Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 July	21 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Painface[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements. Has preveiosly passed AFD per WP:Band #6, but that seemed to be based on previously unsourced/ or false information that other members of slipknot where in the band. Anders Colsefni is the only one from Slipknot in the band, and he is not notable himself. RF23 (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur this one appears to fail WP:BAND. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails NBAND and GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:38, 21 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 09:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Di Lorenzo[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NPROF. The sources don't convince me that WP:GNG is met, either - I don't have access to the Nydailynews source, but the rest are either primary sources or trivial mentions. The interview in Chronicle of Higher Education is an in-depth source, but on its own it is not sufficient. It was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, but has quite a few edits by other people so probably isn't eligible for G5 - most of the recent edits have been serious BLP violations, though. bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times article discusses Di Lorenzo both personally and in his professional capacity, and mentions the Aspire program for high school students that he created. Together with the other references, I think it establishes notability. The other point is that something is oddd about his supposed resignation. As an editor of one of the revisions that probably needs to be removed wrote, why would he resign if he was entitled to a paid family leave? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep on account of subject passing WP:NACADEMIC #6, as former dean of the New York University School of Professional Studies.~~ (Striking off suggestion following discussion herebelow) Of course, all that citation overkill (eight sources that he was a dean?) has got to go-o-o, and gotta ask the Lord's forgiveness. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean of a school within NYU does not satisfy #6. That criterion is only for heads of entire universities. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is a named deanship like a named chair for notability purposes? I honestly can't recall if this question has ever come up before. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject was dean of New York University's School of Professional Studies. I'd presume, David Eppstein, that the position of a NYU school dean is at least equally notable as the position of a named chair or [a] distinguished professor at a major institution of higher education, per WP:NACADEMIC #5. Is it not? -The Gnome (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sometimes deans hold ex officio named chairs, but those don't count as the sort of named chair that would pass #5, because that criterion is supposed to be for scholarship (not managerial position) at a level clearly above the average full professor. (It's the same reason that named assistant professorships don't pass: because that's not what the criterion is about.) And sometimes deans have that level of scholarship, but other times they are just managers, so we need to find other evidence for it than being a dean. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look this over again and come back. If we do not have #5 or #6 I can't see anything else one can hold on to. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If subject does not pass WP:NACADEMIC #5 & #6, then there is no Wikinotability to defend here. It surprised me that deans of schools within a university can't qualify but a careful reading of the guideline makes that clear, since it refers to the highest administrative post of an academic institution. I'll have to withdraw my Keep suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing? on GS and little indication of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

How do I manage to write with invisible ink online? I have no idea. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given both the split views and un-concluded NACADEMIC discussion that has occurred post the last relist I feel this warrants a third relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to have been primarily a professional administrator, with little scholarly output, at an administrative level below passing for WP:PROF and at what amounts to a glorified trade school within NYU. Even the school's own press release on his retirement as dean [2] could find little to say that was actually about him or his accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 24 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 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick W. Penney[edit]

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

Lacking references, little or no edivence of notability COIhunter (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because you publish a book does not make you notable, and no higher hurdle would make Penney notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Calm Omaha (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Park3r (talk) 23:02, 27 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 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L&C Mortgages[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. Sources are either repackaged press releases, not from reliable sources, not significant, or all of the above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourcing looks very weak. The Independent is probably the best source, but it is just a mention in passing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 28 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 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

’A morte ’e Carnevale[edit]

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

Crappy bot article. No sources and not meeting WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 19:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable citationNANExcella (talk) 11:35, 24 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 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chobanian[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, promotional article about a non-notable blockchain entrepreneur. Likely covert advertising. MER-C 19:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too low down the business hierarchy to really notable. Not a CEO of a major corp, and no standalone notability. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources. "Bitcoin Jesus" - really?!! Curdle (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PromotionNANExcella (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and is promotional. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:17, 24 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 09:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modèle déposé[edit]

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

Crappy bot article. No sources and not meeting WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 19:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 22:55, 20 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 09:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Coomber[edit]

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

Here we are again, nothing much has changed since the last afd, at least nothing significant to warrant any more coverage than when we previously deleted it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. A minor artist with matching minor quality references. Nothing that approaches WP:NARTIST.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed several sources that did not mention the subject. The last source, "affordable art fair" is a pay-to-play online gallery for selling paintings.96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and blacklist saatchiart.com~~ no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Vexations (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NARTIST, as the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV concerning her work.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, and blacklist saatchiart.com. --Theredproject (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, all the pages that include saatchiart.com: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=saatchiart.com --Theredproject (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about getting them blacklisted?96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be blacklisted. Why should Saatchi Art be blacklisted? Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is like Artsy, without the editorial, and without any curatorial process. ANYONE can make a page. They bought the name from the Saatchi Gallery, but have turned it into an online marketplace. They are trading on the historical value of the name Saatchi, but it is an entirely different entity.--Theredproject (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not spam. WP:BLACKLIST says "The spam blacklist is a control mechanism that prevents an external link from being added to an English Wikipedia page when the URL matches one listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It mostly lists spammers, but also includes URL redirection services (which could otherwise be used to bypass blacklisting)." Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that ISSU is not a reliable source: it is self-publishing and promotion.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Saatchi Art was a reliable source. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crux of the question is not whether Saatchi Art is a reliable source but whether it is spam, and I don't mean the luncheon meat. Bus stop (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All that matters here is that Saatchi Art is not reliable source. Whether it is spam probably should not be settled here, but at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions. I have removed the suggestion to blacklist. Vexations (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. The recognition achieved thus far is considerable but the reliable sourcing seems too weak to justify a standalone article at this time. I certainly wish the artist well with future endeavors. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NARTIST. Or redirect to a plausible search term if one exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced. NANExcella (talk) 11:45, 24 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 09:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond (online platform)[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable. The references are either mere notices, or their own publicity. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing looks grim. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing suggests we put this one down. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotion NANExcella (talk) 11:36, 24 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 The Sugarhill Gang. Sandstein 09:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jump on It![edit]

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

It’s unsourced and lacking notability, it’s better for it to be deleted. ~SML • TP 18:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist the album comes from. Fails WP:NALBUMS. STATic message me! 00:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Check that again, STATicVapor, this is an album, not a song. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry i am rusty on how to Wikipedia. Edited my comment. Article lack references and it appears it did not even chart so I do not see the notability. STATic message me! 15:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Sugarhill Gang, for the same reasons. ~SML • TP 04:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Sugarhill Gang While many of the group's albums are independently notable, this one doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. Alansohn (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PassesNANExcella (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under what criteria does it pass? ~SML • TP 20:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Sugarhill Gang per guideline at WP:NALBUM that states that non-notable albums, with articles that are little more than a track list, should be a redirect to the artist. Ifnord (talk) 21:10, 27 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 09:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Highway 145 (India)[edit]

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

Not a relevant article naveenpf (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The noms rationale is very poor however we can gloss over that, One liner-article, No evidence of notability to warrant an article, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep articles on national highways all over the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any evidence that a NH 145 exists. If one does, then I may consider retracting my vote. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NANExcella (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the available documentation on the NHAI website, I cannot find any evidence that a NH 145 exists. As it stands, this violates WP:V, but I would be willing to reconsider if such evidence is found. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence yet. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:38, 27 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 09:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Highway 142 (India)[edit]

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

Not relevent naveenpf (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The noms rationale is very poor however we can gloss over that, One liner-article, No evidence of notability to warrant an article, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :Clearly delete , I was going tag it A1 and A3 if this discussion was not started . Kpgj hpjm 16:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep articles on national highways all over the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below, Necrothesp with links to key lists showing it doesn't seem to exist at all. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any evidence that a NH 142 exists. If one does, then I may consider retracting my vote. Ajf773 (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citation NANExcella (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the available documentation on the NHAI website, I cannot find any evidence that a NH 142 exists. As it stands, this violates WP:V, but I would be willing to reconsider if such evidence is found. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not listed (here) on the maps of India website, nor here on the National Highways Agency's own list. In the absence of any sources showing WP:V, this should be removed from Wikipedia. Note that there are at least two State Highway 142 listed. See State Highway 142 (Tamil Nadu) and this one] in Karnataka. (But that's no reason to redirect to either of them.) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:08, 26 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 additional sources found over the course of the AFD appear to be sufficient to meet GNG. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marios Kyriazis[edit]

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

Non-notable subject T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The more you look at the sources, the more they fail the Wikipedia trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are two detailed unverified bios[3][4]. Here are two lists of more technical publications[5][6]. There are several popular press books too. Here is a mention[7]. StrayBolt (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could find no decent sources. Not notable enough. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I added a few sources. Looks like many old ones sources[8] were deleted, but they don't have online links so it is harder to look at the content. StrayBolt (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were probably deleted for being self-published, self-promoting, and added to the article by the subject himself. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since subject meets WP:NPERSON per WP:V, e.g. Independent, South Africa article; Times of India article; Daily Telegraph article; The Times article. -The Gnome (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is satisfied by the sources above (though I'd discount the first for info on the actual person), whether using WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't say that he has an impressive career as an author or a scholar, but given the interest shown by the media on his work from the sources found, I think he should qualify under GNG. Hzh (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree pr Nosebagbear. Emily Khine (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes. NANExcella (talk) 11:48, 24 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 per Wikipedia:Speedy keep reason 1: "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected." Please start a merge discussion on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of post-metal bands[edit]

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

The article is not that notable to have it’s own page, it’s better to merge it to post-metal. ~SML • TP 17:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my argument above.

