talk 17:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject has enough sources to be notable for a stub article. I'm the creator of this article. Article admittedly does need expanding. Neptune's Trident (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject has enough sources to be notable for a stub article. Perhaps you could have proved that by actually putting them in. Perhaps you could prove it now? Perhaps you could provide reliable sources for a BIOGRAPHY and not just a single event? --Calton | Talk 00:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could stop churning out lazy, content-free stubs of dubious notability that keep cropping up on my radar? And where are those "enough sources" you claim exist? --Calton | Talk 06:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should try actually ADDING CONTENT TO WIKIPEDIA instead of being a lazy, content-free deletionist with nothing better to do than add negativity and Wikistalk other users because you've nothing better to do? Neptune's Trident (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should try actually ADDING CONTENT TO WIKIPEDIA
  • You first. I mean, instead of supplying empty claims of notability. Still waiting for those reliable sources for a BIOGRAPHY and not just a single event, by the way. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page is wholly negative BLP article that only has one section Controversy. The article creator has not even bothered to add the minimum information that is needed for a BLP article notably MOS:OPENPARABIO and has made no effort whatsoever to write a WP:NPOV article. I think what the article creator was trying to accuse User:Calton of is not talk page stalking but WP:WIKIHOUNDING and should be reminded that as per this page Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it isn't the proper term here. "Deflection" would be more accurate. --Calton | Talk 03:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your persecution complex is not my problem. Your churning out lazy, content-free stubs of dubious notability that keep cropping up on my radar does appear to be a problem for Wikipedia. Maybe someone SHOULD audit your contributions, because I'm see a trend here. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful city council candidates — but since local media are expected to cover city council elections as a core part of their job description, every city council candidate would always be able to show some evidence of campaign-related coverage. So the existence of some campaign-related coverage is not enough in and of itself to exempt a candidate from having to clear WP:NPOL, because every candidate would always have enough coverage to get that exemption, and thus completely deprecate NPOL from ever being relevant at all anymore, if it were. This is not enough coverage to demonstrate that his candidacy was somehow a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a controversial unsuccessful candidate and generating routine headlines for your bad behaviour isn't enough to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Also agree with Dom from Paris' assessment. SportingFlyer talk 08:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the coverage was all in relation to the council election in which he was trounced, this does not add to passing GNG. The notiont that Lopez-Pierre somehow passes GNG is based on misunderstandings of what level of coverage is expected of political candidates, and what level needs to be present to overcome their essentially non-notable nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 8 July 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Nation[edit]

Rise Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable at present. Just a listing at twin galaxies does not make anyone inherently notable, unless of course the listing is about a record etc. 2Joules (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We really need a WP:Notability (e-sports), to explain to enthusiastic new editors who just want to write about other gamers that we have inclusion standards, and sourcing standards, and that they closely relate. What I see here for sourcing is, in the order it appears: trivial mention at a non-independent site (razer.com, which appears to be a sponsor of this team); a secondary, in-depth source (DblTap.com) but one which is explicitly fan-written and thus may be WP:UGC (it also provides a whole top-menu item for a specific team, thus appears to lack independence from the general subject if not the Rise Nation subject in particular); brief news coverage in what appears to be a legit secondary source (esports-news.co.uk); mention with nothing but the name at a similar source (dexerto.com); brief news coverage in a similar source (twingalaxies.com). We really don't need articles with RS coverage this thin.

    The fact that the underlying subject (e-sports or eSports or esports, however you like to spell it) is notable and that occasionally some participants in it rise to actual encyclopedic notability by appearing in mainstream reliable sources (not just specialist sources the reputability of which have yet to be established), doesn't mean every player or team is notable just because they're mentioned and briefly covered in the gamer press. By way of direct comparison, there are many notable forms of competitive dance, and handful of notable duos within that sphere, but the the vast majority of such duos are not notable despite some coverage in dance magazines/sites. Similarly, the demoscene was a big deal back when, but most demo teams are not notable. It's too soon for Wikipedia to do something like treat all e-sports teams like FIFA or NFL teams; on the scale of global importance, these activities and the people involved in them are much closer to the level of Little League World Series teams, or pro-am players who make it into the World Pool-Billiard Association championships (hint: we don't have articles about them). Maybe 20 years from now e-sports and teams in it will be like major international "traditional" sports and teams, but we have no way of knowing, and it hasn't happened yet.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm with SMcCandlish on this one; the need for a WP:NESPORTS is becoming increasingly apparent; our standards regarding WP:NSPORTS do not, of course, extend to teams (which is a necessary flaw).
    So, of course, WP:GNG is thus our controlling precedent. The general notability guideline is as follows: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
    Naturally, significant coverage is predicated on the usage of reliable sources, and this article has sourcing that is flawed: there's really only one possibly good secondary source, and that's esports-news.co.uk. Dbltap is of unknown provenance and ownership, and a page from Razer's own website, which is not up-to-date (for the record), does not do much to inspire confidence in the sourcing. There are trivial, passing mentions, as well, and a good deal of the sources seem to be about roster changes. And the independence of most of the sources cannot be determined or verified, given the lack of bylines or author credits.
    In short, all things from WP:GNG point toward the presumption of notability not being satisfied in this case. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 05:37, 3 July 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. Deleted and salted for 2 years - way too soon and speculative Alexf(talk) 19:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2038 FIFA World Cup[edit]

2038 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR (no FIFA source) has and see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 21#2038 FIFA World Cup Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 2 July 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Dhadoti[edit]

Deepak Dhadoti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:46, 2 July 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. I see no consensus in this discussion for deletion of the article, and a reasoned argument that the collection of minor points of notability adds up to sufficient notability to remain in the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 20:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Cisneros[edit]

