Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 July	28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lee (Magician)

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

Appearing on Asia's Got Talent and Britain’s Got Talent doesn't meet WP:ENT, and no other claims of significance or importance. The references (other than the WP:MILL coverage of the TV episode) aren't significant; one is an interview, and others are purely promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing performances in variety competition shows do not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:ENT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't prove notability and search yields only minimal returns. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of women in leadership positions on astronomical instrumentation projects

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

Seen on WP:NPP. This is redundant to List of women astronomers, a "leadership position" is somewhat poorly defined, and there are no references about the specific cross-categorization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the last bit means, but if Wikipedia can have List of optical telescopes and List of large optical telescopes and List of largest optical reflecting telescopes and List of largest optical telescopes historically and List of largest optical telescopes in the 20th century and List of the largest optical telescopes in the contiguous United States I guess we can have two distinct lists about women astronomers.Pmw21 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Leadership position" is very well defined by the first sentence of the article: a Principle Investigator, a Project Scientist or the Director of an Observatory. Pmw21 (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being too specific per WP:SALAT. The vision-challenged Montanan horse thieves don't need company. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This article is distinct from List of women astronomers because not all women astronomers are instrumentalists. In fact, instrumentation is a field with very few women compared to men, so this article is an important reference. Pmw21 (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then would it make sense to change the scope to "List of women instrumentalists"? 3 variables is generally a lot for a list (women + leadership position + instrumentation projects). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the list far too long... hundreds of people. This list will be (at present) roughly 50, which is easily curatable.Pmw21 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, regardless of whether this list is kept or the scope changed, the people without Wikipedia articles should be removed per WP:LISTPEOPLE. It's not sufficient to simply be what the title says -- the person must also be notable (qualify for a stand-alone article). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is a very useful list, to be PI of this sort of project is pretty significant and these women are likely to need wikipedia pages of their own so it will help to encourage them to be written by others. It seems specific without being too specific. Nejaby (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is fascinating! And will let us monitor leadership diversity throughout history. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP These are notable women for their position as a leader of one of these projects. If they are missing wikipedia articles that's an omission that should be fixed. I think this is a fascinatinng addition to other lists of notable astronomers. KarenLMasters (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Having a leadership role on an astronomical project is equivalent to managing from a few million to billions of local currency of public funds. Getting to that degree of responsibility as a scientist clearly merits notability, and this list will clearly and quickly show who needs articles (generally they are presently lacking articles due to the known underrepresentation on WP), so Rhododendrites's point will be speedily addressed. Iridia (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list has the potential for getting out of date very quickly, unless it has a section on past leaders and is then updated as and when retirements / change of role / new appointments occur. As an orphan it is not particularly useful to the project at this time. I wonder it would be better to collate these articles in a category rather than a list. Polyamorph (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a section of past/current could make sense. As most of these positions are held either from concept through the duration of the respective mission (i.e. 5-10 years), or for directorships, at least a couple of years and generally more like 5-7 years, it may be a relatively minimal problem. Iridia (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's a notable and reasonable list of notable people, although the title is clunky and as such the article needs to be moved/re-named. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a worthwhile reference resource. DaveApter (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune - entries without demonstrated notability (i.e., existing standalone articles) should be removed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: It would help if the list header some effort for the article to satisfy WP:NOTESAL. Praemonitus (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is interesting, and benefits Wikipedia. However the name should be changed to sth shorter and easier to find while searching. Meets WP:Notability criteria as a topic, but the names included in the list need to be vetted. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ShameOnYouJokowi

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

I can't read Indonesian, but I'm not entirely convinced that this meets WP:WEB. Adam9007 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedily: And the article makes no credible claim of significance (all it effectively says is "this is a hashtag that exists"), so if a hashtag is "Web content" that falls within the scope of A7, I believe speedy deletion is appropriate. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. It could be (briefly) mentioned on the Joko Widodo page, probably in the section on fuel subsidies, but not really notable in and of itself. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:33, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 Square (TV series)

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

Fails WP:NSERIES. Unsourced, and the British game show with the same name makes it difficult to search for sources. » Shadowowl | talk 21:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Treehouse TV It only existed to fill time where commercials would go if it was advertiser-supported and nothing more. Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the show sometimes aired segments between other television shows, the show was also aired on its own in 15+ minute segments. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does it really matter how it aired? Was it done with continuity between to connect these segments with connecting commentary in-between? Doubtful. More likely it filled dead time slots and was just three ten-minute segments or two/three seven-minute segments packed together the same way anyone would create an iTunes playlist with just some 'here's the next one' filled in-between each segment. Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect. To be fair, this was created 12 years ago, a time when our sourcing and notability standards were a lot more lax for TV shows than they are now — in 2006, a television show was granted a presumption of notability as long as its mere existence was verifiable via its own website. But that was a grave mistake which left us too open to advertorial abuse, so we've since considerably tightened up WP:NMEDIA's standards for the notability of a television show: now, a show is extended notability only if it can be shown as the subject of reliable source coverage about it in media. Since it aired in the 2000s, I ran a ProQuest search for older sourcing, and while I did find a glancing namecheck of its existence in an article about its network, I found nothing which was actually about the show for the purposes of getting it over NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find any reliable sources for this show. The proposed redirect provides little information about the topic (it's no longer broadcast by Treehouse TV) and is unlikely to be informative to readers who purposely search for the term. None of the other incoming links would be harmed by deleting this material. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:55, 31 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna Sarada Mission

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

Does not meet WP:NORG. Unfinished, confusing and unsourced since 2006. » Shadowowl | talk 21:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-A spin-off of Ramakrishna Mission (which is very notable, though).Fails GNG.∯WBG^converse 05:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequately sourced. DaveApter (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medicalchain

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Refs are all whitepapers, to educate buyers about the product and press releases. scope_creep (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are mentioned in RS at least once: Denver Post's article [1] which is not used in the article now. But at this point, nuke & pave is probably best. Of note, IBM is a partner so even the IBM source is not independent and as I mentioned on WP:COIN, junk sources – Coincentral, CoinJournal, ICObench, cryptocoinmastery.com and CryptoSlate – constitute the bulk of the article's material. As nominator stated, WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH fail. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as promotional, by apparent undeclared paid editor. Borderline notability at best. The combination justifies deletion--on facy. I'd even support )inprinciple) a speedy criterion. DGG ( talk ) 14:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is promotional in nature and none of the sourcing is to mainstream, independent, reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so much spam this version is not salvageable. Should be deleted with no prejudice if an unconnected editor creates a decent article with proper sources and no spam about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is an advertisement, not a legit WP article. Please get it out of mainspace. I doubt if an article could be created per WP:ORGCRIT, but maybe. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the sources are very poor. I think the idea of introducing blockchain technology into healthcare merits an article, but this may not be it.Rathfelder (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rational--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Need independent coverage outside the industry. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robin's Big Date

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

No indication of notability. I have googled it several times and there are almost no hits and none of them from reputable publications. There for sure is no in depth coverage. ★Trekker (talk) 21:05, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I found some commentary from reliable sources, they present it as a did-you-know-about-this oddity. In my opinion, this is one of the exceptions discussed in the last bullet point at WP:GNG. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the standards. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While I acknowledge the vast difference in participation between this AfD and the previous one, I think we can call this consensus to delete. I'm sympathetic to the arguments now (and previously) that this is a well-defined genre, but I'm more convinced by the below participants that it is well-defined only by each listener (or, more likely, by their local broadcaster or DJ). In particular are the arguments about the subjectivity of such a list, especially given that two sources have largely determined this list (fantastic though Walt Hickey may be).

On a process note, I'm not actually deleting this, per se: it existed as a redirect to Classic rock for a decade before the first AfD, so I'm restoring it as such. Let me know if anyone is opposed to that, and I'll put it up at WP:RfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic rock songs

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

Fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. A song to be categorised as classic rock is extremely subjective, the only sources that verify this is songs mention in "best of" lists. Artists being categorised as classic rock is a far more notable attibute than songs which could include the artists entire back catalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajf773 (talk • contribs)

Delete. This list is hardly inclusive of the genre (even of songs which could be sourced as "classic rock" songs). A list that was "complete", even restricted to those songs that receive radio play would cover thousands of songs. I would have no objection to more narrowly defining the coverage of the article and moving it to a title reflecting narrowed coverage. bd2412 T 21:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Classic rock is well established as a genre now, like classical music. The nomination's argument is no better than the previous attempt to delete this notable category, which easily passes WP:LISTN. There's even a huge hardcover Encyclopedia of Classic Rock now. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We have no List of classical music compositions. bd2412 T 01:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have numerous classical music lists. My favourite is the list of classical music with an unruly audience response! Andrew D. (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, other articles exist. No doubt we also have an article on someone's reeeeeeally dreamy gym teacher. If you start one on your French teacher, you can point to it in the AfD. OTOH, the gym teacher might be a retired Olympian and that article's existence has nothing to do with your French teacher's notability. On the other other hand, maybe the article on the gym teacher should be deleted as well. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD isn't about the classic rock genre. It's about an indiscriminate list of songs. Ajf773 (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original article was the product of one misguided editor and it was correctly changed to a redirect where it remained for 10 years. Since it was restored it has been a magnet for unsourced POV entries that requires, but has not received, constant monitoring. The scope of this list is so vague that it could conceivably contain every rock song from an undefined era spanning the late 1960s to the late 1980s, or just the 200 songs that have been regularly played on classic rock radio stations for decades. Piriczki (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Four sources≠good article. Completely subjective criteria; at this point I'm hearing Nirvana and RHCP regularly on WKLH, one of the most well-known classic rock stations in the US, for instance, and one station could embrace "Brown Eyed Girl" while another could have a DJ rant against Van Morrison's very existence for ten minutes. The genre is constantly evolving, and this article can't hope to contain it. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a random tracklist for a triple CD release, rather than a definitive list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate. Dozens of "classic rock" radio stations play their "top 500" songs every Memorial Day/Labor Day/July 4th/whatever weekend. Clearly, there are thousands of "classic rock" songs and any attempt to list them would be a useless catalog. We could create similarly useless/ indiscriminate lists of CHR, AOR, A/C, light jazz, quet storm, urban contemporary, etc. songs of similar length. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is a reasonable list of notable songs of a defined genre, with at least three in-depth significant and reliable sources, while being incomplete does not require deletion (*ordinary editing can fix that). Bearian (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely subjective and uncompletable list. Carrite (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with previous discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country songs (2nd nomination), extremely subjective, probably more so than the one linked as classic rock is not a genre per se unlike say, country or pop. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective/taste-based untenable list -- DexterPointy (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jagjit Singh Chauhan. Sandstein 07:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khalsa Raj Party

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

Redirect or Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NORG. non notable Political party in Indian Punjab started in 2001 and died along with the founder in 2007. Threw only 3 Google News results and one said His Khalsa Raj Party remained a letterhead organisation' '[2] DBig Xray 20:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jagjit Singh Chauhan per above research. Kraose (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagjit Singh Chauhan per User:Kraose. The sources in this article could be merged to that page to flesh out the section on the Khalsa Raj party. PohranicniStraze (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagjit Singh Chauhan, as a reasonable search term. There isn't enough material for a standalone page: the best I could find is this and this, which do not provide coverage of any substance, even taken together with the sources presently in the article. Vanamonde (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awaaz-e-Punjab