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. Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Marvel and DC[edit]

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

Article is largely unsourced and written like a WP:OR essay. Some references are unverifiable or give only historical context for one company or the other. "Multiple issues" template has been up for one year with no significant improvement. HalJor (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is in terrible shape but a simple google search would tell anyone that this is a notable subject with tons of coverage. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Took me five seconds to find these, I could easily find more.★Trekker (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "coverage" is just a bunch of opinion pieces, most of them clickbait. (World Cup teams as Marvel vs DC? Seriously?) The topic is inherently WP:OR, and the time that would have to be spent on dressing it up to pretend it belongs in an encyclopedia could be better spent elsewhere. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There has been considerable (reliable) coverage of the rivalry between the companies and the differences between them, but the rivalry has been one-sided for most of their history and the differences have varied over time. I think a decent article on the topic could be written, but I'm not sure it would contain much if any of the content currently written. There's no deadline, so the age of the multiple issues banner doesn't merit consideration, but I'm undecided if it's beneficial to readers to keep this content until improvements are made. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with much of what Argento said. While I believe the article as it stands now is a lot of OR, a better fit that could use reliable sources would be History of DC-Marvel rivalry. Not much of this content is worth keeping, imo. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is most mostly opinionated. If anything Marvel Comics and DC Comics could have a section mentioning the rivalry. That said I still don't see much in the article that would be carried over. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:47, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Karaoke Collection (Westlife video album)[edit]

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

A "karaoke" album isn't a release by the band. Karaoke albums are also rarely notable in their own right. This page is purely promotional (all sources listed are from Sony) and there is no significant independent coverage of this release out there. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage beyond run-of-the-mill retail listings and manufacturer promotions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; no coverage found to suggest this meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. gongshow talk 07:47, 28 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. DIscussion created by a (now blocked) sock. No prejudice against re-nomination if other editors deem appropriate. StarM 01:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somatemps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Somatemps

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

There are no clear sources discussing this organization directly, which seems to be nothing more than a local group of friends in Barcelona who oppose independence. They are not on Spanish Wikipedia, they do not have an actual website outside a Mexican website which is not clear is theirs. It seems to have been blown up to be some kind of paramilitary gestapo by pro-Catalan independence people who want to slander other larger organizations such as Societat Civil Catalana. The emphasis is claiming they are "far right" where this is not backed by any credible source, this so they can claim SCC was "founded by far right folks". Its not a political party. There is not one source I see which tackles their existence directly. Astroturfing coming from activists, without a doubt. Miska5DT (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well sourced. The user asking for deletion has not even read the sources, has not used a translator and has not used the talk page of the article. Aditionally he has made multiple reversions of the article doing more than three reversions. A discussion about Somatemps being far-right ocurred in the talk page of Societat Civil Catalana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Societat_Civil_Catalana#Somatemps_is_far-right). The sources uncontested in that talk page have been used in the Somatemps article. They are Spanish sources which corroborate Somatemps being far-right and colaborating in the foundation of Societat Civil Catalana. Filiprino (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "discussion" involves a statement by yourself, Filiprino, nothing more. I appreciate if you stop trying to delete the proposal for deletion tag, this way we wont have to take it to noticeboard. I evidently don't need a translator for Castilian or Catalan.Miska5DT (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody contested those sources. You have not contested those sources. If you want to challenge information, use the talk page. The same has happened to you with the article Catalan Independence Movement where you have been reverted multiple times (see diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catalan_independence_movement&diff=next&oldid=851044128). Deletion policies clearly state to first use the talk page and try to solve the issue. Filiprino (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum, do you realise that you have wrongly put the template and that this page is also wrong? Additionally, it seems to me that you can't read Castilian or Catalan. Filiprino (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is clearly a notable group, and it has been covered by the likes of El Mundo. Thus, the information is clearly verifiable, and the article should be kept. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUser:RileyBugz http://www.elmundo.es/cataluna/2017/09/27/59cab92b468aebb9798b4687.html El Mundo describes them as a curiosity of a group of friends who buys ham for policemen. That is the only reliable souce we have here for an article which describes them as a scary and "notable" Far right organization". Please...Miska5DT (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well sourced. ElDiario, ElPais, HuffingtonPost, ElMundo, ElTemps, Antena3, ElNacional, La Vanguardia, The Atlantic ... without sensationalism. The reasons given by the user who proposed the deletion apparently do not fit any of the reasons given by the deletion guidelines, available in WP:DEL-REASON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filiprino (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNone of these mentioned sources say anything about Somatemps, so the statement above is factually incorrect. Not one single statement. Clear notability issues, as well as plain astroturfing. Miska5DT (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created this page has been blocked indefinitely due to sock puppetry. Shouldn't this deletion request be removed? Thanks. Filiprino (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – The nominator is a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so he/she was not supposed to be able to edit, much less to fill a deletion request. Impru20^talk 20:46, 24 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. Thanks to the recently added sources, the clear consensus seems to be that the article meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basque School of Boise[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Private pre-kindergarten school for a handful of children Dom from Paris (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It teaches Basque language. This is not a random pop thing; it would have been created towards addressing heritage of Basque sheepherders and other immigrants in the Idaho area, which is unusual for America but someone "from Paris" might not be aware of. No mention of wp:BEFORE being performed. Size of the school is not particularly relevant. --Doncram (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have noticed but I am not originally from Paris and I am also a pilotari so do not try and suggest that I am biased. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Boise, Idaho#Education~~ where a sentence exists for the school and can be expanded to a single paragraph. There's not much else to say about it besides what can be summarized in a few sentences. It's also not called "Basque School of Boise". It's called Boiseko Ikastola AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC) updated 22:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing there. Where it is stated that this is the one and only Basque language school outside the Basque country, which is a strong claim for notability. This source there is an excellent, substantial source, explaining about the Basque government explicitly supports this school. --Doncram (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the other source there goes to the school's website, whose history page has substantial information, including the statement it is the only Basque language pre-school outside the country (maybe there is a school at some other level?). About merger, the Basque community in Boise is covered in three sections of the Boise article, and it would be appropriate for there to be a link from each one of those, better than repeating a paragraph or two about this school and its creation in each of three places there, plus repeating in other articles like one needed for the Basque Block. --Doncram (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find another secondary source for the school that gives significant coverage? It's a passing mention in Los Angeles Times [22] This Al Jazeera America article might work: [23] This one's by Blue Review but it's more of a blog [24] Boise Weekly has a passing mention [25] Euskalcultura has a passing mention [26] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks to User:AngusWOOF for pointing out the school's name in Basque. This enabled a search that turned up WP:RS coverage, some of which I have now added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's to be kept around it should be rename to Boiseko Ikastola, and it needs to be organized better as many of the sentences are redundant. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's one of a kind and for that reason this school is probably notable. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my vote above as there have been enough news articles to make it a stub. I would suggest someone rewrite it to make it a coherent stub. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources available to meet WP:GNG for this unique school. Just Chilling (talk) 20:54, 26 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Ivory Coast floods[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT especially WP:PERSISTENCE as all the reports that I could find date form the 19 June or there abouts Dom from Paris (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The effects and death toll are significantly smaller than in other flooding articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no recent coverage. Typical WP:NOTNEWS. MapSGV (talk) 19:21, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Sofos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real sources, questionable notability Jac16888 ^Talk 14:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even the bands he was in are named. The bands may be notable, but he is not. The failure to name them is a sign that this article is overly promotional, by trying to focus attention on him instead of admitting he was part of a larger notable organization anymore than is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 23 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special K (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Article does not support notability, and I cannot find anything online which does (although granted searching for Special K isn't the easiest thing so I am happy to be proven wrong) Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to find sources in the project list of reliable sources (it's really hard). But I only found WP:ROUTINE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a few passing mentions here and there (mostly in articles about Jay Lethal), but nothing that constitutes significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 03:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV requirements.LM2000 (talk) 10:56, 28 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 Userfy. Going to move this to Alpha Centauri 777's userspace as User:Alpha Centauri 777/Australian Transhumanist Association Inc., and tag the resulting redirect for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#R2. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Transhumanist Association Inc.[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG unsourced article for an organisation formed in 2018 Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No suggestion in deletion nomination of any consideration how this fits with coverage of Transhumanism in wikipedia. Would it be the nominator's contention that this should be covered in the main Transhumanism article? Maybe it was split out of there due to size. What alternative to deletion would be better? Is there a list of transhumanism related organizations to which this should be merged, instead, so that it is covered better in context. Or should such a list be started now. Keeping is one good option if no one wants to figure anything out, and it would reduce demand for attention of editors here. --Doncram (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory of every organisation that exists. We don't have to redirect but if really it is useful why not redirect to transhumanism. I honestly don't understand why just because an article has been created regardless of notability there has to be an alternative to deltion. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: in light of the comment below do you really think that this article should be kept as an option? It doesn't matter how this article fits in with any subject. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this organisation comes anywhere near meeting GNG. I don't understand what you are trying to suggest. This article is totally unsourced and for good reason it has just been created and one of the first things that the creator did was to write a Wikipedia page about his organisation. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I created the page because I created the association. I noted that in my user page as Wikipedia told me to and this is why there is no sources to the page, because it's first-hand knowledge. I'm sorry if I've done something wrong, but I would prefer if the page wasn't deleted. Perhaps merged but why can't it just stay up??? - User, Alpha Centauri 777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Centauri 777 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Alpha Centauri 777 the reason there needs to be sources is for verifiability. Readers and other editors need to be able to confirm that what is said in the article is true, without emailing the person that wrote it. Since the association was only started very recently, it may well be that there hasn't been enough independent coverage of it so far to demonstrate that it's notable in encyclopedic terms. I'd suggest waiting until that coverage comes in before an article gets written. That said, well done on how you've written and formatted it, referencing notwithstanding. Not always an easy thing to do when you're new to editing. If you decide to stay and edit in other areas, let me know if I can help. Mortee (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT the below, I'd be OK with userfying. Creating articles about yourself and your own enterprises tends to be discouraged, but having the wikitext of a first article available might be helpful for someone as they go into editing other things. Mortee (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as WP:TOOSOON. The article fails WP:GNG and can't stay in mainspace, but it reads well and IMO it would be better to store it where it can be easily improved rather than having to go through WP:UNDELETE. Narky Blert (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy — No mentions of the organization. Didn't see any sampling a few "Media" on the page, just the general topic. Read the essay suggested in the above box, Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! Also read WP:USERFY and reliable source (RS). You can also edit other transhumanism articles or any article. You just can't add "first-hand knowledge". As a beginner, keep this in mind, "I can't add anything without an RS that supports the text." And also add the source. There are tools to make it easy to cite references. StrayBolt (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a problem with it being userfied but without a redirect as there are no sources whatsoever. That said as the creator is also the founder of the organisation and has a declared WP:COI it should not be moved back into mainspace without going through draft submission as per WP:AFC. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As everyone is OK with Userfy this can be closed I think now. As I am not withdrawing I think it would be better if someone else closed but as a page mover I can do the moves afterwards. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:29, 27 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. No consensus to delete; a possible merger may be proposed on talk. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not evaluated[edit]