Gil Cisneros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E. Article is a WP:COATRACK for a political advert on the part of candidate for elective office. There is a longstanding and very strong community consensus that, with rare exceptions, we don't create articles for political candidates who have never won an election and who are not otherwise independently notable. The community has also tended to consider lottery winners as falling under BLP1E and not presumptively notable. (There have been odd exceptions such as persons who won the lottery and later ran into high profile legal problems or the ultra rare cases of persons who won the lottery more than once.) This despite the fact that both lottery winners and political candidates do tend to draw a certain amount of attention from the press and media. In the case of political candidates one of the principle reasons we don't do articles for unelected candidates is that they have an unfortunate propensity for becoming political adverts, this article being a textbook example. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as article creator. Was just up on the front page via DYK. You waited for it to come off? I wrote this article neutrally using reliable source that date back years, not just of him winning the lottery, but of him creating a foundation that kept him in the news. That significant coverage over time is plenty sufficient for WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-What the nom sez.∯WBGconverse 02:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absolutely relevant --Nanorsuaq (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After reading Muboshgu's comment above I reread my nominating statement and realized that I was perhaps too strong in some of my language. A reasonable person could read that and interpret it as an accusation of bad faith which it absolutely is not. To the extent that it sounds that way, I apologize. However, I stand by the substance of my nomination. Lottery winners frequently donate money to charity or endow charitable causes/organizations [very laudable] and this naturally gets a certain amount of attention. But I can't think of any instance where that was considered as enough to establish notability contra BLP1E. And the community's longstanding and very strong consensus against articles about unelected candidates for public office remains. Lastly, while again I do not wish to infer bad faith, the article does in fact read like a piece of hagiography. Re:Nanorsuaq- I don't recall "relevance" as a criteria for inclusion in any of our policies and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat. The substantive notability claim here, and the reason why this article was created, is the election candidacy — but candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and if you take his candidacy out of the equation the lottery/philanthropy content is not substantive enough (or sourced well enough) that he would have qualified for an article on that basis independently of his status as a candidate. The only sources here that exist outside of the campaign-specific context are a single article in his local newspaper and two citations to the same "public relations platform for philanthropists" blog, which is not enough coverage to get a philanthropist over GNG as a philanthropist — so I can't give this a keep on "preexisting notability for other reasons" grounds. I can evaluate this only on the grounds of whether he clears WP:NPOL or not — but as a candidate whose campaign coverage is not showing any signs of being unusually deep or broad compared to most other candidates, he doesn't pass NPOL. Certainly it can be recreated in November if he wins, but nothing here now is enough to convince me that he's already permanently notable today. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the page on the election. He doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL - yet. If no consensus to redirect, read this as a delete vote. SportingFlyer talk 20:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to California's 39th congressional district election, 2018. He's not notable apart from the race, and the stand-alone article has far too much promotional material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, at least as revised above. Turning it into a draft text would not be an undesirable outcome. -The Gnome (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This subject meets the WP:GNG criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", enough that the article can be expanded to mitigate concerns about hagiography. In addition to the ten sources currently in the article, there are a bunch of national sources with substantial coverage of notable aspects of his campaign, including:
  • Washington Post: "Two Democrats in a blue-trending California congressional district locked horns Friday over a short piece of audio — a voice mail that candidate Andy Thorburn claims candidate Gil Cisneros left on his wife’s phone."
  • NBC News: "Cisneros and Jammal are part of a surge of first-time Democratic candidates around the country, in what is largely seen as a backlash against Trump."
  • Politico: "Gil Cisneros and Andy Thorburn, two millionaire Democratic candidates for a battleground House district in Southern California, had been attacking each other so ruthlessly that party leaders encouraged them to meet at an Italian restaurant in Los Angeles last month to force a truce"
  • The Hill - "The DCCC went further to prevent a potential shutout, spending $1.5 million against Huff and Nelson, as well as hundreds of thousands to boost Cisneros."
  • The Intercept - "The ongoing battle between Cisneros and Thorburn over the voicemail is the latest in a contest that has become increasingly heated."
Dreamyshade (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this ignores the very strong community consensus that we do not create articles about candidates for political office unless they are clearly notable independent of their candidacy. It is taken for granted that political campaigns, especially for national offices (Congress etc.), will generate news coverage. This is not new and has been well established for a long time. Ignoring it would open the encyclopedia to a flood of similar hagiographies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering his coverage goes back beyond his campaign to his winning the lottery and setting up foundations, I think he's notable. At the least, I hope a closing admin would redirect to preserve the article history over deleting. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I disagree on the notability question, but FTR I am fine with a redirect. The subject is a Democrat running for Congress in a very left leaning state. There is a good chance they will win in November at which point they gain instant notability. No point in reinventing the wheel. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I ask in good faith to learn more: is this consensus (that notability must be independent of their candidacy) documented in any guidelines? At WP:NPOL I see "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion", and at WP:POLOUTCOMES I see "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability". These guidelines seem consistent with the idea that a candidate can be notable based on substantial independent coverage including coverage of their candidacy. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The way we have interpreted this over the years is (and this is the concise version) a candidate must be either independently notable of their candidacy to get an article, or the candidate must have received so much coverage people will still be looking for information about them per the ten year rule. SportingFlyer talk 07:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this interpretation documented in any notability guidelines, perhaps even any widely-accepted essays? I looked for essays but only found an ancient obsolete essay, Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. Based on WP:10YT the ten year rule is not a rule, but a test ("a thought experiment that might be helpful"), and based on its question of "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?", I do generally believe that information about 2018 campaigns will be relevant and interesting to readers in ten years, because this is a significant election in American history. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like User:Narayansg wrote a deletion discussion vote at Talk:Gil Cisneros, so copying it here for reference: "I strongly believe that this page should not be deleted. Having won the primary election in a highly competitive seat, Gil Cisneros is likely to become a U.S. Congressman. This article should be improved to improve its neutral POV, but should not be deleted." Dreamyshade (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dreamyshade for making sure my comment is not ignored!- User:narayansg
  • Keep Wikipedia is a better place when it has more info on political candidates because in a democracy voters must have an independent and neutral source of information. This article is well-sourced and has correct information, and does not violate BLP or NPOV (although it can and should be improved). The voters of CA39 deserve a well-sourced, neutral, and accurate source of information. -User:narayansg
Comment This is not the purpose of wikipedia - does the candidate pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer talk 07:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not a better place when it has more info on political candidates. For one thing, in an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, a politician's article can easily be skewed by either his supporters or his opponents so that it is not independent or well-sourced or neutral or accurate — we always have to maintain a constant state of extreme vigilance to prevent our articles about politicians from being turned into advertorialized campaign brochures and/or attack pieces. It's simply neither feasible nor sustainable for us to maintain an article about every candidate in an election in addition to an article about everybody who's actually held office, because the amount of work it takes to keep that many articles in a properly encyclopedic state exceeds the capacity of Wikipedia's resources. So sure, the voters need a source of quality information about the candidates they're being asked to consider voting for — but it isn't Wikipedia's role to be that source. Ballotpedia can do that, but it's not our job. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The voters of CA39 might deserve, as you say, narayansg, "a well-sourced, neutral, and accurate source of information" but they will have to look for it elsewhere if the contested subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate depository of information. It is first and foremost an encyclopaedia - with specific rules about articles. -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a candidate is not sufficient, but the combination of being a lottery winner and philanthropist along with being a candidate gathered sufficient coverage to meet WP:N. --GRuban (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the article is written in a somewhat promotional tone, and some of the sources seem promotional as well. Would need to be rewritten if kept. Not really notable outside of the race for Congress. Should be a redirect to the election page until more independent coverage of him (and my guess is there will be as the election gets closer) is published. Tillerh11 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Revote struck Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)) There is no reason to remove an article and then put it back again. This article does not violate any policies of Wikipedia, as there is plenty of independent coverage of this candidate. Narayansg (User talk:Narayansg|talk)[reply]
Narayansg, please note that you get one vote in an AFD discussion. You may comment as many times as you like, but you may not preface any of your followup comments with another restatement of the keep vote you've already given. And incidentally, there have been many situations where an article got deleted, but was then allowed to be recreated at a later date when the notability equation had changed — so no, the possibility that a person might clear a notability standard in the future is not a reason to keep a WP:TOOSOON article about a person who hasn't already cleared a notability standard today. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Disagree with the nominator here on WP:BLP1E-- his lottery win and its subsequent coverage are enough for him to be notable for his own article. Nomader (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lottery win and philanthropy stuff is being sourced primarily to primary sources and mentions of it by way of background in the candidacy coverage, not to enough contemporaneous coverage of him in the context of being a lottery winner and philanthropist to get him over WP:GNG for that independently of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note here, Bearcat. I'm confused-- where are there primary sources about the win? There's a lot of non-primary sources listed here ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) specifically about the lottery win that were written contemporaneously. I think that an article about someone who was only a lottery winner or only a political candidate would clearly fail BLP1E, but I think the combination of both pushes the article over the edge. I've modified my keep !vote to "weak keep" though as I think it more accurately reflects my sentiments. Nomader (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat and Nomader: There are no primary sources used in this article. I don't know who added Ballotpedia as an inline reference, but that can be replaced with more standard news publications. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Inside Philanthropy" is not a reliable or notability-supporting source; it is a PR platform which quite regularly republishes philanthropists' own self-authored press releases about themselves. Those and the two Ballotpedia citations are what I'm talking about — they do nothing to support notability at all, and they add up to almost a third of the sourcing here. And no, the combination of both lottery winner and political candidate doesn't push him over the edge — a candidate doesn't get to claim notability for his prior career just because his prior career gets mentioned by way of background in the candidacy coverage, because every candidate's candidacy coverage will always mention their prior career by way of background. The coverage of him in the purely lottery winner context would not have been enough to get him in the door on that basis on its own. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 3 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Alexandre[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brandy Alexandre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to an online directory and what appears to be a blog. Neither is suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre; the name-release controversy is not significant.