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

The article is supposed to be of a non notable and now defunct (within 2 months) Indian political party/forum in Punjab of 3 men. the founder Sidhu (an Indian celebrity) himself stated that Awaaz-e-Punjab was a forum, and not a political party. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG as a non notable party without any coverage started by celebrity. The coverage to the subject is due to the celebrity and not for the subject. Interestingly the founder Sidhu has since then already joined Congress (another party)[3] and the 2 Bains brothers Joined AAP[4] so the party/forum whatever it is, is already written off. [5] DBig Xray 20:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERITED. A mention already exists on main page. Kraose (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:NOT, and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions mostly do not engage with Accesscrawl's thorough analysis of the available sources. Sandstein 07:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Meredith (sannyasin)

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

I don't see any significant coverage necessary for passing WP:GNG. I only see passing mentions which is too less to have a stand alone article. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclaimer: article creator). I do admit, this article is severely underdeveloped. However, I think the subject meets notability criteria. There are some challenges to finding sources, as this individual is known by many different names. To those who are conducting notability assessments, please be sure to search using his various identities (Swami Devaraj, Amrito, etc.) Yes, there are many sources with passing mentions, but I believe they add up to significant coverage. Meredith was Osho's personal doctor, and was very involved in Rajneeshpuram. He was the victim of an attempted murder, has remained active within the movement, has written at least two books, and is associated with the Osho International Foundation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Much work remains, but I've at least expanded the one-sentence stub for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still working on it you might want to use the Under Construction template. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, since you've done so much work digging up sources and building the article, could you identify the articles that are most centrally focused on Meredith (by that or any of his names), to make it easier to assess notability? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peteforsyth Here's one from 1988: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22008073/from_lewisham_to_enlightenment/. I'm still checking for clippings under his various aliases. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a great source. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peteforsyth My research is still a work in progress. I admit, this (which has an interview you can ignore, or not) and this are among the best sources so far, and those are not ideal examples. I'm selecting these just from the initial sources used to expand the article, which I found via Google Search. I've not yet searched newspapers archives or other databases. I will say, though, he is mentioned in sourcing over the span of decades, because of his various roles, court cases related to his poisoning and the Rajneesh movement in general, etc. This one is a bit trickier given his many names, various locations of residence, etc. I hope I'm not doing this assessment injustice by sharing these links now, I just wanted to acknowledge your request and share where I'm at currently. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete The person has not been the subject of significant discussion in multiple independent sources and meets none of the specialized N guidances. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. The Guardian article linked above by Grand'mere Eugene is a story exclusively focused on Meredith, from a longstanding international publication. He's covered from several angles by a number of publications spanning a number of years (and in several countries); the ones identified by Another Believer contribute to notability. His book is listed in a bibliography of Rajneeshi texts. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the Guardian article mentioned above, the book Who Killed Osho has several pages based on Meredith's testimony in 1985, labeling Meredith (Amrito) as a "central figure in Osho's life at the time of his death". See Abhay Vaidya (15 March 2017). Who Killed Osho. Om Books International. pp. 51–53. ISBN 978-93-86410-02-3.. This text has many relevant details of his life, and satisfies GNG. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Not inherited, at best WP:BLP1E for poison attempt. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Probable Keep. The article had two sources when it was nominated, and has 23 sources now, many of which are entirely about the subject of the article. This seems like a failure to do WP:BEFORE, part D. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis. I've checked all the references mentioned in the article. Subject is non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial references. References mostly are single line mentions. See WP:GNG and WP:INHERITED.

URL & title	Analysis
"1 Years Later, Bitterness Endures at Rancho Rajneesh"	Ref about Rajneesh and chaos at Rajneeshpuram, passing mention about George Meredith and few others.
"Bhagwan's Doctor Gives His Take on Wild Wild Country"	George Meredith Responds to Netflix docuseries Wild Wild Country about Rajneesh. This ref is more like a blog or interview. Passing mention about George Meredith
Osho: Can the name of an India-born spiritual guru become a European trademark?	Ref is about European court ruling on OSHO® Trademark case, passing mentions about Dr. George Meredith
"Wild Wild Country: Where Are They Now?"	Covers all the characters of Wild Wild Country. Mentions George Meredith with a alias name James (probably a typo) and mentions about Injection poisoning of Meredith.
"Guns and Roses: Osho's disciples recall their days in the wild, wild country".	Journalists interviews response of OSHO International Foundation members on the Docuseries Wild Wild Country. Includes a statement from George Meredith.
"Former Aides to Guru in Oregon Plead Guilty to Numerous Crimes"	Mentions crimes by Ma Anand Sheela. Again passing mention of George Meredith.
"Column One: Feud Flares Over 'Club Meditation': Guru Osho Rajneesh sparks controversy even in death. A fight has emerged over control of his empire, including a giant commune in India that caters to both vacationers and pilgrims"	One liner mention of Meredith being a personal physician of OSHO and few notes.
'Wild Wild Country': Most Shocking Reveals from the Sex Cult's FBI Informant"	Follow up of Wild Wild Country Docuseries. Interviews with sanyasins and passing mention of Dr. Meredith
"Ma Anand Sheela and Two Other Ex-Followers of Rajneesh Leave for U.S."	Reference about Sheela and her aides escaping Rajneeshpuram. Again passing mention of George Meredith.
Who Killed Osho.	Book by Abhay Vaidya. Alleging foul act on OSHO's death. Covers Amrito as OSHO's doctor and his physician in last days. Book about OSHO passing mentions about Meredith and other osho sanyasins.
"From Lewisham to enlightenment".	This is the only ref which covers Meredith
"With Free-Love Guru Dead, India Commune Goes Mainstream".	Passing mention about George Meredith. Ref talks about OSHO's death
"Rajneeshees' Utopian dreams collapse as talks turn to murder -- Part 5 of 5"	Article covers crimes at Rajneeshpuram. Passing mention of George meredith
"Inside the Rajneeshee secret files".	Talks about "mystery papers" passing mention about Meredith
"The personal doctor to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who claims..."	Mainly covers conspiracy about poisoning at Rajneeshpuram.
"Ex-Aide to Indian Guru Pleads Guilty to Charges".	Ref about Rajneesh pleading guilty to charges.
"Answers to all the biggest questions we had after Netflix's 'Wild Wild Country'".	404 error This link works for me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Osho's will surfaces mysteriously 23 years after death; sparks controversy".	Controversy about OSHO's will. Passing mention again
"Caretaker destroyed Osho's will, accused tells high court".	Controversy about OSHO's will. Passing mention again
"The Rajneesh Papers: Studies in a New Religious Movement".	Book about Rajneesh as main subject. Passing mentions about his disciples again.
"Osho Rajaneesh and His Disciples: Some Western Perceptions"	This books covers many of his western disciples one of which is Dr. George Meredith
"The Guru's Himalayan Repose".	Ref about Rajneesh coming back to India after US trip. Passing mentions about Meredith again.
"The Rajneesh Chronicles: The True Story of the Cult that Unleashed the First Act of Bioterrorism on U.S. Soil".	Controversies and crimes in US during presence of Rajneesh movement in Oregon. Passing mention about Meredith again.
"'Wild, Wild Country': Meet the Holocaust Survivor and Archnemesis of Ma Anand Sheela"	Article mainly covers Hasya. Passing mention about Meredith.

Accesscrawl (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not suggesting these are the only sources about the subject... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are the major ones. However, you can find more mentions on oshonews.com but that is hardly reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm seriously doubting this is a thorough overview of all press coverage received. Reviewers should be taking all coverage into account, not just these sources currently used in the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are few other sources which have paraphrased the given sources. OSHO's personal physician, Accused of will forgery - copyright cases, etc. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:INHERITED as the analysis of sources show. Would prefer merging important content somewhere. Capitals00 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I strongly disagree with Accesscrawl's characterization of the material about Meredith in the book, Who Killed Osho, as "Covers Amrito as OSHO's doctor and his physician in last days. Book about OSHO passing mentions about Meredith and other osho sanyasins." The three pages cited cover Meredith's early days in England, his failing marriage to Eileen, his first affair, his firtst trips to India, his romance and marriage with Wendy and the birth of their son Daeveda, and his subsequent affair, as well as details of his religious beliefs. I urge editors to read and evaluate each texts to judge whether it is substantial or a "passing mention". Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The dismissive comment in the table above about "Bhagwan's Doctor Gives His Take on Wild Wild Country" as "more like a blog" does not seem valid to me. The entire article is about George Meredith. The source is a web site published by New York Media, publishers of New York (magazine). This is significant coverage in a reliable source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Grand'mere Eugene and Jonesey95: Thank you both for your contributions to the article, which is looking much better now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources discuss him but nothing seems to be qualifying "in depth coverage" needed for WP:GNG. Rzvas (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What makes this person notable? He's described as Osho's handsome personal doctor who was almost assassinated and that's about it. I concur with the analysis of sources presented by Accesscrawl above. They do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article satisfies all three conditions of WP:BLP1E which states: we generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Yes, 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Yes, 3, If the event is not significant or the individual's role was not substantial. Yes. The editor whose username is Z0 07:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - essentially the guy who inherited Rajneesh International Foundation, notable playing a key role in the Rajneesh Movement, plenty of coverage out there. Acousmana (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As demonstrated above, the subject does not meet the criteria set forth in WP:GNG; the sources cited in the article do not discuss him in detail, and notability is not inherited. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 06:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion above, there is insignificant coverage for notability. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the spirit of addressing the WP:BOMBARDMENT issues, I've eliminated many of the references rejected in this discussion as "passing mentions". One of the difficulties in this research has been the four names the subject has used, meaning some articles refer to his as Meredith, others Devaraj, still others Amrito, and a few as John Andrews. Some use all four names, some two or three... so it's easy to miss some of the more in-depth coverage if you only find a passing mention in one section of a book, and miss entirely the sections where his life and work are discussed more thoroughly.

I would draw attention to three of the sources that actually do cover the subject in depth, and convince me he meets GNG:

Vaidya, Abhay (15 March 2017). Who Killed Osho. Om Books International. pp. 51–53, 81–83. ISBN 978-93-86410-02-3.

Reed, Christopher (22 Jun 1988). "From Lewisham to enlightenment". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. p. 23. ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878. Retrieved 19 July 2018.

Silman, Anna (24 April 2018). "Bhagwan's Doctor Gives His Take on Wild Wild Country". The Cut. Retrieved 19 July 2018.

Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work in digging out these obscure sources, but I am not persuaded by them. The last one is an interview with the subject, repeating his statements and therefore does not count as a source independent of the subject. The other two are not really in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for this, Grand'mere Eugene. I have to agree, research on this individual has been challenging, and I do think some source pruning was necessary. That being said, AfD forced us to scramble, and I'm glad we spent time combing through many sources to put together some sort of biography and timeline about this interesting and mysterious man. I, too, still lean towards keeping this article, as coverage of this subject spans decades and connects him with many notable events, people, and organizations. With a little more time and research, I believe this biography could be molded into an entry that benefits Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the authority of a book written by an non notable individual and citing him as a reference? Such books are often around us and we can't immediately tell if they are reliable especially by looking at the author and the publisher of the book. There will be many such mentions of the individual around and even after this article has been deleted but what we need is independent significant coverage. I am not convinced. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Vaidya has been a journalist for 30 years, according to this profile. He has written for the Times of India since 1987 and is an editor for Pune edition of Hindustan Times. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When he was writing for TOI, editorial oversight was strict compared to this book, which is not published by a reliable source. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request for help determining the reliability of the publisher and the specifict texts supported by the book, here. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: Unless you have specific knowledge of the editorial practices of Om Publishing, there's a logical flaw in your argument: "I don't have reason to believe they have strong editorial practices" does not imply "their editorial practices are sub-par." Reviews in The Hindu and The Hindustan Times express the opposite sentiment, for instance "The book is the result of nearly three decades of reportage and is based on extensively recorded audio and video interviews with Osho’s closest followers and a mass of official documents, testimonies and press reports" and "Pune-based Vaidya is a senior journalist who has served as the Washington correspondent of a national daily and as an editor in India." Your argument may have some merit as a reason for skepticism of specific, controversial points within the book, and therefore relevant to how the source is used in the construction of the biography; but it's not an apt criticism of the book as supporting the general notability of the topic. A publisher's decision to cover a topic, and critical review of the book in reliable sources, is sufficient to establish it as contributing to the topic's notability. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject lacks sources supporting independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: would you like to give us some idea what kind of policy based discussion do you expect? You might have seen something that may have caused confusion regarding the consensus. Accesscrawl (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Accesscrawl: I object to your proposal in this diff on the RS Noticeboard, to remove the source, Who killed Osho? from the article. Not only do we NOT have consensus on this AfD yet, there is also the principle that context matters. Are any of the statements in the article that are supported by Who Killed Osho? controversial? I listed the statements individually on the RS Noticeboard posting, and I would appreciate other editors' opinions on whether any of those statements are controversial, as we are enjoined to be especially careful in BLPs. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not shocking. I would expect you to keep discussion on WP:RSN since you had raised the concerns there. Saying this as some editors (who don't know this AFD or they don't have this AFD watchlisted) are carrying discussion there. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you failed to address the question whether any of the statements in the article supported by the book, Who killed Osho? are controversial. Do you have an opinion on that relevant issue? Cheers! - Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accesscrawl, you seem very eager to take action with this article. There is useful discussion going on in various places, and I'm learning a great deal both about the subject and about the quality of sources relating to him. I would suggest slowing down a bit and letting the discussion take its course. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERITED. Not enough references for meeting WP:GNG and the sources that could be used for claiming notability are closely related with the subject. Orientls (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems worth acknowledging that since July 20, when Accesscrawl listed and commented on all citations in the article, work on the article by various people has resulted in a reduction by more than half in the number of citations. On July 20 there were as many as 27, and as of now there are 13 (listed below). Kudos to those working on the article for narrowing the scope to of the article to focus on the most verifiable info. I'd encourage all those !voting here to review the current version of the article, which is much improved from the article we were discussing a couple weeks back. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "England, Andrews Newspaper Index Cards, 1790-1976". www.ancestry.com. 16 October 1944.
- Vaidya, Abhay (15 March 2017). Who Killed Osho. Om Books International. pp. 51–53; 81–83. ISBN 978-93-86410-02-3.
- "Guru's uncertain health improves en route to Oregon (part 6 of 20)". OregonLive.com.
- Reed, Christopher (22 Jun 1988). "From Lewisham to enlightenment". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. p. 23. ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878.
- Pomfret, John (20 May 1990). "With Free-Love Guru Dead, India Commune Goes Mainstream". Los Angeles Times.
- Silman, Anna (24 April 2018). "Bhagwan's Doctor Gives His Take on Wild Wild Country". The Cut.
- "Former Aides to Guru in Oregon Plead Guilty to Numerous Crimes". The New York Times. 23 July 1986.
- Zaitz, Les (April 21, 2011). "Utopian dreams die in murderous mood". The Oregonian.
- "Escaping the Bhagwan". WA Today. World Australia. 9 April 2009.
- Mehta, Sunanda (15 April 2018). "Guns and Roses: Osho's disciples recall their days in the wild, wild country". The Indian Express. Indian Express Limited. OCLC 70274541.
- Vaidya, Abhay (19 September 2013). "Osho's will surfaces mysteriously 23 years after death; sparks controversy". Firstpost. Network18 Group.
- "England & Wales, Civil Registration Marriage Index, 1916-2005". www.ancestry.com. 1970.
- Aderet, Ofer; Shubert, Omer (2018-05-17). "'Wild, Wild Country': Meet the Holocaust Survivor and Archnemesis of Ma Anand Sheela". Haaretz.

Yes, quite a shame, probably quite a few discussion participants just glanced at some of the article's earliest sourcing, while we were still trying to piece together a narrative. I'd still vote to keep this article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE "In my opinion, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Severe concerns with notability as well. Onkuchia (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Wallbridge

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

After removing a couple of claims which have failed verification the article no longer indicates notability. Laun chba ller 10:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a long-time ghost producer Mr. Wallbridge is probably responsible for some notable dance tracks... there's articles here from Billboard [6] and DJ Mag [7] about his involvement in ghost production but it means we'll never know what those songs were, and never have any RS to prove his role in them. None of his own records have ever charted, so it's likely that this article will be deleted due to lack of credible sources. This BBC clip [8] is only 20 seconds long and tells you nothing more than what's in the paragraph of text alongside it. Otherwise there are various EDM websites like YourEDM [9] and EDM Sauce [10], and I don't think we've ever really established whether these pass RS or not.

If Mr. Wallbridge's article gets deleted, the article for his album The Inner Me should be deleted as well. Richard3120 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "probably" is the most important word in that sentence. Wikipedia requires that all material be attributable to reliable, published sources. If he has genuinely produced that many hit records, then having another should be a Wikipedia article for old rope, but for now it's too soon.--Laun chba ller 17:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, Wallbridge does have some sources mentioning him in their pages, at Dancing Astronaut, YourEDM, and Billboard which I would generally cite as reliable. Page looks very sparse at the moment and would require a complete rewrite if it were to stay in the mainspace. Perhaps move it to draft for someone to rewrite it? (Note to the editor above, EDM Sauce is not a reliable source since it's a blog) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANode (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the status of EDM Sauce, I appreciate it. The problem I see is that although the sources mentioned above are reliable, the content is weak or primary source material. The Billboard, DJ Mag and YourEDM sources are essentially the same thing, and are reporting on a video made by Mr. Wallbridge in which he talks about how he supposedly produced ten no. 1 records on Beatport and why he isn't going to be a ghost producer any more – that's a primary source, and there is no means of verifying his claims in the video. The Dancing Astronaut hits are mostly passing mentions of the "Ashley Wallbridge has a new record out" type. My concern is that even if the article is rewritten, we don't really have anything much more than "Ashley Wallbridge is a DJ and producer who has made lots of records, some of them in collaboration with other producers, and none of them have ever charted on any national chart. He also claims to have made ten records that made number one on a non-notable chart, although his claims cannot be verified." Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, I agree that we cannot get very far with the content available as of now. Recently, I wrote a section here on Gareth Emery's page that discussed about CVNT5, a satire project that Wallbridge and him decided to do together in 2016. It's not much, but still counts as content for the Wallbridge page. Is it notable enough to save this page? aNode (discuss) 05:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 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) 23:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 19:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apart from the other sources, he has been a featured artist in DJ Mag (the reliable and authoritative source on DJs, I believe) at least twice[11][12], plus once in their Japanese edition[13]. Fram (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a close call, but I do think that the sources Richard3120 provided, as well as the information that Fram provided, together are enough to meet the notability guidelines. We do need to add these sources to the article, though, as the current sourcing is rather poor.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whether to merge can continue to be discussed. Sandstein 07:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apocryphal biographies in the Dictionary of National Biography

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

Editor-generated content that started as a critique of a single specific DNB entry and was subsequently renamed to allow for similar critiques of other DNB articles. There is no reference that points to these as examples of a notable phenomenon, it seems entirely to be Original Research/Synth based on the editors' subjective conclusion of what type of correction renders an earlier entry 'apocryphal'. The only references are to the original DNB article and the new ODNB article. This is not an encyclopedic topic, it is a listing of corrigenda and uses as its primary raison d'etre a direct in-text reference to a Wikipedia category. Agricolae (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make into a list. The article is making some valid points, but might be easier to read if re-typed as a list. Vorbee (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article may be making valid points, but that is not the role of Wikipedia and its editors. They are expressly prohibited from making points if there isn't a source that has made that exact point that they are citing. Any list of apocryphal DNB pages would be subjective, in terms of what degree of modification rises to the level of making an entry apocryphal. Likewise, there are innumerable old books that contain errors, and lots of instances where newer editions correct material in older editions, but this does not a valid topic make - it is not Wikipedia's role to point out errors in old books by comparing a new edition to an old one. Agricolae (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, to have a list 'List of apocryphal biographies', we need sources that say 'this biography is apocryphal' (and preferably one that says 'these biographies are apocryphal' to indicate that the subject is notable) - we don't get to decide based on criteria that we ourselves have arbitrarily set what represents an 'apocryphal biography' and what doesn't, as would be required by such a page or list, any more than we get to decide which biographies are poorly written, which biographies contain bias, etc., without an explicit statement to that effect in a source. Agricolae (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main Dictionary of National Biography article. It already has sections on Supplements and revisions and the change to Oxford Dictionary of National Biography including 'an ongoing programme of assessing proposed corrections or additions'. If the publication itself has changed or deleted an entry, isn't that a reliable, if rather primary, source? Cavrdg (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DNB, no need to have a separate article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no objection to merging in the short term. There is, I think, sufficient scholarly coverage of these items that in due course they might unbalance the main DNB article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

You say there is enough coverage of these items, but just about all of the examples currently listed are editor-generated, comparing the two editions of DNB and deciding that the difference renders the original version apocryphal - pure WP:Original Research. I don't think anyone is questioning that some of the accounts in the original DNB were problematic, that is part of the reason they did a new edition, but the fact that recent editors found errors in a 19th century compendium is hardly noteworthy, let alone worth a page identifying ones that some editor deems eggregious. Agricolae (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dictionary of National Biography I think, but it needs to be trimmed before merging. I don't think the individual entries need separate sub-sections, a simple mention is enough. Hzh (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename -- I do not see why Kirkman Finlay should be "apocryphal". Gentleman's Magazine is as good a source as a newspaper, but his notability may be less than once through. MacDuff may indeed be a literary invention: it is a question of how far Shakespeare went beyond his sources. Brus may well be a real person but NN, save by inheritance. "Dubious" might be a better epithet than Apocryphal. However, the question is what to do with the content, which is a historiographic discussion of three items, none of which appear to have a substantive WP article. Merging to the DNB article would unbalance it; or leave a list with no adequate explanation of its significance. A mere list would provide no opportunity for the necessary historiography to appear in WPO. The criterion for inclusion may be articles in original DNB that were not carried forward to ODNB. Almost all articles were carried forward to ODNB: some were rewritten largely from scratch; others were amended; some were merged into "family" articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be rough agreement not to have a straight delete, but there is still a question to be answered on merge/keep (potentially with a rename)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 19:56, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Madden