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

As pointed out on talk, this isn't actually a thing. NE isn't a status, it's the absence of a status. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Yes, I've been pondering that. It is only an IUCN "category" inasmuch as it is a catch-all - a default bin of unknown size. (This is in contrast to "data deficient", which IS specifically assigned on a case-by-case basis (and contains some surprising examples such as killer whales).) There's very little point in having a list article that plucks a dozen examples out of millions in a completely arbitrary manner. We should take this opportunity to get rid of it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Keep or Redirect The changes implemented by Nick Moyes do actually render this a sensible article. There is a a certain amount of information to convey about this state and how it's handled; the main issue is the pointless list, and with its removal this looks okay to me. I would be just as happy to have it as a redirect to IUCN and have the specifics treated there, but as long as the list is gone, I'm not fussed about it being a standalone article either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vorbee (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IUCN Red List; though I'm not sure this is the primary topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OK declaration of interest first: this is one of my former work areas - the designation of conservation statuses (albeit at a regional, not an international level). In the categorisation of global conservation statuses of taxa, it is important (as Donald Rumsfeld would have said) to be able to define the 'known knowns' - the statuses of species we have already managed to assess, as well as to categorise the 'known unknowns' - those taxa where there has not, as yet, been any opportunity to make an assessment, but where there could well be a risk to a species were we to carry on with certain actions as if there were no risk to global biodiversity. Being able to categorise those, as yet, unassessed taxa is highly important as it focuses attention on what is and what is not yet known. The IUCN itself says here (my emphasis added): "Listing in the categories of Not Evaluated and Data Deficient indicates that no assessment of extinction risk has been made, though for different reasons. Until such time as an assessment is made, taxa listed in these categories should not be treated as if they were non-threatened. It may be appropriate (especially for Data Deficient forms) to give them the same degree of attention as threatened taxa, at least until their status can be assessed." Now, I know Wikipedia doesn't care much what an organisation itself says about its work, but this categorisation really is as important as Data deficient, and more important in some ways than Least-concern species because they have already been assessed for global conservation risk, and none has been found at this time. Not evaluated is part of a coherent suite of IUCN categories and, as such, should be retained along with them. The lede sentence very helpfully comes high on a Google search, adding rapid clarity to what, I admit, is a complicated subject should anyone search for it. I would ask editors to reconsider their !votes, but at the very worst scenario to redirect to IUCN_Red_List#IUCN_Red_List_Categories. That said, the list of exemplar taxa needs paring down or, beter still, removing completely and seems to have suffered long term abuse from a now blocked IP. I agree with Plantdrew who observed in 2017 that Not Evaluated applies to any taxon not yet allocated a category by assessment from the IUCN. But the IUCN recognises this as important. I earnestly believe the page for this Category does have real world relevance and value to users, and is of international significance. I also note that 149 other articles also link to it. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Nick, when I looked at the web-searchable Red List, there was no way to search for a Not Evaluated species. Are there reliable sources that say that a particular species is designated as NE? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, SarekOfVulcan but there are reliable sources that define, mention or use that category, or base their country red data lists on IUCN criteria (see here, here, here, here, here, here and below). Unfortunately, by the IUCN definition of this category, a 'Not Evaluated' taxon won't have been assessed yet, and therefore will not be on the IUCN database until such time as it has been assessed. And once it's been added to the IUCN database it will, by definition, no longer by a 'Not Evaluated' category species! I realise this seems oxymoronic - but in conservation terms, highlighting that there remain millions of taxa which are categorised as 'Not Evaluated' really is important, as the source I quoted above indicates. As a Wikipedian I fully understand how assigning notability to an apparently amorphous conservation category like this which contains 'everything else scientists haven't looked at yet' seems to go against all we hold dear and verifiable, but not deleting one from a suite of closely related, highly significant and clearly-defined world conservation categories does, in my view, seem worth arguing for. I believe I read on the IUCN website that every single mammal species on the planet has now been assessed by the IUCN, so there will not be any 'Not Evaluated' mammals on the database at all, but, by their absence, there are innumerable fish, bryophytes, arthropods etc etc which fall into that important category. And it's the category I'm arguing for, not the random list of species someone added to the page. This source makes two separate statements which I have concatenated here: As of 2015 IUCN had evaluated over 76,000 species, of which 24,000 and classed as threatened. Species are placed into nine categories ranging from extinct to not evaluated. Of the nine categories, animals which fallen into the categories Endangered, critically endangered and vulnerable are classified as threatened species. . . . Not evaluated: Estimates for the number of species on Earth range from 3-30 million species meaning this category of those not yet evaluated is the by far the largest of all. And here is a single country's reference to the category of 'Not Evaluated' being used in their own national Red List. I will add them to the article, and propose that we delete the entire selection of Not Evaluated species from that page on the basis that they cannot be verified by their absence from a definitive database, even though that is precisely what defines them being placed in that category. (I do hope this rather long and circuitous response makes at least some sense!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update Article has now been improved to demonstrate NE is a valid and significant global IUCN categorisation, just like all the other eight IUCN categories, and is not just a pointless 'absence of a status', as suggested by the OP. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, following Nick Moyes recent edits to the article that explain both the NE category definition and its use by the IUCN, accompanied by the deletion of the useless random "example" species list. The topic is still needed as one of the nine IUCN categories, even as just a comparison to the other eight. Alternatively, each of the nine IUCN categories could easily be a separate paragraph in a single coherent IUCN article. Loopy30 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Necessary for completeness. Aeonx (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with other ICUN categories. NE is a distinct category that is both not (known to be) safe and not threatened, and should be covered along with the others for completeness. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 12:17, 27 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) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesses (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Has 1 not user generated source, which is a listing of songs with promotional text. » Shadowowl | talk 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have added a reliable source Allmusic bio and album review which normally indicates that more rs exists, will search later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination makes no coherent case for lack of notability and is just concerned with article quality (which in terms of current sourcing is admittedly poor). In addition to the Allmusic coverage, there's [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] and no doubt the usual coverage in metal magazines that can't be found online. --Michig (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just to pile on the same reasoning, this band has plenty of sources to demonstrate notability, easily found by the voters above. The nominator is advised to become familiar with WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:37, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Schwerdt[edit]

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

a bit part in one episode of a soap List of Home and Away characters (2016) and a bit part in a feature film does not meet WP:NACTOR. Way WP:TOOSOON. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the sourcing nor the roles add to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, a good start but needs more prominent roles to pass WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 22 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. I note that the article Hangthong Thammawattana does not currently exist, and will start a procedural WP:RM to possibly re-target the article about the person (who clearly meets WP:NPOL). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Hangthong Thammawattana[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. No evidence of notability, WP:NOTNEWS. Giant Snowman 13:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very high profile case. The article already has Time Magazine as reference. Here are coverage from The Times of UK [34], The Star (Malaysia) [35], South China Morning Post (the news covered 2 cases, the second half of it is relevant) [36]. News pieces for forensic expert have 6-7 paragraphs about the case: Chicago Tribune [37], ABC (Australia) [38]. Many more references can be found from Thai news sources. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lerdsuwa. Utterly unsurprisingly, a sitting politician's death by gunshot attracts media coverage well beyond WP:NOTNEWS, including the sources in the article at the time of the nomination which are both from years after the event. Furthermore, even if the death itself were to fail WP:ONEVENT, the individual himself is notable per WP:NPOL, so there is simply no way that deletion could be the appropriate way of dealing with this (rather than, say, merging it to a new article about the politician himself). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:39, 25 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 Pornthip Rojanasunand#Jenjira Ploy-angunsri murder investigation. Given that there's a subheading "Jenjira Ploy-angunsri murder investigation" in the bio of Pornthip Rojanasunand, that seems to be the logical redirect target (which also seems to be the consensus here). Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jenjira Ploy-angunsri[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. No evidence of notability, WP:NOTNEWS. Giant Snowman 13:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pornthip Rojanasunand. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pornthip_Rojanasunand#Jenjira_Ploy-angunsri_murder_investigation which has more content and two sources. PamD 11:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pornthip_Rojanasunand#Jenjira_Ploy-angunsri_murder_investigation. This stub is unsourced. The redirect target is longer and has sources (unlike this un-sourced two line stub). Is it possible to develop this case into a standalone article? Iffy - maybe on Thai language coverage (In English it does not seem to pass NCRIME/GNG).Icewhiz (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pornthip_Rojanasunand#Jenjira_Ploy-angunsri_murder_investigation. Per above. Not enough information in the article to warrant a merge in my opinion but a valid search term. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opposition to redirecting for now, provided it is done without prejudice to a proper article being written in the future. This was among the most high-profile cases in 1990s Thailand, and has generated plenty of WP:LASTING coverage, decades later. This is a content issue, not an AfD one. Also, please re-read WP:NOTNEWS. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT REDIRECT to Pornthip Rojanasunand; the coverage I find (such as [39] [40]) doesn't justify redirecting this to a celebrity forensic investigator who was one of many people who worked on the case. I'm neutral on keep/delete. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:50, 28 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 09:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Public Affairs Education (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by article creator with reason "The journal is a leader within the discipline. Additional references have been added from sources outside of the journal." However, there's no evidence that this is a "leader within the discipline" (and it is highly unlikely that such a "leader" would not be in any selective index). References added (beside a WP article) are in-passing mentions in two books, which is certainly not enough to pass GNG. PROD reason therefore still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Save: I certainly understand that you don't like that the additional references are from books. However, I did go by your own guidelines. Under the "thoughts on NJournals, you said that there needed to be "multiple (at least two) reliable sources" providing information on the pieces. I did that. If there are other guidelines that you go by that you don't publish, tell me what those are. You never mention being included in an index in your guidelines, either. Otherwise, I met your requirements. That aside, Norma Riccucci is one of the biggest names in the field of public administration, which is why I included her. So is James Perry, which is why the reference from him is there. As someone from outside the field, references from them are like gold in the discipline. That said, there are other reasons to keep the journal. JPAE is the journal of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration. They are the accrediting body of public administration and public affairs programs in the world. The journal is the academic connection that brings everything together. If notoriety doesn't come with that alone, I don't know what does. I would also challenge the notion that being indexed brings any kind of notoriety. All being indexed means is that you applied and got all of the boxes checked off to meet membership. The application process is usually several years long, but it doesn't mean you're a good journal versus bad journal. After all, there are journals that have been included in SSCI that are considered predatory journals. Based on your requirements, however, they would be eligible for inclusion. Coming from someone in the discipline, having the page is extremely useful. I vote keep. Travlinamos 01:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry, but your argument basically boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Notoriety is not the same thing as notability in the WP sense, which has nothing to do with merit or lack thereof. And notability is not inherited. Some citations are to be expected, but to make a journal notable (in the WP sense) you'll need quite a lot more than that. And concerning the databases, you're completely wrong. Yes, this may be true for, say, EBSCO databases, but to get into Scopus or Clarivate Analytics you have to pass an in-depth analysis by a committee of experts. --Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I like the journal, but it is also a journal that is massively important to its field. In regards to indexes and whether they pass in-depth analysis. I am correct. An article in the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science found evidence that predatory journals were listed in SSCI, ESCI, and SCOPUS. They also made it into ERIC and MEDLINE for what its worth. Notoriety and notability has very little to do with being indexed. If nothing else, JPAE has publicly said that they have applied for the indexes, but as I stated earlier, they take years to make decisions. Given that being included in the indexes is a bad measure for anything, what do you need to see added to the listing for you to be ok with it? I already met the standards you listed on your page of at least two references, so clearly you give a moving target. What is your target right now? Travlinamos 18:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no moving target. You either show that this meets WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, either one is sufficient. It's fine with me if you want to shove WP:NJournals aside. In that case, please show how this meets WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would argue that it does meet WP:NJournals. Of the three criterion, 2 and 3 have nothing to do with indexes and I would argue that JPAE meets both of those. 2.b, for instance, asks about citations for a journal and 2.c talks about inclusion of the journal in academic libraries. JPAE is included in the library of every university in the US that has a Master of Public Administration program and a search on worldcat will show that it's included is a lot more than that, including a global audience. Also, a search on Google Scholar will quickly show that the journal has a hefty number of citations. Beyond that, 3 focuses on the historical importance of the journal in its subject area. For people in the field, this is certainly met. Those issues aside, what would it take for you to be happy that it meets WP:GNG. It's a journal and finding other journals to write about how amazing a different journal is will not happen. So what kind of evidence would you need? Travlinamos 20:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here at WP, we work with sources. I'm perfectly willing to believe you that this has "historical significance", but that is not enough. You'll need independent sources that tell us that this has historical significance. As for the citations, those are really very modest. A single researcher would not qualify WP:PROF with them, let alone a complete journal. So, no, this does not meet NJournals in any way, so I guess you're stuck with GNG.