Last AfD closed as "Keep" in 2005, but the arguments for retaining the article were not convincing. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally fails the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:06, 6 July 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. The snow's coming down hard. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 12:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Matter to Me[edit]

Don't Matter to Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No extra information warranting its own article. Just a repeat of what's on the main album's page. ⠀𝗧𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗦⠀𝗧𝗔𝗟𝗞⠀ 02:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. TomasTomasTomas, there's no reason for the article to be deleted. Regardless of whether it fails the guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability. It can simply be blanked and turned into a redirect. If it is a non-notable song off an album, then the article can be turned into a "Redirect" (in this case, it can be redirected to "Scorpion (Drake album)"). Like the template says above while editing this page, "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion." I will be adding the template for Wikipedia:Notability onto the article. DovahDuck (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would also like to mention that the album in which the song is a part of, was just recently released. In a week, "Don't Matter to Me" is going to be covered by various news outlets due to how it's set to become the the highest charting Michael Jackson song since "Love Never Felt So Good", and that's not even mentioning the fact that the track has already been mentioned and covered by various media outlets already. Although the article does needs some expansion, that will happen overtime and I'm already working on that issue.DovahDuck (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another thing that I would like to mention is that the song is set to be released as its album's fifth single on July 10, 2018.DovahDuck (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The song is already reached number one in different countries i tunes and spotify chart;and current at #3 on I tune ww chart.And this song set to become Michael Jacksons highest charting song since Love never felt so good.The track has already been mentioned and covered by various media outlets and its meets WP:GNG.Give it some time. Also see Wikipedia:not before. Akhiljaxxn 03:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @MT Train: iTunes doesn't have a WW chart. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above comments. Awardmaniac (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep receiving coverage from multiple independent sources. Tillerh11 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep #1 on iTunes in most countries. Highest charting M.J. song in a while, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimograph5 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ultimograph5: iTunes chart is not a valid factor WP:BADCHARTS. Only official charts. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this might be WP:TOOSOON since the song has not charted in any countries yet and may not meet the three criterion of WP:NSONG yet, the song has received a lot of attention in the news (about 3,560,000 results on Google) and therefore can be a standalone article. On a side note, sources (including Official Charts), indicate that this song in addition to other Drake songs in the album will chart after this week's tracking period; it will likely be notable for its own article next week. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will inevitably land on a chart, and using MJ vocals would have clinched this as an automatic keep in most senses. It might be only on BADCHARTS now, but WP:UCS should outweigh that here. Nate • (chatter) 08:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hurrygane (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep will be released as a single, and (most likely) will chart on the top 20 of The Hot 100. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while theorizing as to whether or not something will chart in the future might be construed as WP:CRYSTAL, which would warrant a redirect, the use of MJ's vocals makes this notable. Onel5969 TT me 11:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep – Such a ridiculous deletion request since it is doing so well on charts around the world. JE98 (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per independent coverage outside of album reviews from Deccan Herald and Spin (especially the former), which is enough to satisfy WP:Notability (music)#Songs. Charts (or lack thereof) aren't definitive indicators on whether a song warrants its own page, though, and neither are single releases or artists involved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a clear consensus here, can we archive already? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:37, 7 July 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choir of Trinity College, Kandy[edit]

Choir of Trinity College, Kandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local choir, lacks independent RS to establish notability Atsme📞📧 12:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - I'm of the mind that this should be a merge/delete to Trinity College, Kandy, which is a primary/secondary private school for boys and it doesn't even mention the choir. I believe it would be appropriate to merge/delete rather than keep this article as a standalone cited mostly to itself, FaceBook, the Daily News, Daily Mirror, and a few others that cover the school more so than the choir. Atsme📞📧 15:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - current wording seems very promotional. Deb (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep inappropriate nomination to delete. The choir is 146 years old and still running. It meets WP:NMUSIC #1 (both for coverage included and presumably pre-internet coverage exists) and #12. It has also release various albums. If you still insist the page should not exist there is an obvious merge target at Trinity College, Kandy and a merge does not require a deletion discussion. Legacypac (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate - see my note above. Also see Deb's comment - a COI tag has been placed on the TP of the article's author and on the TP of the article. Atsme📞📧 15:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When did we start deleting pages because the creator has a COI? When did we throw attribution out the window and start merge/deleting? Normally we merge/redirect. This is a 146 year old school choir. It's not some new business or band no one's heard of looking for free promo. Legacypac (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete pages because the creator has a COI. We do, however, delete pages when the wording is so promotional that it's obvious the creator has a COI. Deb (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is not that promotional. This is not a G11. What is more obvious is the creator's name suggests a connection. It remains a bad nomination when the choir meets WP:NMUSIC and there is a perfectly acceptable merge target. Legacypac (talk)
G11 is a criterion for speedy deletion. This is not a speedy deletion nomination. If the wording is very promotional, we have the option to delete it and allow someone impartial to recreate it with suitable wording. Deb (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s not overlook the fact that the topic fails notability as a stand alone per no independent RS to establish notability - see Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the RS used to establish its notability. Trinity College, Kandy doesn’t even mention the choir, and there is plenty of room to add it. Mention of the choir belongs in that article, not as a stand alone. If the choir is commissioned to go on an international tour, or makes a recording that hits the charts, there’s a better chance that it will be covered in multiple RS. Atsme📞📧 14:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not a fan of multiple relists but lets see if we can close in on consensus for how to deal with this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have cleaned up the article, as best I can, removing the self-promotional tone and unsubstantiated material. Hopefully that should make it easier for editors to determine whether this article should be retained or merged. Dan arndt (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the issue is that it fails WP:GNG and lacks RS to establish WP:N Atsme📞📧 07:33, 6 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FireHollywood[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in available sources; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Source searches under its former and current name are only providing passing mentions. North America1000 10:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel(talk) 10:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There appears to be a rough consensus that there is insufficient coverage to establish encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 1151[edit]

GJ 1151 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO, no claim to notability in the article. No scientific publications specific to this star, only entries in large listings. No popular coverage. Lithopsian (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating GJ 3378 for the same reasons:

GJ 3378 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lithopsian (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable, spectacularly so. They both satisfy GNG. GJ 1151 has significant coverage in 49 sources listed in the SIMBAD database. GJ 3378 has significant coverage 51 sources listed in that database. Further, both of these stars are less than 25 light years from the sun. That makes them truly exceptional. Further this nomination is out of process. Per ATD, PRESERVE and R, not to mention the wording of NASTRO itself, we cannot delete these pages because there is a plausible target for merger and redirection, namely the list of stars between 20 and 25 light years away. I would also like to know why I was not notified of this nomination. James500 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're proposing to redirect? GJ 1151 is the last entry in the list of star systems within 20–25 light years although the article itself gives a distance of 26.7 light years. GJ 3378 doesn't appear to be in any of the close star lists although it claims a distance of 20 light years. I wouldn't oppose converting them to redirects, if no additional information can be found to support full articles. Lithopsian (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said (1) They satisfy GNG, which creates a presumption that they should have a standalone article. (2) Even if I was wrong about that (which is not admitted), they still could not be deleted because they would still be plausible redirects etc. James500 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC) GJ 3378 is in the list of stars between 20 and 25 light years away, where it is described as "G 192-13", one of its alternative names. James500 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: Please add a bold "keep" or "redirect" or some such to the beginning of your !vote. You clearly want to keep this page, but not saying so creates the strong impression that you are trying to evade scrutiny. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense. Stop making off topic comments. Stop putting words into my mouth that I have not said (you know perfectly well that notability does not guarantee a standalone article and "notable" does not mean "keep"). Stop asking me to do things that are not required by policy or guideline. Stop accusing me of motives that I do not have. Don't follow me around this project, and kindly read WP:HOUND. James500 (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an off-topic comment. You have !voted in hundreds of AFDs, including this one, while carefully avoiding doing so in the manner that everyone else on the project does, with the apparent intention of evading scrutiny. If you have some other motivation, you could elaborate on it when questioned. The fact that you would bring up WP:HOUND here (a policy with which I am very familiar, having been hounded by numerous editors in the past) just adds weight to the idea that your reason for never bolding your comments is to evade scrutiny. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic
I did elaborate, and you are engaging in WP:IDHT. Your idea of scrutiny is wikihounding. Shall we just cut the nonsense and say what is really happening here: You wikihounded Dream Focus. I criticised the (excessive) block he received for what you provoked him into saying. And now you are wikihounding me to take revenge for saying that. If you do not stop pestering me I shall simply retire. James500 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. I messaged you because of three separate incidents I had seen you involved in, one of which involved the editor you mention. While monitoring your talk page immediately following said message, I noticed an editor had messaged you about your unusual AFD commenting style, and you had blanked their message with an edit summary that seemed to miss the point, so I messaged you about the same thing. You then blanked my message, and the following day posted in a new AFD in the same problematic style. As for "hounding", you really should familiarize yourself with that policy a bit more, particularly the context in which it appears: monitoring someone's edits is only "hounding" when it is done with the intention of harassing the other editor. My commenting on your style of AFD-!vote immediately below said AFD-!vote is clearly not harassment, but your bringing up an editor who was recently sanctioned for harassing me, claiming they had not harassed me but in fact I had harassed them, and accusing me of wanting "revenge" on you is not only off-topic to this AFD but it is bordering on harassment in itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The star is very close to us at under 27 ly. It would be very surprising if there were not some kind of study of it. SpinningSpark 23:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there isn't. That's my whole point. None of the "49 sources" provide "non-trivial" coverage that I can see, meaning "significant commentary on the object" according to WP:NASTCRIT. They are all just passing comments and lists in large tables or catalogues. If you can find "multiple, non-trivial published works" about either subject then I'd be happy to withdraw my deletion proposal. Better yet if they were in the article ;) Lithopsian (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is blindingly obvious that the sources do, between them, contain significant coverage within the meaning of GNG. For the avoidance of doubt, a topic that satisfies GNG does not have to satisfy any SNG. The lead section of WP:N makes that very clear. Even if that was not the case (which is denied) and even if the stars failed NASTRO (which is not admitted), we would still have to WP:IAR NASTRO, because we should not be subjecting exceptional and objectively important stars to any inflexible criteria that fails to take into account the fact that they are exceptional etc. James500 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this object clearly fails WP:GNG. Per WP:NASTRO: "Unless the astronomical object is the primary, or one of the primary, targets of a study, then such a study should not be used to support the object's notability." Most of the sources in SIMBAD are of the catalogue nature and do not provide substantial coverage. I could not find substantial coverage in any scholarly paper. At best, you're going to find data points in tables. For example, Delfosse et al. (1997) has two table entries and no mention in the text.[23] Red dwarf stars are a dime a dozen; they don't all need coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) WP:GNG says in express words that "significant coverage" does not require that the topic be the primary subject of the source. If NASTRO says otherwise, there is a conflict between N and NASTRO, which NASTRO will lose, because N has much wider support from a much larger number of editors, whereas NASTRO is an obscure backwater with limited participation. (2) Stars of any kind within 25 light years are not a dime a dozen. There are very few of them both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the whole. The proximity of this star is what matters, not its size. James500 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty liberal in interpreting the meaning of "significant coverage". A couple of paragraphs will usually do it for me. This topic has zero such coverage; only data. It's non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A notice of this AfD has been placed at the astronomy wikiproject. James500 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Repeating myself from previous articles with exactly the same arguments. Entries in catalogs are not notability. If there is something published that goes beyond numbers in catalog entries, it might be notable. As for it being close, if we have a list of all stars closer than n lightyears (where n > 27), it would deserve an entry in that list. But not an article based on nothing more than entries in a catalog. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, at least for the moment. Pending consensus among our astronomy editors that 1-2 sentence sub-stubs on these astronomical bodies that are theoretically notable but on which no one has managed to produce a proper article are acceptable in the long term, it seems arbitrary to delete this one in particular when most entries on List of star systems within 20–25 light-years seem to have their own articles that are as bad as, if not worse than, this one. Yes, this kinda OSE-ey, but it would look really silly if all the entries on the linked list still have crappy one-sentence articles that don't make claims to notability if we randomly deleted this one. The claims to notability and non-notability both rely on specialist knowledge that I don't possess, and it seems like several of the other commenters here do not either, at least based on their user pages; User:Lithopsian and User:Praemonitus both do at least imply on their user pages that they have an astronomy focus, and it's perhaps telling that both of them are saying delete, so if either could convince me that there's a good reason to keep, say, LHS 3003 or GJ 1286 but not this one I'll happily change my !vote, especially as this kinda touches on a problem that was addressed in a recent AN thread where topic-specialist editors were getting overruled at AFD by non-specialists claiming to have specialist knowledge while auto-!voting keep regardless of the arguments and evidence; I'd be a massive hypocrite if I didn't note that in this case the topic-specialists are all !voting the opposite way to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note WP:OTHERSTUFF, but also that Praemonitus has flagged both those articles with notability tags. I'd agree that neither article has any good reason to exist. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know: I specifically said that my argument, which is based to some extent on WP:OSE, is weak, hence "weak keep". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re what Hijiri88 said: You can't make assumptions about what editors know based on what is on their user pages. "Astronomy editors" do not WP:OWN astronomy related articles and their !votes do not carry greater weight. Consensus does not take into account claims of specialist knowledge (see WP:IAC). James500 (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who are interested in and aware of astronomy are likely to edit astronomy articles. Editors who do not edit astronomy articles probably do not have any more interest in or awareness of the field than the average Wikipedia editor. It should also probably be noted that James500 suddenly joined WP:ASTRONOMY and added said membership to his user page in response to my above comment,[24] despite none of his top-edited articles or talk pages being in this topic area...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both while several references exist, none that I could find offer significant commentary. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely agree with Lithopsian's comments on this. It is sufficient for an object like this to be included in a list of nearby stars unless there is more specific notability. Aldebarium (talk) 00:40, 5 July 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 03:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ICC Records[edit]