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

Notable only for one event, a crime for which he was not, as far as I can tell, ever convicted and which is only sourced to a student newspaper. Article subject has requested deletion via OTRS. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He is part of a larger trend of MSU faculty and band faculty in general having forced relations with students. He may not like the truth of his crimes being published, but neither does Larry Nassar or so many others. Wikipedia has a civic duty to keep the evils at MSU exposed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?What crimes has he been convicted of? Wikipedia has a civic duty not to function as a public pillory. It's conduct is determined by its policies, in this case WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:PERPETRATOR, at most borderline for WP:PROF, and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going by WP:PERPETRATOR would be going by WP:BLP1E. Yet, subject passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The subject has been famous long before the alleged violation and notability is not temporary in Wikipedia. The reference in the article to the alleged violation appears to be very brief and neutral, without any trace of defamation. If the text needs improvement, it should be improved: AfD is not clean up. As such, per WP:BIOSELF, the text offers no grounds for the article's subject to demand deletion. Note that WP:BLPD (Biographies of living persons, where the subject is of marginal notability, may be deleted by any administrator if the subject of the biography requests deletion, etc) is a failed proposal. -The Gnome (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article had ten years worth of existence prior to the one event for which the nominator states he is only notable. I believe that he was notable then and would remain so now. We must tread carefully regarding the issues surrounding his departure from MSU, but I can't support removing the article altogether. Strikerforce^Talk 19:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears this is not one event, he was suspended several times for misconduct, over at least two years. I will add references directly to the article. Ifnord (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with User:Johnpacklambert about Wikipedia having a civic duty to expose evil. That goes contrary to WP:NPOV. On the other hand, I don't see how this meets WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which only applies to relatively unknown, non-public figures. The subject has been written about, given talks where he's introduced as a celebrity guest, and has pages on soundcloud and on itunes. I think those are enough to qualify you as a public figure. I found all of those by searching with a date restriction of 2016 or earlier. That being said, we do need to be very careful to back up everything with rigorous sources. I've marked a few statements in the article which need sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass these categories? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - the only notability comes from the texting incident and the fallout, including him resigning. The coverage and related interest of this incident, which is primarily regional in nature, partially stems from the Zeitgeist, which lumps this in with other more notable scandals that were much more harmful, such as Larry Nassar's. That doesn't make this one more notable. I don't see serving as the director of the college band or school symphony as being notable, without associated coverage and reliable sources. The latter items fail WP:GNG. This is clearly a case of WP:BLP1E. I just made some edits to correct misleading and incorrect info, but don't see this being notable enough to keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's rare that I think that I need to overrule a numerical majority (15:6 per the autocount) on the basis of strength of argument, but this is such a case. The "keep" opinions are almost all variations on the theme of "anybody who is among the oldest persons is automatically notable". Howewer, our WP:BIO inclusion guidelines do not provide for an automatic assumption of notability in such cases, as they do e.g. for certain politicians. A search of the guideline talk page archives indicates that there has been repeated discussion about adding such a presumption of notability, but no proposal has ever obtained consensus. That being the case, the very solid community-wide consensus about who is (or not) presumed to be notable by virtue of some personal characteristic cannot be overruled by local consensus at this AfD (see WP:CONLEVEL), and I need to discount almost all "keep" opinions as being at odds with established guidelines. I advise those who wanted to keep this article to start a WP:RFC about whether consensus has changed and certain very old people should now presumed to be notable. Sandstein 07:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiyo Miyako

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

Thoroughly unencyclopedic "article" on a woman whose only claim to fame is that for a few months this year she was the oldest living person. The only things we can say about her life are birth- and death-dates and -places and the "fact" that she "credited eating eel, drinking red wine, and never smoking for her longevity." At best, this could be a redirect to List of the verified oldest people. Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being notable for longevity alone is notable if she's at least 115. Georgia guy (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would greatly appreciate if you could point me to the guideline or policy that says this. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such guideline. Numerous articles on supercentenarians have been deleted precisely because there is NO inherent notability for being extremely old. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to some of those deletion discussions that closed as delete, please? Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's just one, there are more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Verona Johnston. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People/Article_alerts/Archive. Have a look there. Heaps of deletes/redirects. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the oldest person in the world is indeed notable, & the article appears to have the requisite number of citations to support notability. Regarding WP:1EVENT, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." In this instance it is more appropriate that the article be written about the person, since writing about only her tenure as the world's oldest person would be absurd. Peaceray (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - This isn't going to be deleted, she is notable as a former oldest person in the world so at the very least a redirect would be in order (No need to drag this out for a week). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Why didn't you just open a redirect discussion over at Talk:Chiyo Miyako? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because such discussion usually only attract the hobbyists that create this kind of fancruft anyway. This will get more attention and, I am sure, more serious !votes than "this is notable!" So I am very much opposed to any attempt to not let this run the full 7 days. --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would sway a closing editor's argument for a discussion if they were going by opinion weights. Do you see a biased issue with the rfc (request for comment) process? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC. WP:1EVENT is irrelevant because there is no separate event. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1EVENT applies very much here. The one event is becoming very old. Something that just happens to someone, regardless of whether she likes red wine or not. And on top of that, we just have nothing of interest to say as this person apparently led a thoroughly uneventful life. --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:1EVENT does not apply because there is no separate event, for which the subject was a small part. The subject's aging and status is an attribute of that person. If that has made them famous, as it has, then they pass WP:BASIC. There is no separate event article and so no competition. Andrew D. (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The logic that having been the oldest person in the world for "only a few months" makes her non-notable is flawed, since she was the oldest person in Kanagawa for a lot longer than that, and she is currently the eighth oldest person ever (the highest person on that list not to have a standalone article is #26, who is one of only four named individuals in the top 50 not to be linked). The article does need work, though, since "のんきにすること" does not translate to "eating eel, drinking red wine, and never smoking" (this source doesn't appear to mention smoking, mentions simply that she likes wine -- not "red" wine -- and eel, and does not say anything about what she attributes her longevity to; then again, it is cut off mid-sentence so it's possible the second page verifies all that content). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes WP:Basic. Having been officially named by Guinness World Records as the oldest person living and the oldest female living is notable. Also, it passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for someone who has became the oldest (verified) living person sometime in their life, they're definitely notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 22:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This Afd proposal is a waste of everyone's time. Oska (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:Basic cbratbyrudd (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Up till now, all "keep" !votes are non-policy based, but are different versions of WP:ILIKEIT, with unfounded claims that just being very old makes somebody inherently notable. However, even if we would accept that this person is notable, look at the article. There is absolutely nothing of encyclopedic interest in there apart from birth/death dates and places, which very easily can be accomodated in the List of the verified oldest people. Look at the references. I mean, really, look at them. The one in the Mirror, for example. All we learn from that "article" is that her family called her a "chatty godess" and that she liked sushi and eel. Or the Japan Times, which devotes two (2) whole sentences to Miyako, part of those talking about her predecessor and then talking about the current oldest persons. No biographical info whatsoever apart from the already mentioned birth/death dates and places. So, really? Is that really the kind of material that we'd like to build a biography on? The fact is that we have nothing to write about Miyako and given that more coverage is unlikely to follow, we'll never get beyond her liking for eel. --Randykitty (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed two of the references (one she isn't mentioned and another was used twice). There's also one source (ref 2) that tells us the following about her: "The 116-year-old Chiyo Miyako lives in Kanagawa, Japan." I'm not kidding... CommanderLinx (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's false. For example, my position is based on WP:BASIC which is a standard guideline. It's Randykitty's position which is weak, being essentially the argument to avoid of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew D. (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You just say "meets BASIC", but as far as I see, it doesn't. And WP:NOPAGE applies here, too. And my argument is not UNENCYCLOPEDIC, if you think that I expressed myself not clear enough. My argument is that we have nothing that is encyclopedic, which is not the same thing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to this table (better redirect target) at the Oldest People article where she is appropriately listed. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here. Despite the presence of ~~NINE~~ SEVEN sources, they tell us nothing of interest other than the absolute bare basics: her name, that she was born, she became the oldest in the world, and then she died. Throwing in some fluffy longevity trivia that strains to pad this article (~~oldest in her prefecture,~~ she ate eel) means this article is never going to expand what can easily be summarised in a list/table somewhere. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update to my vote above, I've removed a sentence when she became the oldest in her prefecture as the sources doesn't mention her and another because it was used twice. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What the fuck??!! This is now the ~~second~~third AfD of a recent death in as many days. How insensitive! It appears as if we have lost all basis in the real world. Users need to realize there are people watching, visiting these pages and finding a discussion about whether or not the person was worthy of even a mention. These deletion discussions can wait. Let the families mourn in peace. Unless it qualifies for CSD, it can keep for a few weeks. Please close this discussion as a ~~Speedy no consensus~~. Ignore all the rules and close this. It is harmful to the outside world and the perception of Wikipedia in peoples mind.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just drop it, will you? As you have been told at WP:AN, this discussion does not belong here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't be ridiculous. Give a policy/guideline-based argument but not this. Really, we can never delete a bio of somebody who just passed away? And congratulations on formulating a new closing rationale ("speedy no consensus"), never heard that one before! --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:[14]

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by: ... 2. Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest.