Comment I am confused because what you are telling me isn't consistent with the WP:NJournals page. According to the page, historical significance is enough if it is historically important to the subject area. That said, the page lists other criterion in which notability can be obtained, which JPAE meets. As my last comment mentioned, it also fits with the other criterion under notability. I reference back to your moving target as on your own page you said it just needed two sources. I've met the two sources, I've met the criterion established on WP:NJournals for the article, so what's the issue? I'm accepting that you are going to be against the entry no matter what, as evidenced by the moving target. I'm asking what is the level of independent sources that you need to see referenced on the page. If its two, as your own page says, fine. If it's 3, ok. I can get more; however, I suspect that no matter how many I put up you will come back with a different number. You're already challenging the qualifications of the authors of the references I am using, despite that they literally are the leaders in the field. So, what is it that you want to see and I will get it posted there. Travlinamos 00:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a random note. I have a couple of friends that are librarians at different universities. I reached out to them and asked what index from a library of science standpoint would matter. They said EBSCOHost and JSTOR. They are competitive to get in, they are confirmed to include no predatory journals and they actually includes the ability of people to see the articles and not just the meta data. For what it's worth, JPAE is listed in both and as a core journal in the field of public administration in the EBSCOHost listing.^[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travlinamos (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not enough in a debate like this to say "it's historic", you need proof of that. And neither JSTOR nor EBSCOHost are considered selective enough to meet NJournals in these deletion debates. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that we don't agree. I propose that we now let other editors give their opinions, as this is becoming rather repetitive. --Randykitty (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's fair to let others give their opinions. All I had been asking is what it would take to convince you, but I was never able to get that out of you. Perhaps another editor will be able to answer the question so that I can add in the appropriate sources. Travlinamos 17:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. NJournals requires indexing in selective databases, which is not the case here, the journal is not even in Scopus, which is about the least selective database that we accept for showing notability. Being "historic": it's not enough to assert "this is historic". You need sources that substantiate such a claim. "Citations": GScholar lists a smathering of citations, far from what is needed to make a journal notable. Putting NJournals aside, to satisfy GNG you need multiple sources independent of the subject that discuss the subject in depth. A handful of citations in books does not satisfy this. So what is needed is indexation in a selective databse or significant sources. If those don't exist, the subject is not notable (in the WP sense of "having been noted"). If the journal is as central to its community as you say, it should be easy to find sources that confirm that. If those sources are absent, then apparently the journal is less stellar than you seem to think. I hop this clarifies the question about what is needed to make this notable. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I feel the sighs, I'm experiencing the same thing. As I noted in one of my comments, if you could tell me what it is you are looking for, I will get the references added. You are now saying multiple, independent and in-depth. I can get you multiples upon multiples of independent sources. If you want in-depth, absolutely every journal is going to be screwed. No journal editor would accept an article praising a different journal. So you've set up a barrier that absolutely no journal can ever pass. The publishing industry doesn't work that way. HOWEVER, given the there is a standard for WP:GNG, what does that look like for journals? I can give you citations for articles praising Frederickson (the guy that started the journal) which note his role in starting the journal as one of his key achievements, and he literally is the biggest name in the field. I can look at the list of journals in the field that are on Wikipedia and a number of them are pretty crappy journals (have you seen the entry for Voluntas?). I don't know what it is about JPAE that you have a problem, but whatever standard you're applying isn't clear and isn't consistent and isn't realistic. After all, I'm not sure you understand the requirements of NJournals. Take a look, there are several criteria that could be used to meet it. I'm not saying JPAE does, but it leaves room for other reasons than just indexing.Travlinamos 21:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]EBSCOHost

NOTE TO CLOSER: I moved the article to Journal of Public Affairs Education while clearing the G6 log. Thanks, ansh 666 22:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really remember my logic when moving this to mainspace, but MIAR is down right now, so it makes it hard to gauge. However, merging to NASPAA would be preferable to deletion. Neutral for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Headbomb. There was/is some information on the journal under NASPAA. There used to be more, but some of it was removed in the past week or so. Initially I had started with just building out the section in NASPAA, but it seemed awkward to leave it there, which is when I went to the separate page. I hadn't heard of MIAR before, but just looked it up (The journal is at: http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1087-7789). Found that it is listed in ESCI, which I hadn't realized. Travlinamos 18:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note To add support for this article, I have been looking at the other articles for journals in public administration and seeing what support they have. I know the journal is indexed in a number of places, only some of which are on their website with the publisher (they noted in the journal that they switched publishers earlier this year and it looks like they are still getting kinks worked out). The full list is on MIAR, but as Headbomb noted, the site now appears to be down. As soon as it comes back up, I'll add the other indexes to the list. That said, its certainly not the best article in the world and it's not the number one leading journal of all time, but after looking at the WP pages of every other journal in public administration, I think its reasonable to say that JPAE surpasses many of them and the entry is better than almost all of them Travlinamos 04:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very strong argument. As for other databases, as part of WP:BEFORE I checked the Clarivate Analytics databases as well as Scopus and this journal isn't in any of them (except the rather unselective ESCI). --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah Randykitty. You are correct that the journal is not listed in SCOPUS or SSCI. It is listed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index. I specifically linked to the WP article on this because the WP article notes its importance as being "rated as among the most important on the web." The problem I am having with addressing your concerns is that you constantly present a moving target. If ESCI is not selective, then WP itself is wrong in defining it. I chose to believe WP over you. Based on the WP page for ESCI, JPAE should be included. That said, what is your absence of selectiveness based on? The process of applying for ESCI is rigorous and it takes several years to get through it. True, it doesn't have the analytics analysis that SSCI has, but that doesn't mean it isn't selective. Plenty of journals get turned down. I am truly sorry you don't like that, but either the page for ESCI needs to be edited or you need to update your understanding as to standards. For now, it meets it based on WP's own wording. Regardless, that's not why I brought the discussion on indexes back into the mix. I was responding to Headbomb and the conversation about MIAR. While I was looking at MIAR, I was also looking at what support other journals from the public administration field have for being included on WP. Based on what I know of those journals and what I see of their WP pages, JPAE is a much more important journal to the field than some of them. That said, since you reengaged in the conversation, I was hoping you would finally address my question from earlier. Given that no journal is ever going to publish a piece discussing how another journal is the best, there is no way to ever show WP:GNG for any journal according to the standard as you interpret it. So what shows it? Tell me what shows that and I'll find the support. I can add everything in the world to the article to support it, but nothing is going to convince you. Which is why I would rather you tell me first what would convince you so I can meet that, otherwise you'll just change the level again. Travlinamos 01:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be weird to say here, but WP is not always a good source. ESCI even includes some predatory journals (I have to search for the reference) and is not what the publisher would like us to think. Also, they themselves give an important signal that ESCI is less than the other indices, because the Journal Citation Reports cover all jurnals covered in the other databases, but not those in ESCI. And despite what you think, sometimes other publications (like the Times Higher Education) do write about academic journals (see one of our GA articles, Genes, Brain and Behavior), sometimes even shortly after a journal is launched. It's rare, of course, but not unheard of. Generally however, a journal only meets GNG if they screw up royally and there are multiple sources that report on this. But if you reject NJournals, GNG is all that is left. Anyway, I repeat that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to use in these discussions and maintain that none of the databases in which this journal is included is selective in the sense used by NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've just made my point for me about moving the bar. If WP is supposed to be a source of information that has been verified and researched, telling me that you're discounting it so that it fits your want to reject the submission supports my argument that you just want to move the bar so that you can reject the article. Perhaps the WP article about ESCI is wrong, but then your issue is not with the article about JPAE but rather with ESCI because the article about JPAE is meeting the standard according to what WP published. Saying we have to discount what WP already has published is like the hypocrisy of parents telling their kids to do what they say, not what they do. Plus, its bad research. Any journal anywhere would desk reject a manuscript for that flawed rationale. So, since you're discounting ESCI, we should clear a few things up because it looks like you don't have a good idea of what the index actually is. If nothing else, the journal citation reports do include information from journals in ESCI (see you enjoy independent sources, check out https://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/what-is-the-emerging-sources-citation-index/). Journals in ESCI don't get an impact factor, but they are used when calculating the factor for others. All of the indexes in the Web of Science are. If you are concerned about predatory journals, we have another issue. There is evidence that SSCI has predatory journals in it as well. I point you back to the article in Journal of Librarianship and Information Science that came out last month that showed this. The problem is that you have to be careful when you determine what qualifies as a predatory journal. Beall's list was shut down because it turns out he included nonpredatory journals on the list. Since you call yourself a Beallian, I assume that's the list you're going by. Beall's list was just him making the reviews and decisions. Whereas Clarivate Analytics has a group of people who review and make determinations about journals. They have a vested interest in making sure they get it right, whereas was nobody but him. From a scientific standpoint, there is more validity to what Clarivate Analytics does that what Beall did. If you are throwing out journals because of the occasional journal that might be predatory has made it through, well then there are no indexes that can ever be used. If your concern is about selectivity, I would encourage you to spend time actually reading about ESCI and how they make their decisions. They are selective. Not every journal gets in, they actively kick journals out as well. They have a selection process. Literally the only difference is the consideration of journal analytics (and believe me, there is ample evidence that shows that this can be gamed as well). All that goes back to support the brief statement on the WP page that ESCI is selective. I would encourage you to follow appropriate research protocals and address your concerns with the ESCI page and then start challenging everyone else rather than going on how you are. It's inappropriate. On that note, I'm done with all my commenting on this page. WP will make its decision either way, I hope they choose to include it. If not, oh well, I have other things that I can do with my time. Travlinamos 16:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just have to note HAHAHA. I know I said I was done commenting, but I couldn't help but laugh that Randykitty has, in fact, gone and edited the Emerging Sources Citation Index page to fit her argument. Classy. Travlinamos 1:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Laugh all you want. All I did was remove puffery that was either sourced to Clarivate or not found in the source given. As I said, it's not for nothing that other WP articles cannot be used as a sources. AS for the bar, it hasn't moved. Just check previous AfDs for journal articles, ESCI has never been accepted as selective enough to satisfy NJournals. By its nature, it contains new journals that people think may become important and may make it to the other indices later. Or not, as the case might be. Being in ESCI is a strong sign of WP:TOOSOON. As for the rest, I'm sorry, but WP:TLDR applies here. I also have better things to do with my time than explain over and over again issues that have been chewed over multiple times already. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what Randykitty said. The ES in ESCI is for Emerging Sources, meaning sources (journals) that librarians ought to watch for and keep an eye on, as the preliminary evidence points to these journals being on their way to become important in their fields, but aren't quite there yet. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I've lost count of the times the contested article has been posted up, deleted, reposted, redeleted, and so on. And I don't lose the count easily! Unless Travlinamos has some special relationship to the subject, which is perfectly alright, as long as it is openly revealed, this serving is not tasting right. Perhaps a pinch of salt would help. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, minor journal with barely any coverage in reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 20 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) 02:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Brezsny[edit]