ICC Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record label that only receive passing mentions and name checks in sources; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 13:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications or evidence of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:TOPIC. HighKing++ 18:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:09, 6 July 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brave New World Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brave New World Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage found in source searches; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to Mark Lee Townsend or Word Entertainment. North America1000 13:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability, content can be merged if required with topics suggested by nom (if they're notable ...), topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's difficult to do a good search because of the generic name, but what I can find fails WP:GNG. I can't find anything independently validating the Word Entertainment connection (the Brave New World Records link here is broken [[25]]), and a quick review of Mark Lee Townsend suggests that there are notability issues there too, so I can't recommend a merge or redirect. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:21, 9 July 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 03:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adesh Tyagi[edit]

Adesh Tyagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real coverage outside of passing mentions, quotes and run of the mill stuff. The most I've found on him is about his charges and order for restitution. Fails GNG> CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 2 July 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 03:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Label Group[edit]

Relevant Label Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 14:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't find any coverage in any notable independent source-- I only found a post on Reddit and the CTO's LinkedIn page. Nomader (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability, agree with nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:03, 7 July 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 03:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakkiyaraj Kannan[edit]

Bakkiyaraj Kannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant vanity. Is the guy actually notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 15:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 15:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 2 July 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 Procedural close. per WP:SKCRIT: Wrong forum for discussion of copyright violations. Either the violating material is so egregious, with no earlier version to return to and the article must be written from scratch—in which case WP:G12 applies—or there are only "some sentences" which are closely paraphrased/plagiarised, in which case these revisions can be individually deleted. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees on Jeju Island[edit]

Refugees on Jeju Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think that some sentences of this article are from Namuwiki article Hwimale (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this debate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Korea and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Yemen Hwimale (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic appears to be notable and adequately referenced. If part of the article is a copyvio, the copyvio material can be removed or rewritten. I added some English-language references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a well-referenced article about a notable topic. Any copyvio can simply be removed. 02:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Most of sentence are copyvio.It can't be cured by removing some sentences. 2001:2D8:E257:C1E5:0:0:BA88:1201 (talk) 03:02, 2 July 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. bd2412 T 19:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Chamberlin[edit]

Shaun Chamberlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't pass GNG, NAUTHOR, or PROF (his google-scholar profile has a h-index of 9, however that is somewhat inflated as around half of the high-cited works do not list him as a named author - he's at 5 or 6). While the article seemingly has a dauntingly impressive list of references, these are mainly self-publications on his site or related sites, short blurbs (1 sentence to short paragraph) of comments to an issue, an occasional interview, and many-many links that do not mention him at all but rather mention the more notable David Fleming (writer). My BEFORE does not come up with much more, leaving us lacking in terms of WP:INDEPTH coverage on this individual. Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - also seems an article on this subject by this user was rejected at AfC in Nov 2016 (draft was subsequently G13ed in June 2017).Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Dear IceWhiz, thank you for your courteous note on my talk page about your having initiated this deletion process. I much value the kindness, and after reading the links you supplied have come to understand that this is opening a discussion rather than rejecting my efforts. After cutting my teeth on smaller edits this is the first page I have created on Wikipedia, so please go gently with me as I try to understand and incorporate your feedback. I just worked out that I can search on your capitalised terms, which helped a lot!

As you note, I first drafted an article on Mr. Chamberlin a couple of years ago and submitted it for consideration. I was disappointed to not have it accepted at the time, but was advised to add more references to major news sites covering his work, and that notability would have to wait until his work was recognised by being held in significant libraries. As such, after his latest books won book prizes this year I checked WorldCat, which reveals that his work is now published in three languages and held in over 500 listed libraries.[1] Accordingly I dusted off, improved and resubmitted the article with references to the award wins + the requested additional references (apols if I "dauntingly" overdid it!). I did not previously add the WorldCat reference to the article as it didn't seem direct evidence of any of the claims made in the article, but have added it now since you encouraged me to further improve the article with a view to notability. Thanks too for the Google Scholar link.

I've also taken into account your helpful comment that many references were from Chamberlin's Dark Optimism site or related sites. I found 11 such and have either replaced them with reliable, independent sources (e.g. the Open University, Amazon.com) or supplemented them with such. For example, the last four were simply referencing his bibiliography and I have replaced them with a link to his Amazon page.[2] This also led me to add a book that I had previously missed.