Emphasis mine. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that apply here? Far as I can see, nobody has said anything unbecoming about Miyako, just that getting very old is not something that in and of itself meets our inclusion criteria, which is more a general thing than just this person. Nobody is saying anything here against human dignity and given that Miyako was so private herself that we don't find anything to say in this article means that we're not violating her privacy either. I'm sorry, but this is silly. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of the verified oldest people per CommanderLinx. I struck my opinion above as this isn't going to be speedily closed, commander's argument swayed me here. What is the reader taking away from the article other than she was born, became the oldest person in the world, and then died? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being the oldest person alive is a powerful claim of notabilty, as is being #8 on the list of the oldest people who ever lived. The basic facts are verified and editors who can read Japanese sources can improve the article. As for redirecting to List of the verified oldest people, that is a bad idea since there is no prose about the individuals on that list. Consider the case of Emma Verona Johnston mentioned as an example by the nominator above. That redirects to List of supercentenarians from the United States, where there are three paragraphs of prose about her life. Why should we have three paragraphs of prose about an American woman who lived to 114 but no prose at all about a Japanese woman who lived to 117 and was the oldest person in the world? That defies logic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Could it be that we have three paragraphs about Johnston because there are reliable sources to support that content, but no reliable sources about Miyako that go beyond place and date of birth, place and date of death, period when she was the oldest living person, and her appreciation for eel, wine, and calligraphy? This discussion would be snow closed as keep if sources were presented that supported a decent (if short) biography, I suspect. EdChem (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem whatsoever with a brief article based on the information that is now in the sources, and editors who read Japanese can expand the article. For example, the article does not now mention her husband and the fact that his railroad job allowed her to travel extensively. We have plenty of articles about Olympic athletes of 100 years ago that are very brief as well. Olympic athletes are notable and Wikipedia ought to have biographies of them, and the world's oldest people too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have re-written the Johnston piece into one paragraph, adding several references, and it is clear to me that there are others to be found. She did a videotaped interview that was used as part of a book on centenarians and was written up for her involvement in supporting education for women. If there are similar references for Miyako then a meaningful if small bio could be written... but are there? EdChem (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Cullen~~Cullen328: the fact that the List of the verified oldest people is not a very good list is a strong argument to improve that list, not an argument to keep silly permastubs (she liked eel! she did calligraphy!). --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty: FYI user:Cullen last edited in 2009. I think you meant to ping user:Cullen328… :) EdChem (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did, thanks Ed! --Randykitty (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, "silly" is your subjective opinion which I do not share and "permastub" is deletionist slang that has no basis in policy. You have criticized others for making arguments not based in policy and here you are, doing the same thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slang it may be, but it is very much based in policy. WP:N (at WP:NOPAGE) has this to say about "permanent stubs": "Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." (Linking to the essay WP:Permastub. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Randykitty, WP:N is not policy; it is a guideline. We have only three core content policies, which are verifiability, no original research and the neutral point of view. This article is in full compliance with those three core content policies. Also, the article is not a permastub because it does not include any information about her marriage, her husband's railroad career and their travels together, all discussed in reliable sources. When I expand the article to include that information, the "permastub" argument will be null and void. Also worth noting is that neither the guideline language at WP:NOPAGE nor the essay WP:PERMASTUB calls for the deletion of such stubs. The essay point out that paper encyclopedias are full of such stubs, which can be entirely appropriate. As for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of this particular article, it should be clear to you that many highly experienced editors disagree with this deletion attempt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My, aren't we the wikilawyer. Fine, it's a guideline. !Votes should be based on policy or widely accepted guidelines such as WP:N. ANd, yes, probably a little more trivial info can be added to this permastub. And it should be clear to you that several highly experienced editors disagree with you that this indiscriminate information (one of the five pillars, remember) warrants a stand-alone article. --Randykitty (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen and others above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IAR if need be. I believe that being the oldest person on the planet is enough to qualify one for a Wikipedia article. At any rate, deletion would not benefit our readers. Lepricavark (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does this article benefit readers? The only "information" that isn't presented in a table at Oldest people is that she ate eel and did calligraphy. Again, WP:NOPAGE should almost certainly apply here. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As there is NO such notability guideline as WP:NREALLYOLDPEOPLE let alone WP:NWORLDSOLDESTPERSON any such claims by keep voters are merely wishful thinking. As such the notability here rests on whether there is significant coverage to justify an article. There clearly isn't, therefore WP:NOPAGE applies. A REDIRECT to a mini-bio in List of Japanese supercentenarians might be appropriate, although once the longevity fanfluff is removed there is less content than some of the bios already there. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a comment about this deletion in the thread about Chiyo Miyako on the 110 club website (for those that do not know it, it is the refuge of longevity topic-banned editors and cannot be linked here as it is a blocked website). It would be interesting to know how many of the keep voters are here as a result of that comment. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to DerbyCountyinNZ. Your sarcasm is unhelpful. Lack of compliance with a subject-specific notability guideline does not mean that an article should be deleted. Many topic areas are not covered by subject-specific notability guidelines. Being the oldest person in the world is a powerful claim of notability and if you cannot see that, then all I can do is to encourage you to re-think your position. Speaking only for myself, nobody canvassed me to this AfD debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A claim to notability doesn't justify an article if there is no significant coverage and no substantive content. There is currently nothing worthwhile in this article that a reader could not get from any list entry. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has anyone tried checking for sources added on other language versions of Wikipedia? She has a page at ja:wiki for example here... [15]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

The section in that article on longevity records is specifically excluded (by WP:CONSENSUS) in English wiki articles. Remove all the other longevity trivia/synth/OR and you're left with the same as the English version. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but are there additional corroborating citations that can be used? Do any of the additional citations have anything else that might be useful in the article? Peaceray (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, all sources there, here, and everywhere repeat the same things over and over. The only additional information available is the name of her husband Shoji and that he worked for the Japanese National Railways.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep One of the ten oldest people who ever lived as of her death. What’s there is well sourced and well written. 1779Days (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several "delete" or "merge/redirect" !votes from editors in good standing, so "snow" does not apply here at all. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that is in reference to the 77.77% (as of 05:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)) of editors who are indicating to keep. Very small chance of snowballs being made under these conditions. Peaceray (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1779Days: Umm ... I agree with you on whether the article should be kept or deleted, but you obviously didn't read either my comment above or any of the sources you claim support "what's there". I just don't think half the article being quasi-sourced OR-speculation is grounds for deletion, per NOTCLEANUP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rationale for this deletion debate is flawed because it relies on the argument that the article is "unencyclopedic", whatever that means. According to Arguments to avoid in deletion debates, a widely respected essay, "the terms 'unencyclopedic', and its flip-side 'encyclopedic', are too general to be useful in deletion discussions". We do not delete articles based on the vague and general personal opinions of the nominator. I also object to the use of the term "fancruft" by the nominator in this debate. According to our essay on fancruft, "The term 'fancruft' is most commonly applied to fictional works and pop culture." Chiyo Miyako was a real human being and not the subject of popular culture. Describing her biography as "fancruft" is disrespectful and inappropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong WP:SNOW Keep per Cullen and others above. One of the ten oldest people to have ever lived, and for a while, the oldest living person in the entire world. STRONG, STRONG Keep (WP:SNOW). Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yup, it's clear that you really, really, REALLY like this. --Randykitty (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Randykitty, this comment does nothing to further your argument, & is starting to sound like a personal attack. Please consider WP:CIVIL. Peaceray (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no personal attack in sight here, nobody made any personal remark here. And !voting "strong" without giving any argument based in policy or guidelines is not going to make your !vote somehow count more. --Randykitty (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, I disagree. The editor who indicated a Strong Keep cited WP:SNOW, which is "an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules (policy) pages." You may seek to denigrate by tossing WP:ILIKEIT at that editor, but I do not believe you cannot reasonably deny that Paintspot is referring to policy. Peaceray (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chiyo Miyako was the 8th oldest person who ever lived. Every other person who was in the top 16 has their own WP article. The oldest person who doesn't have their own article, Ana Maria Vela Rubio, was well over a year younger than Chiyo Miyako when she died. Also, every single oldest living person since November 2003 has their own article. Precedent says that we keep this one. 1779Days (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay & "is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, although it may be consulted for assistance." Peaceray (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No its not a policy or guideline, but that and WP:WAX are used by the community as convincing arguments. I keep seeing keep arguments point to other articles, but not directly answering the main concern. What is the reader taking away from this article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think discussions about consistency are valid & should not be lightly dismissed. This ought to be considered, though not in a complete absence of other factors. Regarding what the reader takes away from this particular article, anyone who is researching the 25 oldest people ever (as defined from List of the verified oldest people) ought to be able to find this information easily. Perhaps the reader wants to know about diet, health habits, marital status, country of birth & residence, etc. I certainly do. The key to notability for Chiyo Miyako is that less than 20 people out of billions have lived beyond 115 years. As per a common definition wiktionary:notable#Etymology_2, notable is "Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished." Living to 117 is notable; I cannot understanding why anyone would think that it is not notable. That Chiyo Miyako may have lived an otherwise unnotable life is irrelevant to the fact that she is one of a unique group to have lived so long. Indeed, it may be that because she lived what may be appear to be a dull life to many may precisely be why she lived to 117. That deserves to be something that any reader who is interested then should be able to find easily. For me, that is the purpose of an encyclopedia, to be comprehensive. Peaceray (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are making the classical error of taking the dictionary definition of notable, whereas here at WP, the word "notable" has a very definite, but different, meaning. Please see WP:N for a more complete exposé. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Notability states Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice", I find Randykitty's assertion to be disingenuous. But let's continue with most of the General notability guideline criteria for argument's sake.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.Y (No original research here)
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.Y
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.Y
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.Y

I fail to find that en.Wikipedia's notability criteria is at variance with the common sense understanding of notability. I believe that Chiyo Miyako fits the criteria for notability guidelines.

Peaceray (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as has been said before, even if for the sake of argument we would accept that this person meets WP:N, then that oter pesky part of WP:N still applies: NOPAGE, because we have nothing of interest to write (her husband worked for the railways! She liked eel!) --Randykitty (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that would buttress my earlier point. We are not going to see diet, health habits, marital status, & place of birth covered in List of the verified oldest people, are we? Those are all questions of importance to readers interested in gerontology. Therefore the answers to the WP:NOPAGE questions Does other information provide needed context? & Do related topics provide needed context? would be no, indicating a separate article is warranted. Peaceray (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Refraining from sarcasm with difficulty). Given that the average gerontology fan is interested in huge amounts of trivia (as witnessed in a certain off-wiki forum) I wouldn't be surprised if they were interested in such "important" questions, however I doubt that the average reader with a passing interest in the oldest people (rather than gerontology in general) would be as concerned. In any case the info inthe article as it stands could easily be incorporated into List of Japanese supercentenarians#People as has been done in other cases where the subject did not merit a stand-alone article. Your argument on this basis is not convincing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(TalkContribs)} 04:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DerbyCountyinNZ, the rub here is that all the information that is of interest of a casual reader interested in gerontology (diet, health habits, marital status, place of birth, & the fact that someone was the eldest person alive at the time of their death) is all information that could easily be represented in an infobox or an expandable list, & not much to flush out beyond the bones of an article. My professional life has included designing databases (I am all about that lossless-join thing) & being a reference librarian, both occupations that are about preserving information of interest. The real solution would be to put all this info into Wikidata then pull it into Wikipedia via modules or templates to produce a directory-like listing either in an expandaded list or a standalone article. While many other language Wikipedias embrace this, unfortunately English Wikipedia has been very resistant to this, although I think an individual project like WOP could initiate it on its own. Come up with a way of presenting Rank, Name, Sex, Birth date, Death date, Age, Place of death, Place of residence, Place of birth, Marital status, brief description of diet, brief description of health habits, & an indicator if someone was the eldest person alive at the time of their death, then I do not really care whether it is a stand-alone article or a list. The only reason we have stand-alone articles for many of these folks is that the current lists are inadequate for the task. Peaceray (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While understanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, everyone else that lived to be over 115 has an article. I don't know what probability that is to live to be that old, but it's pretty small. I consider her notable. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to being correct. Two people in the current List of the verified oldest people do not have articles, and three are redirects to mini-bios in their respective country lists, all of those bios having (arguably?) more content than the current Miyako article. Apart from that even the GRG admits that "not all supercentenarians are known to researchers at a given time", so it is not "everyone else that lived to be over 115" it is only those listed here (which is a clone of the GRG list). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing though is that those article have or should have more content to them per WP:NOPAGE. In the cases of Giuseppina Projetto, Ana María Vela Rubio (both over 115) those are redirects as there isn't enough information other than the basics to warrant a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Giuseppina Projetto nor Ana María Vela Rubio are in the top ten for longevity. Chiyo Miyako sits at #8. Also, another piece of information that gets lost if Chiyo Miyako was subsumed into the list is that she was the eldest person alive at the time of her death. That is not captured in List of the verified oldest people & is an additional argument for keeping this as its own article. Peaceray (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick KB check in my sandbox... here were the results:

[16] Giuseppina Projetto (2,832 bytes)
[17] Chiyo Miyako (2,976 bytes)

You are trying to say that critical information is being lost? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are diet, health habits, marital status, place of birth, & the fact that someone was the eldest person alive at the time of their death critical information? I would say the answer is yes if one is even a casual reader of gerontology, particularly the eldest person status. How do you preserve this information? Peaceray (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time we stop privaleging longevity with articles that say nothing substantive about the individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, this is not about privileging longevity. This is about preserving information about diet, health habits, marital status, place of birth, & the fact that someone was the eldest person alive at the time of their death. How do you propose preserving that? Peaceray (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peaceray's argument above on notability as "worthy of notice" as less than 20 people out of billions [are known to] have lived beyond 115 years. There will be significant information lost if this page is deleted or redirected. The information contained within is of interest to a significant portion of our readers interested in longevity. (Not me, I plan on dying young! Living to old age is my nightmare.) And the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The "significant information" lost if redirected to oldest people is she had a husband who travelled and she ate eel. And it being WP:INTERESTING is not a reason to keep. Again with WP:NOPAGE this article is never going to expand beyond what is easily summarised in a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without delving into the depths of the Longevity issues on Wikipedia, here is a point that those in the "of course the world's oldest person is notable" camp might like to consider. Who says she is/was the world's oldest person? Simple right? Guinness "confirmed" this just before her death. End of story. Wrong! Guinness has previously stated that someone was the WOP, only to later to retract that attribution (Shigechyo Izumi). That was back when they did their own research. Now they (AFAIK) let the GRG do all their longevity research. So, no problem you might think. In this case when Nabi Tajima died the next oldest "verified" person was Miyako, as was reported widely in WP:RS. And the GRG is more reliable than other sources in this matter right? Except that Elizabeth Bolden was announced to be the WOP by both Guinness and the GRG only for the later identification of María Capovilla to be older. In addition the GRG has previously listed people as verified but with a question mark most of whom were eventually removed, while Mathew Beard was eventually "confirmed" to be "validated". In addition at one point the GRG (through Robert Young) insisted that an English supercentenarian had died when a relative insisted on Wikipedia that she had not. The GRG was in error. So just how reliable IS the GRG??? Two successive RFCs here determined that no preference be given to the GRG over other reliable sources when it comes to the List of oldest living people. Given the edits/rationale behind the edits to List of oldest living people and Chiyo Miyako on July 25 (I have to note the multiple violations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW for the edits I reverted in both cases), I have to wonder if the GRG should even be a considered a WP:RS at all. Are other editors still happy to blindly follow the GRG and Guinness when it comes to "verified" oldest (living) people? And if so surely it would be appropriate to define exactly what criteria determines notability in such cases. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response You raise interesting questions, DerbyCountyinNZ, but those questions cannot possibly be resolved in an AfD debate about an individual article. As for the reliability of "GRG and Guinness", we rely on widely acceptable reliable sources to do that work of evaluating reliability for us. In this case, the accuracy of the facts reported by Guinness were evaluated and republished by the Associated Press and then by dozens of reliable sources worldwide. I recall Time magazine, the Washington Post, and Newsweek magazine, among many others. It is not Wikipedia's job to reject the reporting of reliable sources worldwide about supercentennarians or any other topic. It is our job to summarize those sources, accurately and concisely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Rushed). The point is that there are other Reliable Sources who claim that someone else is or might be the WOP. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, DerbyCountyinNZ, if sources as reliable as the Associated Press and the Washington Post article exist and assert that she was not actually the verifiable oldest person in the world, then those sources should both be brought to the debate and added to the article. Please produce those sources discussing Chiyo Miyako now, and explain why they are reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain "why they are reliable"? Surely the onus is on users to explain which sources are NOT reliable? Every current entry in Longevity claims#Recent is as far as I am aware (though I have not checked, it's too much of a fanfluff page for me to be that bothered) reliably sourced. I would certainly have removed them if I thought they failed WP:RS. And as one of the criteria for inclusion is that they be claimed to be older than the "verified" oldest living person, then any one of them could in fact be the WOP. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I think reliable sources for WOP is ripe for discussion at WT:WOP. Peaceray (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article provides nothing of encyclopedic value that cannot be found on lists in other articles. Information like, "She credited eating eel, drinking red wine, and never smoking for her longevity" is pure fancruft (as well as being unfounded original research provided by Miyako herself - despite the statement being sourced, in a sense, at heart it really is self-published, which is another violation of Wikipedia policy) and has no encyclopedic value, nor does the fact that she and her husband traveled a lot thanks to his railroad job. Longevity is not a contest, so there does not need to be a fancruft article for every new worlds oldest person. This article should be deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I know I'm not supposed to express an opinion in a close, but really, this should have been speedied under WP:BLP. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wajahat Kazmi

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

References only point to the allegations against him, which under WP:BLP1E, do not justify a bio of the subject. A preliminary news search didn't unearth many articles about the subject, only articles written by him. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor who created this seems to have a solitary interest in this subject and others in his family. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Journalists are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they meet basic GNG. Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines 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) 11:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stories written by himself are not sufficient for establishing his notability. Genuine Art (talk) 06:36, 31 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Rights Forum

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

Confusing article for 12 years. Might not meet WP:NCORP. Includes POV, advertising and weasel words. No inline sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good catch by the Nom, article somehow escaped for 12 years. Delete as it fails WP:NGO WP:NORG. Even WP:GNG is failed. The group is claimed to be located in Indian Punjab and has zero search results in the reliable sources. The author is the Chairman of the committee that is the subject of the article, clear violation of WP:COI and explains the promotional tone of the said, article. ~~Also the user page is clearly promotional with mobile number and all, can the page User:DSGill be deleted as well ?~~ Promo userpage now deleted. --DBig Xray 19:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A good article cannot be written without enough WP:SOAPBOXING and that is not our motive. Kraose (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this is the best source I could find, and in my opinion it does not have enough substance for a standalone article. Vanamonde (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wonder how it went unnoticed for so long. – numbermaniac 08:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S.J. Goldsmith

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

The only sources cited for this biography are four newspaper obituaries, without urls. There are no inline citations, despite a request nearly two years ago, so it is not possible to determine which facts in the article are verifiable. All that can be seen is that he was a minor journalist and writer; there is nothing in the article to establish his significance. RolandR (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much of the biographical detail was taken from the 1986 Biographical Dictionary of Yiddish Writers, and I have added the source. I don't have access to the obituaries listed under References, but I formatted all his books and note that one of his works was entered in the Library of Congress, so I believe he is notable. Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obituaries in the London Times, the Telegraph and other papers validate his notability. As does his inclusion in the Biographical Dictionary of Yiddish Writers. I'll try to make time to do a little sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obituaries in major national newspapers = notable. I can confirm that he had a full obit in The Times, although he is referred to there as Sam Goldsmith, which suggests the article should be moved. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He wrote under several names. I'll add "also known as Sam" to the page. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great. Could you also help me indicate that link name of his daughter Tessa Rajak to her Wikipedia page. Culmus (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe obsevations by two users above are correct, that obituaries in UK quality national newspapers are accorded to on;y significant figures. The Telegraph obituary is, like the Times, a full obituary, with photograph. The subject's notable contributions are spelled out in the obituaries. They can be readily accessed. Culmus (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Libra Group#Hotels and hospitality. Any content to be merged may be retrieved from the page history Vanamonde (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Hotels

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

small hotel chain. Hardly any sources about the chain itself, so fails WP:GNG (there are plenty sources about the individual hotels but that does not make the chain notable). The Banner talk 17:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To Libra Group. Will fit nicely under the articles 2.3 Hotels and hospitality section. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To Libra Group. Spleodrach (talk) 09:30, 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 keep. There appears sufficient consensus that there are enough reasonable targets to warrant a disambig page. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riseholme (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page is not needed. The college and the recipe are partial title matches; and after removing them, one would be left with just a WP:TWODABS page with a primary topic. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People often refer to colleges by a single name ("Riseholme" in this case). Disambiguation pages are useful, and another potential article to add to the list would be Riseholme Hall, a Grade II listed building described here. Listed buildings are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, it's possible the college may be referred to in this way too (c.f. Eton College) Bob talk 22:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even after I demoted two partial matches to See also (and nominated one for deletion itself), there are still three legit entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riseholme Hall is a PTM of the village. Riseholme College appears on Riseholme and Lobster à la Riseholme appears on Riseholme (fictional village) (and is also at AFD). Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a see also to Riseholme Hall from Riseholme. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: colleges are often referred to by name ("She studied at Riseholme": is that University of Riseholme or Riseholme College of Art or what?), so merit a place on a dab page. PamD 13:58, 28 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 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Riseholme Hall is also a valid entry for this DAB, and not a PTM, since buildings are often referred to without the non-unique part of their name ("X building/hall/centre" is often just simplified to X. Another valid entry would be the Riseholme Campus of the University of Lincoln, which is also referred to as just Riseholme.[18][19] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid disambiguation page. James500 (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Juncaj

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

non notable ,doesn't pass GNG JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Amateur soccer players don't qualify for WP:NSPORTS and no evidence of sourcing to meet WP:GNG. MarginalCost (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and other contributions by Mdre19 about players on Drita SC clearly don't meet notability guidelines, either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:20, 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 keep. Lots of opinions here, which I'll summarize as: The keep camp is arguing that this clearly meets WP:LISTN, while the delete camp counters by saying this clearly does not meet WP:LISTN. I don't see any particularly killer arguments on either side, so I'm largely going with head count. Many people have pointed out that this could use better sourcing and curation. Anyway, is there really anybody who hasn't eaten cold pizza for breakfast? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast foods

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

This "List of breakfast foods" is yet another food & beverage related list with same or similar indefinite reach, scoping, and definition problems as
- "List of foods by calorie" (Deleted by AfD)
- "List of breakfast drinks" (Keept by 1'st AfD, likely Deletes by 2'nd AfD)
Note: Such (e.g. the above 3) kind of anything-goes lists stand in contrast to a list like "List of breakfast cereals", which does have tight scope: "breakfast cereals" is a commonly accepted classification of food products, and the actually foods under said classification, are all fairly exclusively eaten at breakfast.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @FeydHuxtable, Andrew Davidson, Northamerica1000, Rhododendrites, Ritchie333, Hijiri88, Spshu, SilkTork, Newslinger, AmericanAir88, Roxy the dog, Ajf773, JohnBlackburne, Dorsetonian, Shadowowl, The Gnome, Tyw7, Lyndaship, Bearian, Reywas92, Alpha3031, Power~enwiki, El cid, el campeador, and XOR'easter:
-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast related item deletions:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 27 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 16:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article suffer the same problem as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination). WP:LISTN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR also applies here. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a long shot but what if we all collaborate and Merge "List of Breakfast drinks" with "List of Breakfast foods" together into one article? AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Merge the two articles, then delete just one. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast items?