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

The sources for this biography may have passed muster when it was created in 2008, but they don't now. It has superficial referenciness, but there is a lack of sources which achieve the Wikipedia trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. Google finds press releases masquerading as articles, non-independent PR bios and little else. The closest to a substantive claim to notability is writing a single song that was later recorded by Jefferson Starship (but was never a single or B-side). Guy (Help!) 12:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on balance. I can't really see the depth of coverage we need. (I'm inclined to think World Entertainment War isn't noable either.) This seems to me to be a person with a bit of profile in local media, a part in the writing of a not very prominent song by a prominent group... and that's about it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Torrents of coverage in regional/alternative media. User talk:Inspiratrix provides a list; I dipped into the sections on the astrology column and Pronoia and five of the first six I checked were published articles all about him. I assume there are more that could be used to add detail and evidence of notability to the article, so in my view he passes GNG and/or NAUTHOR. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a singer/songwriter he has performed in notable bands including World Entertainment War and written songs performed by Jefferson Starship. As an author he has been in continuous weekly publication for over 40 years in over 120 journals throughout the United States. His book "Pronoia is the Antidote for Paranoia" may in fact be the first and only book on the subject of pronoia. In the guidelines for notability at Wikipedia:Notability_(people) one of the criteria it lists for authors is "has won significant critical attention". Here is a sampling of the critical attention Brezsny's works have won:

Irrelevant to this discussion

- "Brilliant! Absorbing! Wildly useful! Rob Brezsny gets my nomination for best prophet in a starring role. He's a script doctor for the soul." - Marisa Tomei, Academy Award-winning actress
- "A book so weird it just might drive you stark raving sane." - Robert Anton Wilson
- “I’ve seen the future of American literature and its name is Rob Brezsny.” - novelist Tom Robbins
- “Brezsny holds his own place next to cultural shamans like Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary, William Burroughs, and Ken Kesey.” - Popmatters.com
- “The prose is poetic, circular, dancing, combining the narrative voices of Anais Nin, Tom Robbins, and David Ignatow.” - Rain Taxi
- “Rob Brezsny is contemporary literature’s Sage Against the Machine.” - Good Times, Santa Cruz, CA
- “What Rob Brezsny does with words is grammarye, the Old English term for magic. With his strange brew of macho feminism and poetic rationalism, Brezsny weaves a yarn crazy enough to be true and real enough to subvert the literalist virus of cynicism now immobilizing the collective mindscape.” - Antero Alli, author of Astrologik, Angel Tech, and The Vertical Oracle
- “Millions of people already live their lives in accordance with Rob Brezsny’s ‘Free Will Astrology’ prophecies. But the time has come for a deeper dose of Brezsny’s brain. Enter this temple if you dare!” - David Ulansey, author of The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries

Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the individual meets NAUTHOR requirements, with considerable published material, and is cited by others in his specialised field. I think this is more a question of article improvement. Irondome (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marginal notability and tenuous sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems fairly notable in his fields and there are a wealth of third party sources that cover him in detail over a long period of time. He might not be world-famous to a general audience but he isn't obscure either and seems to meet the standards in WP:N for inclusion. WRT to the nominator's statement, my understanding is that notability is not temporary; the fact that he was notable in 2008 doesn't mean that he is not notable 10 years later. Alicb (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC) — Alicb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep - I think I'm just on the other side of Andy Dingley on this: barely notable, and sourcing just passes muster. I wouldn't cry if it was deleted, but I do think it squeaks over the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has two books that both qualify as notable books (in that they have multiple non-trivial reviews in independent sources). 2620:22:4000:1201:1FFE:FC68:2A37:15FF (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) — 2620:22:4000:1201:1FFE:FC68:2A37:15FF (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Widely published national astrology in independent weekly newspapers along with several published books to his name. Seems like a no brainer to keep the article and just remove the problematic material. Markandeya~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC) — Markandeya~enwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Secondary source coverage appears to be featured in the article, although it may not be as independent as I might like, I suspect that stems from very little coverage of astrologers outside their field. It is seems adequate for WP:N and WP:RS. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most extensively syndicated columnists in his field. His byline has appeared in newspapers for decades. Far exceeds any reasonable standards of notability. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Brezsny is notable within his field and is widely published - also has multiple books, published in multiple languages and he passes GNG. I believe the issue is that this article needs better editing and better sources, not simply deletion. Jooojay (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is notable within his field. Carrite (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources linked at User talk:Inspiratrix. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a list of sources concerning my work and career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inspiratrix#Sources_for_research Inspiratrix (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Inspiratrix (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor above is apparently the subject of the article under discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Beyond My Ken. Just hoping to offer useful information. Inspiratrix (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend my comment to be in any way pejorative, just informational for those who haven't been following the discussion at AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk)

@Inspiratrix (talk). Although I have indicated a preference to keep what appears to be your article, I would suggest that such self-promotion lacks a certain class and patronises fellow editors. We are all capable of weighing sources as per notablity guidelines. I still believe that "you" pass WP:NOTABLE, but such posts as above seems desperate. Tone it down and let the community decide, if you would be so kind. Ta. Irondome (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Irondome. I apologize for being unfamiliar with Wikipedia etiquette. I thought if I provided sources for research, it would help the discussion. But I'm fine with going along with your suggestion. I'll delete it. Later note: I did delete it, but it seems to have returned. Not sure why. Beyond My Ken or Irondome, feel free to delete it. Inspiratrix (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Inspiratrix (talk)[reply]

I undeleted it. It's generally the case (although there are exceptions) that once a comment has been responded to, it should not be deleted. You can strike through a comment you wish to withdraw, using the <s> and </s> tags at the beginning at the end of it, but deleting it turns the responses into non sequitors. It also goes against the general principle of transparency on Wikipedia. Comments can be altered, even after they've been responded to, but, again, that should be done in such a way as to make it obvious that it's been changed. Like ~~octopus~~ this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info.Inspiratrix (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I have no idea about any of the other stuff, but he does seem to be notable in his role as an astrology columnist published in many alt-weeklies for many years, and a somewhat unique approach to the subject... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - almost certainly one of the best known in his "business". Bearian (talk) 21:54, 24 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. ansh 666 07:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Hershberger[edit]

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

Only has 1 reliable source. Includes WP:FLOWERY language like famous, well-known, successful. There are a lot of unsourced claims in this article. » Shadowowl | talk 10:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-noable hairstylist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: within hairdressing she seems to be pretty notable - have added a few sources to talk page, and removed some peacockery and youtube link from article. PamD 11:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of RS, especially in the databases. I've added them and reworked the article. Johnpacklambert may want to take a second look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. The article is now a great example of WP:Hey. The current version is much improved! Thsmi002 (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this well referenced article per GNG. gidonb (talk) 19:54, 21 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 09:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-City area (Alameda County, California)[edit]

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

not an administrative area, no sources found to indicate significance beyond it existing. no redirect needed, as this entire name is too long a search term. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From my experience in transportation, there are a couple of reasons why these three cities are identified as one region. 1) These three cities don't belong to the main AC Transit district. Union City has its own bus system. Newark and Fremont belong to AC Transit under a separate funding agreement. 2) They are located on the Dumbarton bridge corridor and belong to regional committees that plan for improvement projects on that corridor. However they're not notable and very much WP:FANCRUFT. This designation is also too similar to the Tri-Valley area in the same county, which is far more notable and recognized in the media. Acnetj (talk) 08:20, 23 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. Sandstein 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feefeefly[edit]

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

Unremarkable person with no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Creator has written multiple POVy articles which have been deleted or currently nominated for deletion. Zanhe (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG --HunterM267 ^talk 01:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, I found no rule supporting the deletion nominator's claim. It does have enough content to qualify being a small article, regardless of how in-depth it is. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 02:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. The poisonous aromas of WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK permeate the premises. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep: Beyond all the POV pushing, the article is a about Shanghai girl who tweeted herself splashing ink on a portrait of Xi Jinping and has now vanished from social media (with her last tweet showing policemen at her door). There is some coverage from sources like Buzzfeed, ABC (Austrailia), SBS News, Fox News, Daily Mail, Hong Kong Free Press and Chinese-language coverage at Radio France Internationale and Apple Daily Taiwan. The article should not be judged as one about the Twitter account or its holder, but one about a disappearance of a political activist (see also Causeway Bay Books disappearances). _dk (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting mostly to give people time to evaluate User:Underbar dk's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Underbar dk. The article should be worked on to include more information regarding her disappearance and focus less on the Twitter, however. ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article (which is not very well-written) does not explain why this person is notable. Vorbee (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:32, 20 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. ansh 666 07:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Environmental, Inc.[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, cited only to its own websites and a press release. Speedy deletion declined, no reason given. I can't find any general, secondary coverage about this company or any reason to believe it is notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find a single legitimate news article concerning this company. If the only way we know about it is from their own press releases, I don't see an issue deleting it. ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing, clearly fails WP:NCORP. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is an advertorial-type Q&A from The Boston Globe in 2014 ([41] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), but neither that nor anything else provided or found appears sufficient to demonstrate this to be more than a company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 20 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. The problem here is that a valid rationale for deletion has not been advanced. A guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion is not stated in the nomination; instead the nomination only discusses sources within the article. Also, subject notability, if that's what this nomination is supposed to be based upon (it's not stated in the nomination), is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles; it's based upon available sources. See WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's main notability guideline page for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Deiros[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has changed since this was closed as speedy keep. Renominating. Old reason : 4 sources, of which 2 are unreliable and 1 is a mention. The article says that he won the Pampa award, however, this is not stated in the source. » Shadowowl | talk 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:31, 20 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 Liberation (Christina Aguilera album)#Release and promotion. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 08:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Tour (Christina Aguilera)[edit]