Your comment that there are "many many links that do not mention [Chamberlin] at all", however, seems to me to miss the mark. If I understand rightly you are referring to articles such as https://theecologist.org/2010/dec/21/dr-david-fleming-tribute (written by Chamberlin, and included to establish the facts of his relationship with Fleming) or https://sterlingcollege.edu/course/surviving-future-short-course/ (where Chamberlin's work is discussed at length, even though he's only named in the video) or http://www.radicalbooksellers.co.uk/?p=282 (an award nomination for an anthology in which he features). I struggle to find any references that discuss neither Chamberlin nor his work, since I added most of them myself precisely to evidence his notability, but please do correct me if I'm missing something. As suggested I have also added some additional interviews which go into greater depth on his history and work.

I'm sure that this has improved the article, and very much hope that it has also established notability to your satisfaction.

Best, Jases76 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jases76: - Amazon, Youtube, an openu profile, and a wordpress blog do not help much I am afraid. And I do not think his work establishes AUTHOR. What we really need is WP:INDEPTH sources covering Chamberlin at length - and good sources - e.g. reputable news media or coverage in books of others. What is missing here is quality sources with some length - quality over quantity. I was unable to find such sources, and I did look. Constructively, can you point out 3-5 such sources ?Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Icewhiz: - thanks for the constructive input, which I have followed.
I would again stress that I haven't built an article nor engaged in discussions like this before though, and as such I confess I'm not sure what's wrong with the Open University and Amazon.com as sources? You encouraged me to improve the article re: some of the facts being referenced to Chamberlin's website, which I assumed was on grounds that sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. That seemed a completely appropriate request, but I don't understand why these new sources "do not help much" on both grounds?
Re: your helpful requests regarding WP:AUTHOR, I have now added in-depth discussion and acclaim for his work from reputable publications such as The Utne Reader, Choice, Feasta, David Bollier, The Idler and The Royal Geographical Society, in addition to the existing references and awards won. To be clear, Chamberlin conceived and created the wonderful Surviving the Future entirely after David Fleming's death, and although the existing references made that apparent, I have modified the article itself to make it clearer there.
Incidentally, a Google Books search (also under typo "Shaun Chamberlain") reveals both positive and negative comments on Chamberlin's earlier work in non-academic books by others - e.g. Deep Green Resistance[3], Nature, Knowledge and Negation[4], Engaging with Climate Change: Psychoanalytic and Interdisciplinary Perspectives[5]. I have not added these to the article as they don't seem to be necessary to establishing the notability of his work and I am aware that you considered the number of references daunting even before this week's additions, but can if you desire.
Also, if you look beyond the URLs of some of the existing references on the article - e.g. there's no avoiding the fact that organisations often post interviews and other video via Youtube/Vimeo - you will find further in-depth discussion of Chamberlin and his work (and I'm not sure whether this is considered relevant to notability, but e.g. this in-depth interview has views into 5 figures[6] and some of the trailers for his film are into 7 figures for views[7][8]). As you've pointed out, he also has significant academic citations, which I wasn't previously aware of. While doing the above I also happened across a translation of his work into a fourth language (Italian) which is not listed on WorldCat[9].
Anyway, I think we're there now. I hope you will agree that with these new requested additions (in addition to the WorldCat, Google Scholar and other links added earlier in the week) this article now meets the criteria for AUTHOR. Thanks again for pointing out the shortcomings in the article as was and prompting these improvements.
All best, Jases76 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n2009008141
  2. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Shaun-Chamberlin/e/B00252T3NQ/
  3. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P3h3p1oUV8AC&pg=PT617&dq=%22deep+green+resistance%22+%22shaun+chamberlin%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLu-nYuunbAhWoDcAKHToqAcwQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22deep%20green%20resistance%22%20%22shaun%20chamberlin%22&f=false
  4. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XHwDkbJJaqcC&pg=PA108&dq=%22shaun+chamberlain%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9xvK9uenbAhUEBcAKHdLfAY4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22shaun%20chamberlain%22&f=false
  5. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A83XG_O0RSkC&pg=PA85&dq=%22dark+optimism%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDrdbXuenbAhVoJMAKHRItCRIQ6AEIXjAK#v=onepage&q=%22dark%20optimism%22&f=false
  6. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVV2n4ws78c
  7. ^ https://www.facebook.com/EmpathyMedia/videos/1500760316628713/
  8. ^ https://www.facebook.com/EmpathyMedia/videos/vb.506785286026226/1508128232558588/?type=2&theater
  9. ^ https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/TEQsItaliano.pdf


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks @ZI Jony: - Having edited the article in line with AfD nominator IceWhiz's constructive advice above, I believe we have now established both WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR, with new refs added to both multiple independent reviews in respected publications and books by others responding to Chamberlin's writing, in addition to the already existing refs to mainstream media coverage, award nominations and wins, events dedicated to his work, high-profile interviews etc. I am grateful to IceWhiz for both highlighting the shortcomings in the article as was, and being a helpful part of my ongoing education as a Wikipedian. Jases76 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment you should use the reflist-talk template to deal with citations on talk pages, the reference header was breaking the main list of deletion discussions somehow, related to how the pages are copied over the software I expect.
My view based on the Wikipedia guidelines is that Amazon.com is not considered a reliable source, it seems to be treated with suspicion, for example in this archive. I also would suggest that Worldcat does not provide much information other than the publication of a book. The Daily Mail is a banned source on Wikipedia. All the Amazon links and the daily mail and audible link should all be removed. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated Frayæ, and big apologies for inadvertently breaking the list of deletion discussions! I have now removed the WorldCat, Daily Mail, Amazon and Audible references as per your guidance. Amazon/Audible I had added only as sources for Chamberlin's bibliography, and I realise now that direct references to the publishers' websites do the job better. Another improvement to the article, and another lesson learned - many thanks! Jases76 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I would say the article is well written enough, but I can't decide on notability, his own writing is minimal, but his editorial work is strong. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that no Wikipedian has supported the initial nomination for deletion across the nearly three weeks of this AfD listing, with the nominator’s own constructive requests for specific additional references having been met within days. As such, and in accordance with WP:RELIST (“in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice”), I am hopeful that a more experienced - and less involved - editor than me will now see fit to close the discussion. With thanks to everyone for the contributions both to the article and my ongoing Wiki-education. Jases76 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mediafon[edit]