🤣 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that sounds excellent. We can also finally take care of these deletions. @Northamerica1000: You like that idea? AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was sarcastic... --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Ha. This isn't a list of breakfast foods, it is a list of foods. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Roxy the dog: Why are you adding more entries to the article after opining for it to be deleted (diff)? You joke, saying "Ha"...this is a list of foods, etc. above, and then after that started adding various foods to the list (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). You also didn't add any sources to verify that these are common breakfast foods. Comes across that you could be potentially adding content to the article to correspond with your opinions in this AfD discussion. (E.g. It's just a list of any foods, so I'll add more indiscriminate entries to further support my stance for deletion). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I eat pizza for breakfast. Why isn't it on the list? I demand pizza be added! And it's heathier than cereal! References: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/pizza-breakfast-cereal-nutrition-healthy-diet-better-sugar-a8187131.html and https://www.health.com/nutrition/pizza-breakfast-challenge.--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added it here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_breakfast_foods&diff=prev&oldid=852253594. There are tons of references to be found from https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pizza+breakfast. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: Having yesterdays pizza leftovers for breakfast is actually not really majorly uncommon - especially true, if the fridge is empty. And what else is in the fridge: Well, here's the "this is breakfast"-guy again. -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. I fail to understand the thinking behind this nomination. We have an article, Breakfast, and this list article supports the main article by providing a verified list of the notable foods eaten at breakfast around the world. It is quite normal for encyclopedias to include information such as the types of food eaten at breakfast. This list does what Wikipedia does best, and creates a useful long list of such foods, rather than limit it to a few examples within the text. See, for example, Encyclopedia.com which contains embedded lists of breakfast foods: "In India, it might mean flatbread with cardamom-scented tea or steamed dumplings with a spicy sauce and coconut chutney (Sahni, p. 104). Mexicans eat huevos rancheros, or scrambled eggs with chilies and salsa, or even menudo, braised tripe, and burritos. In Saudi Arabia, families eat eggs, baked beans, cheese, olives, and ma'soub, or pancakes with bananas, but are also including American cereals." A Google search for "List of breakfast food" returns thousands of such lists. Difficult to get at the thinking behind this nomination. SilkTork (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I can add just about /any/ food to the list and I'm sure there's someone eating it for breakfast. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2323749/50-weirdest-breakfasts-globe-Would-eat-reindeer-instead-cereal.html

I demand to have those food added to the list!

Sarcasm aside, I hope you see the folley of the list. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a phrase on my user page which may assist your thinking: "We are not the internet, we are an encyclopaedia. The difference being: we select, organise, and explain." We may wander in a disorganised world where nothing appears to makes sense. However, reference books and encyclopedias help to frame the world so we can better understand it. There are certain foods which are commonly eaten at breakfast, and these vary around the world. Some people may not know that, which is why it is useful to have a list of such foods. The intention of the list to to help people understand what foods are typically eaten for breakfast. It is up to each of us to make what we will of the opportunity offered by such information, but deleting information because someone doesn't understand the concept is not the right approach. If someone fails to understand the purpose or jurisdiction of a list, then what we need to do is to make it clearer to them. Removing the list is not the right approach as it doesn't inform the ignorant, only makes the ignorance worse. SilkTork (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic obviously passes WP:LISTN and I'll list some sources for avoidance of doubt. The suggestion that breakfast cereals are the only such food which can be listed is ridiculous. Different cultures have their traditional favourites – the full English; the croissant; congee, &c. - and it's easy to find sources which list these such as Traditional breakfasts from around the world. Here's a list of books on the subject and they all naturally list many foods, dishes and drinks. Andrew D. (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast: A History
The English Breakfast: The Biography of a National Meal
The Breakfast Bible
The Breakfast Book
The International Breakfast Book
Around the World on a Breakfast Tray
Handbook for the Breakfast Table
A Study of Industrial Workers' Breakfasts and Lunch Boxes in Ithaca

Do we need an indiscriminate list of breakfast foods? Or just about any foods eaten for breakfast? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should not be deleted because, an editor think because some other editor INDISCRIMINATELY edits (or some editor demand INDISCRIMINATE edits) this article thus the article is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. See such concepts as "undo", edit the article and need RELIABLE SOURCE. Spshu (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT 1, 2, 6, 11 and possibly 10, considering that there are unreferenced things on this list. You can basically add all foods on this list. Example : There are people who eat hamburgers for breakfast^[1], and by this, it should be added to this list. It is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Lists_of_foods -- » Shadowowl | talk 17:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.businessinsider.com/two-percent-of-americans-eat-burgers-for-breakfast-2012-11

Comment – WP:LISTCRUFT is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy. Regarding the notion of WP:REDUNDANTFORK, the Lists of foods article is essentially a lists of lists and main topics article; due to the high number of foods in existence, the Lists of foods article is limited to being organized categorically, based upon the main subcategories within the Foods category page, along with information about primary topics and list article links. It's unclear how this article could be considered as a redundant content fork, because very few of the entries in the list of breakfast foods article are listed on the list page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIR is the policy and more or less have the same wording. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and curated merge to Breakfast. I don't see a simple bulleted list like this as being a particularly useful article or a notable topic as a list; it is currently quite indiscriminate (shrimp? tongue? Sure people around the world can eat them in the morning, but that doesn't make them breakfast foods by themselves) and as shown the the books linked above, hard to pare down especially with a global viewpoint. There are so many redundancies like variations of eggs and regional pastries all listed separately, making it this rather listcrufty and pointless, but the main article could definitely use some improvement with more examples in places and possibly consolidation by similar regions rather than a section for every country. Reywas92^Talk 18:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but seriously rework. I'm not impressed by any of the breakfast-related articles I've seen on Wikipedia* but this subject - unlike List of breakfast drinks - can, I believe, be made into something encyclopaedic. Breakfast is a distinct meal - when restaurants offer an "all day breakfast menu" there is a clear and understood set of items on offer, different from the remaining fare. Therefore, it is reasonable to have an article that covers that. But a British (cooked) breakfast is quite different from a European (mostly uncooked) breakfast is quite different from an American breakfast, etc. The article could (and, IMO, should) discuss that and list examples of items in distinct sets. A purely alphabetical list of a zillion items all mixed up, which we currently have, is useless and indiscriminate and should be reworked - but I don't think it is necessary to delete and start again; this can be fixed by editing. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^*Yes, I know - WP:SOFIXIT Dorsetonian (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What I described as the way forward essentially already is at the breakfast article. So (a) I have reversed my decision and (b) I have subtly changed the earlier comment to cite the breakfast-related articles. Dorsetonian (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel the same about this article as the Drinks one - it makes wikipedia look like a collection of little factoids for a pub quiz. Currently its a collection of things which some RS has said have been eaten for breakfast somewhere sometime. However looking at the example given earlier of another encyclopedia I could see the merit of a country specific list giving what is the conventional breakfast food in that country. Thats a new title and new content though so I'll stick with delete for this one Lyndaship (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination). WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. This article can easily satisfy WP:LISTN, with every entry based on a WP article; any non-notable entries can be deleted as a matter of editing. Such list-based articles have a place on WP per WP:CLN. Requiring an entry to have article on WP with a reliably-sourced claim to being a breakfast food can serve as a reasonable inclusion criterion, so that WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. I don't see any policy-based reasons for deletion. Hence, keep.--{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the most important ~~meal~~ list. There's nothing that can't be fixed by more ~~proving~~ editing. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awful argument -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I agree a List of breakfast foods by country would be better. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article: It's a purely navigational list and falls under 1, 4 and 7 of WP:NOTDIR, and it's far too broad — Adding any content at all would make the page too long. It's navigational purpose can be better served by creating a category, in which case this page can be redirected to it. I really don't see the point in having a list of article summaries.— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 05:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote on review of WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTN and arguments of Northamerica1000, I am changing to a very weak keep, as I still think that the list has significant problems wrt. inclusion criteria, but they are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Because of its broadness, I would like to oppose merge of the list of breakfast cereals, and suggest that if in the future, the list be split by nationality, culture, or some other logical division, since seeing as "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.", the list may become untenably large, and shorter lists may better serve the purpose of navigation.— Alpha3031 (t·c) 08:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is yet another attempt at a list with boundaries more open than 1889 Oklahoma. If, at least, we had something along the lines of foods officially, commercially designated for breakfast, then we'd have something, perhaps. Now, an expert writes an article about how your golf putting can improve by eating owl eyes over easy in the morning and, hey presto, it makes the list. This is not what lists are here for, sorry. -The Gnome (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:LISTN as per the topic having been covered as a group or set by independent reliable sources. In addition to the several sources listed above demonstrating how WP:LISTN is met, below are a few more. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MacMillan, Amanda (June 1, 2013). "Top 20 Foods to Eat for Breakfast". ABC News.
AFP (April 3, 2012). "List of breakfast foods low in glycemic index; foods help you avoid blood sugar spikes". NY Daily News.
(Ask Men) (April 8, 2012). "5 worst breakfast foods". Fox News.

That guideline also says "lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value.... ". Also Wikipedia is not a directory. 'l"Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as 'people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y' or 'restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y.'" --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In addition to my !vote above, note how the topic meets the purposes of WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid. For example, the article has received 20,820 page views in the last thirty days as of this post. Clearly a valued and well-used list by Wikipedia's WP:READERS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That or it has gained attention from being in the AFD. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Nope, that's not it at all; only at AfD for two days as of this post. Here's a wider perspective: 70,457 page views in the last ninety days. It's clearly a functional article as per WP:LISTPURP. Not seeing how its deletion will actually improve Wikipedia; deletion in this case will simply reduce well-read resources that readers utilize on a large scale. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it's scope is too wide and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also see WP:NOTDIR "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." Common selection criteria also states "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper."