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

As it stands, it fails WP:NTOUR. Just routine coverage, and just a list of tour dates. WP:TOOSOON. --wooden superman 11:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOOSOON. Article can be recreated once the tour starts and more sources become available. I am not opposed to redirecting it to the main article on the album though either. Aoba47 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I disagree with deletion. The article has received 42,504 views since it was created, with a daily average of 472, so people are clearly looking for it. It should be redirected to either the album's article or List of Christina Aguilera concert tours. Melonkelon (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No !vote for now – I've not looked into it enough to say 'keep' or not – but, if this isn't kept, I'd prefer to see this moved to draft or redirected, not deleted. Since the tour is her first in a decade, this seems likely to make news when it gets started. That's not a good enough argument to keep it in itself (WP:CRYSTALBALL) but keeping the history available would reduce effort if the article needs to be recreated. Mortee (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liberation (Christina Aguilera album)#Release and promotion, where the tour is mentioned. Once the tour starts, it can meet WP:NTOUR if/when coverage emerges about "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience", or other related info. gongshow talk 08:18, 28 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. Obviously no consensus is forthcoming. Further discussion on the merge proposal can be held on the articles' talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splashtop Remote[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, promotional content. I prodded the page a few days ago; some independent sources were added, but that's not enough to write a neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia article. Some of the added sources don't strike me as reliable either. Significant parts of the content are still unreferenced or based solely on the Splashtop website. At least one of the new references is cited for a promotional statement it does not actually support. On the other hand, information about shortcomings or criticism contained in those same sources wasn't added.

I tried to look for reliable sources that would allow us to write a better article before prodding it; I couldn't find anything better than what it currently has, which is too little to establish notability. Huon (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I (not original nominator) am also nominating the following related pages because while this is a potential merge target in terms of wikipedia notability for corporations WP:NCORP will be more stringent that for the software product WP:NSOFT.

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

Also suffers from WP:NPOV but not to same blatant extent. There is an article for a discontinued product ~~Spashtop OS~~Splashtop OS of a different type which would not likely be good merge to Spashtop Remote so have chosen not to nominate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I questioned the prod of Splashtop Remote on its talk page as I found some credible an neutral reviews that indicated the product took a different approach to some competing products and might suit some sections. A subsequent article edit used a review non-neutrally and added multiple external links pointing to buy me or free trial links on the product website. I added a POW template to the article. I'd consider a keep Spashtop Remote with a merge in of Spashtop Inc. if article issues on the former were addressed by someone else.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Splashtop is notable because it was the first widely distributed software of its kind. It is also the first Linux that has been distributed to the masses (yes well before Android). The company and product pages may be merged though. Syced (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Syced, are we talking about the same product? According to Comparison of remote desktop software, Splashtop Remote was initially released in 2010 and is predated by dozens of other remote desktop programs, including GoToMyPC which some of the few independent sources for Splashtop Remote mention as a better competitor. If it is a "Linux that has been distributed to the masses", then our article doesn't say so. Neither do the sources. Huon (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Different software. Instant-on is the software Spalshtop will be remembered for: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=869&num=1 It was release in October 2007 and had an active community: https://gizmodo.com/5030863/splashtop-instant-on-linux-os-gets-hacked-to-do-more-tricks Syced (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both Splashtop Remote and Splashtop Inc. into Splashtop. The software has notable coverage on sites like The Verge, CNET, MacWorld, and ZDNet. The product's current name is "Splashtop," not "Splashtop Remote," so Splashtop is the most appropriate article title. Newslinger (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. Merging those two articles to Splashtop per the suggestion from Newslinger would be the best solution Tdelchiaro (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems to me that there are three Splashtop-related articles which should be merged into one. Splashtop meets the criteria for notability since there are a minimum of two references. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge of Splashtop OS. At this time article has not been tagged for merge. But my real concern is the core of the product, which is fact appears to be Instant-on operating systems, will be lost in the merge and may be difficult to develop without possibly giving it undue weight. The result will likely be a poor merge ... and there are other possible merge targets for splash OS. I'm happy enough with the merge of Spashtop Inc and remote.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:13, 20 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. No prejudice against re-creating as a redirect as proposed by power~enwiki if somebody manages to straighten out the name. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Radio Pop[edit]

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

No source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eastmain is incorrect about how NMEDIA works — we do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Bearcat. We don't know the call-sign, the website link doesn't work and there are no other references, and the two-sentence article says that it actually has a different name (Radio Shanghai). I think [42] is their current website, which calls it "Pop Music Radio 101.7". No prejudice against re-creation under the correct name once sourcing that verifies the station's name and ITU code is found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think zh:動感101 is the zhwiki article on this station. No sources nor English name on that page, though. Google translate gives "Dynamic 101". If the closer can straighten out the name, a rename + Redirect to Shanghai Media Group would be better than straight deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced, throwaway text per nomination and per Bearcat's reasoning on WP:BROADCAST. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 28 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 redirect to Long Guang. Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long Guang Xinwen Wang[edit]

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

No source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eastmain is incorrect about how NMEDIA works — we do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Long Guang per my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Radio Pop. At least here the name is unambiguous. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Bearcat's reasoning on WP:BROADCAST. -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 28 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 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suit combination – 10 missing[edit]

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

WP:NOTMANUAL. Having an article for every single suit combination in bridge does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Coverage of a specific suit combination in reliable sources is limited to a computer-generated entry in a list of all possible suit combinations. This name is also not a plausible search term for Suit combination so redirecting wouldn't make sense. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; WP:NOTMANUAL sums it up. The nav template {{Suit combinations}} should be deleted as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article Suit combination, or else with article on Contract bridge - this does not really need a standalone article, and heading the article is a note saying "Main artice - Suit combination". Vorbee (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just one of dozens or hundreds of such situations that arise in a hand. No reason to have an article on every single one of them. Delete the template too. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright this thumbsucker of an unsourced text that lacks any notability whatsoever outside the confines of the game. No trumps. -The Gnome (talk) 09:00, 28 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. It's snowing.Whilst it might technically violate elements of NOTDIRECTORY, common-sense ought to prevail. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 13:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of emergency telephone numbers[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NOT; in particular, it fails Wikipedia is not a directory - "It is not the White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic." I could also detail the concerns about the reliability of user-generated content being used to collate emergency telephone numbers, but that's why WP:NOTYELLOW exists, to prevent this. Fish+Karate 10:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It’s not written as a directory but more like a list of each country’s emergency number, similar in nature to the list of calling codes article. IWI (chat) 12:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination fails WP:BEFORE as there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Emergency numbers are quite special and notable and so the page is worth preserving. Andrew D. (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a list of emergency contact numbers around the world isn't what "not a phone directory" is meant to exclude. This is content I would expect to find in an almanac or similar reference work, and is not a violation of WP:NOT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no need for an explanation. This is the 2nd dumbest AfD I have ever seen after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial election of 1376, and my vote here is basically the same: please withdraw this frivolous nomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A literal reading of WP:NOT is accurate, but it fails the common sense test of WP:POLICY. A convincing argument needs to be made why this list is not encyclopedic (keeping in mind there are print encyclopedia's that list emergency phone numbers, though none I can find as comprehensive as Wikipedia). -- GreenC 23:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge the Indonesian list into the main list. -- GreenC 23:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:5: Wikipedia includes features of almanacs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep and why are we even having this discussion? This is patently not a yellow pages entry, but a list with obvious encyclopedic value; if you seriously think this should be deleted, I struggle to think of any article here that you would think should be kept. Although I have to disagree with TonyBallioni, as this is at most only the third dumbest AFD nomination, given the existence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwich Marketplace. ‑ Iridescent 18:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 1,000 views a day, just the thing you need when you've fallen down a crevasse in Antartica (911, good luck). Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

…or you've slipped on some guano in a place that's not only uninhabited but also has its own flag (911 again). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depends which you mean; in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands it's 999, in the French Southern and Antarctic Lands it's 112, in Navassa Island it's 911, and of course there's the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands where it's 000. You know how I know what all these emergency numbers are? Because we have a list of them. ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Navassa Island flag. That explains how an island with no population got a flag, and a national anthem written by John Cage. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

…and on the uninhabited coral atoll Clipperton Island you dial 15 for an ambulance, 17 for the police and 18 for the fire brigade. 16 puts you through to Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail, who'll give you ten recipes for land crab. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of emergency telephone numbers and redirect List of emergency telephone numbers in Indonesia to it. Ajf773 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is obviously valuable and encyclopedic. Invoking WP:NOTYELLOW is blindly legalistic. What possible benefit to Wikipedia would come from deleting this? Mortee (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A useful list for us to compare similar services across countries. Acnetj (talk) 08:39, 23 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 merge to ABP News. Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABP Live[edit]

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

ABP Live is actually the name for English website and social media profile of ABP Group — means the TV channel isn't ever exist. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 03:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect with ABP News. ABP Live is just an English repository website for ABP News videos. see https://www.abplive.in/about-abp-news --DBig Xray 21:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DBigXray above. Nothing in terms of independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 09:02, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Codeforces[edit]