Mediafon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable company, fails WP:NCORP. Renata (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 / G11; no indications of notability & promo 'cruft. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 8 July 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Co-operative Residence Incorporated[edit]

Waterloo Co-operative Residence Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a housing cooperative which is referenced only to a single primary source, and has been flagged as such since 2009 without ever having a single reliable source added to assist in making it notable. As always, every organization does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it exists -- it needs to be the subject of media coverage, not just technically verifiable on the website of a larger association it's a member of, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 19:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a Google search doesn't turn up any media coverage. The current single source is a dead link. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:01, 9 July 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. Consensus based on WP:PAG clearly is against retention. Although there was some discussion of draftifying both of the comments against retention indicated a preference for outright deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valerian Shiukashvili[edit]

Valerian Shiukashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. All sources are either from subject's own website or are from sources of doubtful reliability (or dead). None of the awards, and none of his educational details, listed in the article are sourced, and even if they were they wouldn't lead the subject to be classified as WP:NOTABLE under living people criteria. The subject's career is supported, in part only, by unconvincing (and/or dead) references, but the career events also do not conform with any criteria for WP notability. Under a misspelt title, the article was already deleted 7 years ago - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerian shiukashvili. Since then it doesn't seem to have been significantly rewritten or updated. Time to delete permanently and see that it doesn't get back. Smerus (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a quick search found a concert, juror at competition, concert in Berlin, concert in Krakow, chairman of another jury, and another jury. There's more in Georgian which I can't read. Seems notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – based on available material in reliable sources (...mentioned in passing a few times) this biography does not seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO (listed a few times as a juror and as a performer in concerts does not suffice for these criteria), nor WP:PROFESSOR, nor WP:GNG. Reads like a self-published curriculum (based, per the given references, mostly on outdated and/or unavailable self-published sources), and thus doesn't pass WP:NOTFORUM either. Deleting with a possibility to WP:REFUND (if more solid material to base a biography upon would surface) seems best. Otherwise (however not my first choice): move to draft space or userfy until someone cares enough to check whether other, more solid, sources can be tracked down. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – this is in fact the second nomination for the same subject, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerian shiukashvili, differently spelled, but same subject, which was deleted, broadly endorsed, via AfD in 2011. The main editor of the article (as well for this one as for the previously deleted one) is definitely a WP:SPA, with a strong odour of WP:COI (likely the subject themselves or very close to them, so more than likely little more than a self-promotional auto-biography, which should be deleted ASAP per various policies). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or, alternately, move to draft, with the understanding that if it is not substantially improved in the next six months, it will be deleted as abandoned. bd2412 T 19:43, 9 July 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 03:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presearch (search engine)[edit]

Presearch (search engine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable blockchain related company. MER-C 19:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I was able to find one somewhat independent source, which I've added to the article in order to give it a fair shake. That said there aren't the multiple, independent sources required to meet WP:GNG, and therefore this is a case of TOOSOON at best. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure advert for two-month old online business. No independent reliable sources discussing it directly save business listings and launching news. Also don't vaguely link to Google search result, give us the sources and let's see their content, who is behind the content and how reliable they are. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG because it does not get the coverage from multiple independent sources that would be required to pass GNG. Tillerh11 (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The lead, which reads "Presearch is a search engine based on blockchain technology, ...", makes no sense at all.
    Besides blockchain not being a technology, then blockchain is extremely ill suited (read: unusable!) for holding any index/indices of the appropriate kind (storage being half of the basis for any general web search engine like Google, Bing, Yandex, DuckDuckGo, etc.): Blockchain stores data in a tamper-proof way. Any such data structure is exactly opposite to the kind of storage which the dynamic content nature of the web calls for.
    (Given the glaring nonsense found as the very first words of the article, then I suggest the author to read WP:CIR. ... ) -- DexterPointy (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Setting aside scepticism about this combination of blockchain and make-money-by-searching, I am seeing nothing better than routine start-up publicity and announcements of appointments. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a company and WP:GNG as a product. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 8 July 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 03:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Foxx[edit]

Kitty Foxx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An apparent WP:MEMORIAL page on an unremarkable adult actress. Created by Special:Contributions/Shaolinrob with no other contributions outside this topic and edited by a variety of SPAs.

Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, personal website, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:ENT. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely notable in her field in the early 1990s. This is one example where WP:PORNBIO exhibits an Internet-era bias, as this individual is unlikely to have much by way of Internet content because she predated the Net by some 10 years.Accesscrawl (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kitty Foxx's career was from 1992 to 2003. The World Wide Web started in 1994 and covers most of that period. PORNBIO is oriented towards awards (which were around at the time), not online sources. If she received recognition, some traces should be readily available. As for the article, the few quality sources aren't about the subject. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is high time that we stop listening to arguments from lack of information. There is no sign that Foxx is notable, and no hand waving about this "pre-dating the internet" will change that fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable source coverage and per my comments above. No claim of passing WP:PORNBIO and the low quality sources fail WP:BASIC. Another porn performer in a niche genre. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 8 July 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 03:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Rayne[edit]

Veronica Rayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:ENT. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Mainstream appearances are minor; being on a barely notable reality TV show is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:44, 2 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_July_2&oldid=1142616147"