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

A previous PROD was reversed but notability still has not been established. The subject is not notable, failing WP:NORG and WP:NWEB as there is no significant coverage of it in reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Ranked #1 by NDTV as shown here [43]. Coverage in the Daily Star – Irish Tech News – Forbes – Bloomberg and Techworm just to name a few, all third party – independent and reliable sources, as shown here [44]. In addition, also cited in scholarly papers, as shown here at Google Scholar [45]. I believe this meets our current standards for inclusion here at Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shoessss: Actually it wasn't ranked #1 by NDTV, but by a person they interviewed. All of the things you've mentioned are only minor mentions of the subject in the sources; what we need is significant coverage to demonstrate notability. You linked to a Google Scholar search for papers, but I don't see any of them discussing Codeforces directly and significantly; please cite specific papers. wumbolo ^^^ 14:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Friends, Codeforces seem to be ranked among first 10000 on Alexa. If the educational resource with such a popularity is "not notable" then probably something is wrong with notability criteria. Surely this suggestion is not strict or official, (Redacted), I don't want to interfere anymore, but if this page is deleted, it would be hard to restrain from feeling that Wikipedia becomes another bit more broken :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodion Gork (talk • contribs) 06:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are a lot of mentions of Codeforces in a BEFORE check, but many are primary in some way, most are non-independent/reliable and all the others (including those listed above) do not satisfy Sig Cov on Codeforces itself. Frequently they are 2-line throwaways while discussing the general concept, in others they discuss the founder without any details on the site itself. In the books & journal articles I looked at again most were a couple of lines, in a couple of cases they would grab examples from the site but without actually giving any Sig Cov on the website itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. None are intellectually independent. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:NCORP. Most sources are primary, while the Bloomberg Businessweek article name drops subject once ("young coders have started to flock to sites such as Codeforces and Topcoder," and that's it). -The Gnome (talk) 09:07, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Shekshnia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

queried deletion Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have seriously considering speedily deleting this, and I will not disagree if another administrator does so. This is a content deleted at a previous discussion, re-created by Anthony Appleyard without any justification, and without even informing, let alone consulting, the administrator who closed that discussion Spartaz. The way to contest deletion at AfD is to first consult the closing administrator, and if that doesn't lead to agreement then take it to a deletion review, not to just unilaterally re-create the article without giving any explanation and then take it to a new AfD without giving any reason in the nomination. The only reason that I didn't perform the speedy deletion is that only two people took part in the earlier discussion, so there is a case for treating this in effect as a relisting in the hope of getting more participation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reasons given in the previous discussion still apply: there is no evidence of satisfying either the general notability guideline or the guideline for academics, or any other notability guideline. The subject of the article is a fairly ordinary academic and businessman, without any particular claim to notability. Only two of the edited sources give any significant coverage of him, and they are his profile pages on the web sites of two organisations he works for. Thus we have not a single independent source giving any significant coverage. Nor have I found any other suitable source anywhere. (Also, a significant part of the article is a copyright infringement. I shall remove and revision-delete that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The thing with the anomalously high citation count listed at the top of his Google scholar profile is not an academic publication (it looks like a brochure for a workshop) and is not primarily by him. Discounting that, no pass of WP:PROF is evident. And both the content and the out-of-process re-creation look promotional to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Crudely crafted cruft. -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Pilot[edit]

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

Similiar deletion request

Fictional elements with no notability Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fictional occupation fails WP:GNG. --Count Count (talk) 17:00, 27 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 redirect to Airship. If necessary, the redirect can be turned into a dab page. Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Ship[edit]

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

Similiar deletion request

Deletion request in the similar vein to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plants of The Edge Chronicles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Galerider. Fictional elements with no notability. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATD and WP:R, this expression is at the very least a plausible redirect to seaplane or airship or aircraft, see for example the non-fiction book Sky Ships by Hardy. The present content would not be relevant to that though, so there's nothing to merge there. [The term might also refer to the mythological flying ships from Magonia and similar legends: [46] [47] [48]. Possibly a disambiguation page might be appropriate.] I think this generic expression is a very likely search term. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to airship. I'm 90% certain I've seen this phrase used before among Final Fantasy fandom or some such, but I've never heard of The Edge Chronicles, so there is nothing in this article worth keeping in the page history of the hypothetical redirect, and the article as written is unsourced fancruft. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 02:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per Hijiri, it's sufficiently generic to be a redirect encompassing all fictional airships._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect common in JRPGs. --Count Count (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airship or, better, disambiguate. This would link to Airship, The Edge Chronicles, Helicarrier, whatever else is needed. Later perhaps someone will write an article on the general concept of boat analogues that fly (vs flying boats, which are planes that can float on water). As it stands, this is WP:OR and unsourced. I couldn't see WP:SECONDARY sources to bolster it with. The Edge Chronicles does mention these boats without defining them, but very little of this needs to be merged. A brief description at most. Mortee (talk) 22:57, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Galerider[edit]

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

Similiar deletion request

Deletion request in the similar vein to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plants of The Edge Chronicles. Fictional elements with no notability. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 02:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fictional sky ship which fails WP:GNG. No coverage outside of the books. --Count Count (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources available. The detail doesn't seem significant enough to be a pure split-for-length from the other Edge Chronicles articles that discuss the ship. Mortee (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and await for resurrection. -The Gnome (talk) 08:07, 28 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) 16:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divii School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. WP:COI is obvious, sources are lacking. Kleuske (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither WRS nor a regular Google search returns any good sources on this start-up company. The article fails GNG/NCORP. Draft:Divii School was declined twice. Sam Sailor 09:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a for-profit School that lacks reliable sourcing. Fails WP:NCORP.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:08, 20 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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ismat Beg[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines PROFTEST and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Passes multiple WP:NACADEMIC criteria:

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources

Google Scholar shows they have been cited 3,355 times, with an h-index of 30

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level

A gold medal from the Pakistan Academy of Sciences is a prestigious national award.

The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association

He is one of the 100 fellows of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences, a highly selective body that elects no more than five new fellows per year.

The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research

He is a distinguished professor at Lahore School of Economics. List of academic ranks#Pakistan confirms the significance of being a Distinguised National Professor in the country.

The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area

He is the editor of 12 journals.

He was founding Chairperson of Mathematics Department at Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.63.61 (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACADEMIC states that 'once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.' Therefore once any one of the NACADEMIC criteria have been shown to be met through independent sources, the other claims in the article can be verified through non-independent sources. 'if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.' Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 for mathematics. Did nominator carry out WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 23 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 merge to District. With appreciation for Eastmain's efforts, while this Afd is being closed as a merge (given Bearian's ambivalence with either choice), if any editor wishes to re-create this article with the references provided, there's no prejudice against that (and against an early re-nomination thereon) (non-admin closure) Lourdes 08:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal utility district[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into District; pace the adding of refernces, but I'm not sure those sources are all realible, and do not indicate that the subject deserves a stand-alone article. They also do not suggest that a MUD is found outside of the US (or possibly even Texas). As such, the information, such as it is is, would sit quite neatly in the US section of the parent article, which already states that "There are several types of districts in the United States"—of which a MUD is just one—and even goes on to acknowledge that there are "many types of special-purpose districts with limited powers of local government. School districts are the most common, but other types of districts include...utility districts" (my emph.) So the merge target is ready and waiting for the couple of sentences that this would add. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for it to be merged as suggested. Rathfelder (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'm also find with a merger. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a purely USA concept I think the article should say so. But I'm happy for the article to survive now it has references.Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there are sufficient sources for what it is, but I feel it fails WP:DICDEF (this is not helped by nature of the latter 2 sources). It would need some sourced content beyond the nature of what it is to avoid this problem. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge away onto "District." The remark about subject being no more than a dictionary entry is to the point. No independent notability beyond subject being a common term. -The Gnome (talk) 08:06, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TechNet (lobbying organization)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing enough out there to qualify this for WP:NCORP. I'm seeing a lot of single mentions on other company pages saying things along the lines of "TechNet was involved in this company's lobbying efforts" but beyond that not really a whole lot. Majora (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Just a corporate PR release. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep but this'll need some serious work. I took a look at HighBeam Research while doing my WP:BEFORE for this article, and found quite a bit about TechNet, specifying about the political organization. It looked to be more than just "they got this or that" as I went through the sources, and in my opinion there appears to be enough there to establish notability. That being said, this article may need some WP:TNT in order to get it right, so I have no prejudice against deletion and recreation at a later time by someone interested in writing about the subject properly. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for subject failing WP:NCORP. The sources are either primary (press releases, etc), news about the tech industry in general, or a tidbit about a managerial appointment. There is no verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 08:03, 28 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. Relists haven't attracted any further input. Michig (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolves of the Third Reich[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill horror film from 2017. No impact, no awards, no famous connections, and a straight-to-DVD release. Wikipedia is not IMDB Lite. Calton | Talk 11:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as has reviews in horror film reliable sources such as horrornews.net, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 20 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 List of chess variants. Pretty good consensus that while there are sufficient sources to meet WP:V, there's not enough to meet WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three-check chess[edit]

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

Rhodo, at WP:RSN, indicated a lack of reliable sources covering the topic in significance. This indicates the topic fails to meet the bar of the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard 8×8 board, where it is listed. Putting aside the specifics of the dispute that led to this for the time being, we have only one relatively reliable secondary source to use for this article: half of one paragraph in the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. That's simply not enough -- as we've seen, it doesn't even clearly present the rules, meaning we either present a partial ruleset based on a single source or turn to less desirable sources (e.g. primary sources of sites that host the game). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Half of one paragraph" is nonsensical, an attempt to argue "insufficient length" and therefore "insufficient depth". When (as I've already explained and you already ignored), the game rules are ultra simple, not requiring length to precisely elaborate, and Pritchard is a master of writing efficiency. And I've provided plenty of relevant context (Chapter 10 head, Chapter 10 intro, subsection 10.3 head, and subsection 10.3 entries) demo'ing Pritchard's writing style, which you've summarily ignored as well. --IHTS (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsensical. It's quite simple. There is a paragraph. Three sentences within the paragraph -- about one half -- are about this game. I don't care about your personal interpretations/reviews of his writing style. We're not compiling pithy quips such that we should consider three sentences a wealth; we need enough material to write an encyclopedia article, and we need multiple sources so we're not just basing our permastub on these three sentences. There is absolutely no way to say that those three sentences constitute in depth coverage. That's not to say they count for nothing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. But I object to your "I don't care about your personal interpretations of his writing style". (The fact is, it's your continued personal/WP:OR interpretations of same that I've repeatedly objected to, when you're uninformed and wrong. But yeah, the fact "[you] don't care" has been repeatedly demonstrated by you WP:IDHT-style. See again below.) --IHTS (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are very few books on chess variants (CVs), few sources in general, and that is the nature of the beast regarding the entire CV category, so multiple sources with significant coverage isn't realistic for the category, and GNG is intentionally written flexible to allow for such situation. Andreas Kaufmann, originator of this article and respected member of WP:CHESS, has said, consistent with that context, that inclusion in Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants is sufficient for WP:Notability for chess variant articles like this. That has been the ongoing precedent at WP:CHESS for as long as I've been here, and for numerous years prior. (Bringing an axe now is appropriate? Axing one article in isolation of many similar others following the WP:CHESS precedent is appropriate?) Thanks for consider. p.s. Pinging Seraphimblade for real-life example of this. --IHTS (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A condition like "inclusion in encyclopedia X" can indicate notability and appears in one or more SNGs when the encyclopedias it's talking about are the sort that are highly selective and serve as an indication of importance -- an indication that there are other sources covering the topic. Inclusion in most subject-specific encyclopedias is not a guarantee of that, however (except for certain biographical dictionaries, say), as they're often much more inclusive and/or more likely to include primary research and/or less subject to peer-review and/or less of a big deal (for whatever that's worth). In this case, it seems he was trying to include basically every variant he could find that he could write a little bit of content about. Even if he was a little selective, there's no indication (at least for this example -- I'm not trying to generalize) that there's any other coverage in secondary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, mouthing off your own WP:OR re how Pritchard writes (again), when in fact you don't know what you're taking about (again). From the Introduction to The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, p. vii:
[...] The length of this book might suggest that I have included everything on the subject I could find. This is far from being the case: hundreds of games have been excluded, and in many cases files have been compressed into an entry of just a few lines.
I have applied certain criteria to selection. To earn an entry, a game must have been published in some form, or at the least played by a significant number of people outside the inventor's circle of family and friends; alternatively, it must have some historical or other good claim to inclusion. [...]
I'm sick of shielding from your steady WP:IDHT WP:OR trying to steamroll discussions. E.g., your non-consensus pushy reorg at List of chess variants caused me to withdrawl from editing that article--permanently. --IHTS (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal stuff. I'm done with this back-and-forth and will defer to third parties to evaluate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rules are covered by two other RSs, the documentation of Lichess and Chess.com (which was the actual reason I came to the RS noticeboard) There’s also some basic strategy stuff on Chess.com written by Daniel Rensch, which we could incorporate into the article. This isn’t quite a “gold-standard” source like a peer-reviewed journal, but for chess purposes it’s reasonable.

Regarding notability, it’s also notable that through Chess.com and Lichess this game is widely played. Lichess records 2m games, I’m not as familiar with Chess.com to get similar records, but it’s the bigger site. There are plenty of articles about chess variants that exist due to mention by Pritchard but have little or no evidence of actually being significantly played—and could probably be nominated en mass—but this isn’t one of them IMO. —LukeSurl^{t c} 06:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A published set of rules on a website that hosts the game may be reliable to cite for the rules, but it's very much a primary source and doesn't really add to notability (being primary, and not being actual coverage in the first place but rather a reproduction of the rules that, recent discussions aside, are the same everywhere on the internet). We don't necessarily need journals, but we need more than 3 sentences in one book and a bunch of primary sources. I think atomic chess and bughouse might be a decent example. They lowers the bar a little for the quality of sources, and thus should probably never be a GA/FA (bughouse being GA based on a bunch of SPS is bizarre, but that's another story), but there's enough coverage to make an article beyond what would be mentioned in the list article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- after getting a little distracted by all the yelling about which sources are reliable, and how we should interpret a source not saying something, I am now convinced by the areguments that this isn't individually notable. A mention at List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard 8×8 board is all that's necessary. Reyk _YO! 07:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LukeSurl. Sufficient sources exist for a standalone article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard 8×8 board. 43% off the variants listed at List of chess variants have no Wikipedia page. 57% do. Sovereign Chess has no Wikipedia page, but has a 97-word description at List of chess variants. Three-check chess has a Wikipedia page and an 80 word description that could easily be trimmed to 60 words or so if moved to List of chess variants (no need for "is a chess variant; it plays with the same rules as chess, with the addition..." or "It is catalogued in David Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants" -- a cite will do). There simply is not enough to say about three-check chess to justify a stand-alone article. Everything in the article could easily fit into an entry on the list without it being anywhere near the size of the longest existing description on the list. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the entry at List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard 8×8 board. A single short entry in an encyclopedia of chess variants can't be considered significant coverage. It's an extremely simple description, and the reference can be moved to the list. --tronvillain (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Single short entries" in the encyclopedia The Oxford Companion to Chess have been considered adequate WP:RS for many WP:CHESS articles for many years. --IHTS (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reliable source, but being mentioned in a reliable source is not the same thing as establishing notability. Last time I checked, WikiProjects couldn't just declare that general notability guidelines don't apply to their subject. --tronvillain (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG isn't inflexible, it's a guideline. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." There's a dearth of RS for CVs in general, unlike many other topic categories. --IHTS (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a guideline, but it's not obvious that chess variations should be a blanket exception, especially not just because "there's a dearth of RS for CVs in general." Why does this specific variation deserve an exception? --tronvillain (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least we agree: 1) there can be GNG exceptions; 2) a dearth of RSs for the topic category is an argument for flexibility (I think you're saying it's just not sufficient). I'm not trying to add add'l argument for it (others might), so am neutral (no vote). Thx for the discuss. --IHTS (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain, in detail and without personal attacks, why you think that a dearth of RSs for the topic category is an argument for flexibility. You seem to be claiming that the fact that other things in the cat don't meet our standards for notability means we should lower our standards. Why would we want to do that instead of simply deleting the rest of the non-notable pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: per GNG, common sense. (Now stop attempting to interact w/ me, anytime, anywhere, as you pledged to do on a public board long ago.) --IHTS (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request denied. Keep asking and you might end up blocked -- again. That agreement was contingent on you staying on the (non-computer-chess) chess pages. Now you are on a page where I am a regular, posting invalid (and rather silly) arguments like "per common sense". You don't get to suppress those who disagree with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bug off. --IHTS (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that a dearth of sources for a topic category is a good argument for flexibility. In fact, it's a pretty good argument for being non-notable. You can't just say WP:ONLYGUIDELINE (or assert "common sense"), you have to make an argument for making an exception to a guideline, and given that notability is an extremely important guideline, it better be a great argument. --tronvillain (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking re topic category. (If it's the nature of the topic category that RSs are in general hard to find, IMO it's common sense to give that consideration re GNG flexibility. I thought you said it's an argument but not a sufficient one. Now you're saying the opposite.) --IHTS (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere where he said it was a valid argument. Could you give us a direct quote where you believe that he indicated that? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, noting that all of the content that is presently in the stand-alone article is probably fair game for merger, as it's not a terribly excessive amount of information. Even if we ignore for the moment that this article is unsourced and fails WP:GNG (no, a set of rules posted on a website are not RS for the purposes of establishing WP:Notability), this would still be a pretty straightforward WP:NOPAGE/WP:SUMMARYSTYLE analysis, as I see it. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to argue content disputes. Take it to the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assuming merge, my suggestion is to keep the current language at List of chess variants (i.e. Three-check chess: A player wins if he checks the opponent three times.). Or, a summary of the current lead text (proposed by LukeSurl @ Talk, and agreed by Reyk and me). My obvious concern is that Rhododendrites will alter to reflect his "checkmate is an additional winning objective" WP:OR. That's fine too, as long as it doesn't imply it comes from Pritchard, which it decidedly does not, which I've demonstrated at length elsewhere but won't repeat here. (Since I no longer edit List of chess variants, Rhododendrites knows there w/ be no challenge from me at the target article. And in addition, there's an editor going out of his way looking for ways he thinks will antagonize me, based on long-term held grudge. So thx, & good luck.) --IHTS (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Personally I would rather keep, its one of the more popular and widespread chess variants out there. But if merging it means we dont have to deal with IHTS attempting to use what a book doesnt say about the rules to argue for not including them, well its probably better in the long run. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, personalising it is poor reasoning for an Afd. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well after this they can only blame themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His manner of expressing himself obscures the fact that he generally knows what the hell he's talking about, certainly when it comes to chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as writing an encyclopedia goes, knowledge of chess is pretty worthless when coupled with an unwillingness to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If merged, I'm not arguing to "not include" checkmate as a winning condition, only that it not be attributed to Pritchard. (Include it or not, just don't imply it comes from Pritchard.) It's not clear to me why you think merging changes anything. --IHTS (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sourcing for a brief standalone article. The calls to merge redirect seem to me to not be very well considered. The material in the article would have to be severely cut down to only two or three sentences to fit in the suggested target List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard_8×8_board. Either encyclopedic information would be lost or the redirect target page would have unbalanced and lopsided coverage of just one variant in a list of dozens. That's just a very bad idea, but "merge and redirect" is such an easy knee jerk reaction that I suspect many editors don't even read the pages in question or consider how the merge might affect the target. Everything seems easy when you don't have to do it yourself.... Quale (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is there "sufficient sourcing for a standalone article"? Nothing there establishes notability. There are four sources, two of which are essentially ads for playing the game on Chess.com or lichess.com, while the main source is a few sentences in an encyclopedia of chess variations. --tronvillain (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "The material in the article would have to be severely cut down to only two or three sentences to fit in the suggested target" is factually incorrect. Zonal chess has five sentences. Chess on an Infinite plane has six. Anti-King chess has eight. Three-check chess has a grand total of four sentences (based upon three sentences in the only reliable source). The rest simply says things like "It is catalogued in David Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants where it is noted as being of probable Soviet origin, and that Anatoly Karpov was an "invincible" player in his youth" which simply duplicates what is in the references section ^[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pritchard, D. B. (1994). The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. Games & Puzzles Publications. p. 304. ISBN 0-9524142-0-1. Probably of Soviet origin. The first player to deliver three checks wins. Said to be very skilful: two checks can be achieved fairly easily at the expense of piece sacrifices after which the prospects of a third check with severely weakened forces are close to zero. Karpov is said to have been invincible at the game in his youth.

Redirect to List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard 8×8 board. This is basically an entry lifted from a different, specialist encyclopedia, rewritten and with a dusting of other minor bits. --Calton | Talk 11:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to dearth of reliable sources, and scant coverage in the one source everyone agrees is reliable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:29, 25 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) 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saiju Sreedharan[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are single line mentions. reddogsix (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:DIRECTOR.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:05, 27 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, but I am moving this to Draft:Susan Sobbott, on the outside chance that it can be further developed into something worthy of inclusion. I am also move-protecting the page to insure that it goes through proper vetting before being moved back. bd2412 T 20:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Sobbott[edit]

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

Mid-level executive. It is very unusual for me or anyone to nominate for deletion a WP article sourced by a NYT article devoted to the subject. But the NYT piece is not a RS in this case--it's not even an interview--she wrote it about herself and it appears over her own signature.The Working Mother article is a more conventional promotional bio where she says what she wishes. Nothing else is substantial. The contributor is a spa, and wrote it as now required in draft space--but after accumulating the necessary number of edits on it, moved it themselves into mainspace. That's an abuse of procedure. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Other than self-promotional pieces, not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass wp:gng. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting someone to publish an article you wrote about yourself is not a sign adding to GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Battelle at least does not think she is a "mid-level executive."[49] Agreed that NYT article by her is not evidence of notability but other articles suggest she is, eg.[50][51] and probably more. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:46, 24 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. Michig (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of plants of The Edge Chronicles[edit]

List of plants of The Edge Chronicles (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)

List of animals of The Edge Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Fancruft. Zero indication from sources that either subject is a notable subject in and of itself. Better suited for Wikia or the like. Nothing worth a merge and redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. WP:FANCRUFT, nothing notable. Ajf773 (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similiar deletion request

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and probably all the others mentioned), no evidence of independent notability for this topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:36, 20 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.

[1] [1]EBSCOHost

[Pritchard-2] Pritchard, D. B. (1994). The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. Games & Puzzles Publications. p. 304. ISBN 0-9524142-0-1. Probably of Soviet origin. The first player to deliver three checks wins. Said to be very skilful: two checks can be achieved fairly easily at the expense of piece sacrifices after which the prospects of a third check with severely weakened forces are close to zero. Karpov is said to have been invincible at the game in his youth.

[1]

[1]