And pray tell what's the criteria to be listed? It seems just about any food item, with a source that says it's eaten for breakfast, can be listed. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Tyw7: Why are you adding more entries to the article that could be interpreted as indiscriminate, or as not being common breakfast foods (diff, diff, diff)? Comes across that you could be potentially adding content to the article to correspond with your opinions in this AfD discussion. (E.g. It's indiscriminate, so I'll add more indiscriminate entries to further my stance). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the article does it says it have to be common. Just notable. And the food I'm adding have been mentioned by a reliable source. Plus if this AFD fails, we want to have a complete list of all foods eaten at breakfast 😉--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, pizza is a common breakfast food. I'm sure there are tons of sources saying people eat that for breakfast. And yeah the reindeer meat one is a bit WP:POINTy. Undo that edit if you want. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:LISTN, according to sources provided by Andrew Davidson and Northamerica1000. The value this article adds over a simple category is the sourcing. Having the references on the same page as the list is helpful for readers and editors who want to validate the list's entries. — Newslinger talk 13:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a reasonable list, with reasonable standards, on an important topic. Most of the entries are at least somewhat notable. I do think that some of our individual articles on breakfast foods are a little inappropriate--and that's why we ought to keep the list, because it provides somewhere to redirect them to. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the list is a bit too wide and just about any food can be added as long as they have a source. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark Viking, Newslinger, DGG and Northamerica1000. I eat some pretty random things for my first meal of the day, but even I can recognize that there is a notion of foods traditionally or conventionally eaten as breakfast (and having them at other times of day is considered an event of sorts). I don't see any problems with this list that can't be handled through the regular course of editing: including only bluelinks, requiring reliable sources, etc. If it grows too big, it can be split up by culture/nationality. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything above. A notable list of foods that are proven to be eaten for breakfast. This gives a worldwide view on breakfast culture. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No part of this list discusses culture or a worldwide view whatsoever, it's everything indiscriminately lumped together. There is nothing that cannot be covered in breakfast. Reywas92^Talk 23:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~ all except, perhaps merge the cereals list into the foods list. They are highly popular, logical, and comply with GNG/LIST. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor already voted once above. So striking through the keep vote and changing it to a comment. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 05:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was being informed by DexterPointy that source used by Æbleskiver added here "does not even support the claim of æbleskiver being notable/common as breakfast in the USA." Also reindeer sausage that I added (diff) is eaten as breakfast in Alaska. See http://sandwichdeck.com/printable-menu/ https://www.google.com/search?q=breakfast+alaska+reindeer&tbm=isch --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD does not stand or fall on minor specific problems with the article in its current format; if the result is Keep, those can be fixed by editing. Dorsetonian (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the problem lies with the fact that the list itself is indiscriminate. So you can add just about any food to the list as long as it's eaten for breakfast. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I agree the list is utterly indiscriminate. But the point you made about a specific issue doesn't seem to have any bearing on that. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a comment since the references that "Keep" group uses to prove notability for inclusion is also flawed. I can't go through every reference in the list but that reference alone raises doubt over the validity of the others. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a reasonable list that passes LISTN per Andrew Davidson and NA1K. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 31 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 per WP:SKCRIT #1. Nomination withdrawn with no one advocating deletion. Deor (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simegnew Bekele

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

Subject fails WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E (Note: as a recent death BLP still applies.) Coverage of the subject overwhelmingly revolves around his alleged murder. While it's possible that some of this might be merged into another article, I do not believe the subject passes our guidelines for notability and does not warrant a stand alone article. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn The coverage before his death that I was able to access from the table below (two of the links I was unable to access) did not impress me. Of those I was able to read only the first was actually about the subject. The other three were about the project and the subject was mostly just providing background. However the first one was in fact significant in depth coverage which counts toward establishing WP:N. Importantly though, the coverage of his death is both significant, and global. I am satisfied on that basis that there is enough overall overage to ring the WP:N bell. As there are no pro-delete comments beyond my own as OP, I think this can be closed as a Speedy Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As mentioned previously, the sources demonstrate that Simegnew was considered the face of a project of the highest national importance in a country of over 100 million. I think that demonstrates notability prima facie. The call for deletion thus is symptomatic of WP:BIAS. --Varavour (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a credible claim of significance, and thus sufficient to avoid CSD; but neither WP:BIAS, nor, unfortunately, building dams or being the public face of those who do, is inherently notable. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note The general notability guideline WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is a partial list of significant coverage regarding Simegnew in reliable local and international sources, both before (fulfilling WP:NTEMP) and after his death, including some articles not cited because they were surplus to requirements:

Before death:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Tigrai Online		Local news source	Declared him "Person of the year"	✔ Yes
Christian Science Monitor		Major newspaper	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Ethiopian Herald	? (State-owned)	Local news source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	? Unknown
Capital (Ethiopia)		Local news source	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
University of Waterloo case study		Academic case study	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

After death:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
BBC News	Major international news organization	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Deutsche Welle	Major international news organization	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
The Times (London)	The source is a major newspaper	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
New York Times	The source is a major newspaper	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Al Jazeera (English)	Major international news organization	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Voice of America	Major international news organization	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Le Monde	The source is a major newspaper	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
CNN	Major international news organization	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
France24	Major international news organization	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would lastly like to appeal to your sense of logic. Hundreds of people have taken to the streets of multiple Ethiopian cities in protest of his death and to attend his funeral service (see NYT, CNN, VOA Ezega for Gonder, Prime Minister's Office). Would this be happening if the subject were truly not notable? --Varavour (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:39, 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. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Muppet cameos and guest stars

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

I don't see the point of having an article about things that never happened. Also, some of the sources cited are not reliable (e.g. personal communication). ... discospinster _talk 15:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reading the request here, I immediately thought WP:BALL. Looking at the article, that's not exactly what it is: most of the items are appearances by guests that were announced or reported somewhere but did not actually happen, and the detailed text does make that clear. It might make sense to add a section to the main article like "announced guest starts who did not actually appear", perhaps a table, with only the material from this article that's properly cited; or mercilessly clean up this article, and come up with a better title; but I'm not saying that's a precondition for deletion, either. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:NOT. We are not an alterntative reality fan website. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Tabeer

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

Non-notable actress. The cited sources exhibit none of the characteristics of reliable sources or lack independence (TV channels touting their own shows). All lack significant coverage.

None of the following have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking: modelsfashionpk.com, pakistani.pk, awamiweb.com, springmediabubble.com, pakistanidramahd.com, dramaguru.net, dramalyrics.com, festbyte.com, moviesplatter.com, tv.com.pk, pakistani.pk, and hipinpakistan.com. They appear to be mostly self-published or group blogs, with no indication of editorial oversight. Modelsfashionpk offers to let models "configure his/her biography details". Pakistani.pk lets users register and add listings. Festbyte also accepts user-submitted content. Hipinpakistan encourages readers to contribute articles.

Draft:Kiran Tabeer(Pakistani actress) was declined for the above reasons at Articles for creation. The author had asserted that "there are few [newspaper or magazine references] but all in Urdu". They were informed that it would be fine to cite any reliable Urdu sources that exist, but that the English sources above are not reliable and should be removed. Instead they copied and pasted the draft to article space (minus the AfC decline and comments) and had the draft deleted.

Without significant coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. According to the article, her current TV role is her first lead one. The show has a Wikipedia article, but it is flagged for notability (its only source is the TV channel that airs it). The other three shows in which she has had lesser parts and that have Wikipedia articles are also flagged for notability. With only one significant role and appearances only in shows of questionable notability, does not satisfy WP:NACTOR either. Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to tell you that I included new references from Dawn, Geo and other reliable sites. So, I will remove those sources which you asked to be unreliable. And also, the actress's lead role is not the serial she is currently working in. She performed many lead roles before too. I would also like to state that the sources which you told me that are unreliable have been quoted by me after discussing it with other experienced users who edit articles related to the same topic. For example, Sarah Khan and Maham Amir have the same sites as mine. So why only my article has been nominated for deletion? Thank you Knightrises10 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actors are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they have done leading roles in soaps, films et cetera and I can't find a single RS which verifies that she has had major roles in TV soaps. Thus fails both GNG as well ACTORBIO. --Saqib (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to add sources that could get it kept but i can't find anything that could make this a keep. Maybe in a few years she will notable enough but not now. btw Knightrises10 just because other articles that are similar are kept has no bearing on whether this article should be kept or not.JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then those similar articles should be deleted too. Knightrises10 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or you people can give the article some more time, so that other Pakistani users including me can improve it further Knightrises10 (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, minor roles in some major productions do not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those weren't minor roles, as I already told. Wikipedia admins, reviewers are biased, especially against Pakistani users and the new ones. They think that only they are correct. You can delete the article, I asked you already!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightrises10 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lets delete it under G7 and close it. --Saqib (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is, or at least was, an assertion of importance, so G7 doesn't apply. It's in Wikipedia's best interest to let the AfD run its course. The topic was created in 2016, and at least three times so far in 2018 (in draft and article space). Editors who don't follow our policies and guidelines are likely to keep creating the topic. Let's get consensus on the record that at this time these are the best sources available, and they don't demonstrate notability. Then any future article can be speedily G4'd unless its sourcing clearly improves on this effort. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moshimo

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Other than passing mentions hardly any coverage (apart from blogs, reviews and restaurant guides) Kleuske (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. The author seems to have a pretty substantial COI, quoting an article he wrote himself. The rest are retty much passing mentions, no "substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources"Kleuske (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and as a company the article needs to pass WP:NCORP, which is doesn't. Finally, not enough coverage exists to allow the article to fulfill WP:SIGCOV criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous promotion with sources that include an article by a "a business and marketing consultancy specialising in the vegan and plant-based industry". Vexations (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spedy Delete. as pure advertising,--as well as no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is clearly an advertisement. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 09:20, 30 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. Mackensen (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven R. Donziger

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

This guy has no noteability whatosever outside of the Lago Agrio oilfield case, and the thing is mostly a puff piece that has had perpetual NPOV issues. Should be deleted or redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field . Jtrainor (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:48, 14 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. This lawyer did what lawyers do, represented a client, albeit in an important case. Other than this he is non-notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 29 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Nine Square

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced article on a WP:MADEUP school game. This was deprodded years ago without rationale, but there have been no improvements since. My attempts to find reliable sourcing have come up with nothing. Reyk _YO! 14:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- it seems to me that this is also a borderline WP:G4 since it suffers from the same faults that led to it being deleted back in 2008, so if someone wants to tag it as such I'd have no objection. Reyk _YO! 14:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Nine square in the Air may be notable. I can't find anything on this topic. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 30 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. Deletion was uncontested; probably could have been speedy deleted for failing to assert notability. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cook (bodybuilder)

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

Certainly doesn't meet GNG. No indication of meeting any SNG either. John from Idegon (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 15 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) 11:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A juiced head nobody with no notability. Inexpiable (talk) 14:48, 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. Mackensen (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workz Group

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

fails WP:NORG and notably WP:ORGDEPTH the sources are a mixture of press releases routine coverage and churnalism. Fails WP:GNG nothing of interest found in a BEFORE search. Article created by a WP:SPA that seems to have a very clear WP:COI according to their username. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. I could find one source[20] however if it was any credible (for signifying WP:GNG) then we would be creating many more similar articles. Rzvas (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Kleuske (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of meetings of the Speaker of the 8th National Assembly with Ambassadors in Slovenia

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

WP:LISTCRUFT Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge it into 8th National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia. I agree this is a classic case of WP:LISTCRUFT, no reason for this to have its own page. I'm not even really sure it's something we need to have there, anymore than we need a list of school board meetings on Charlotte County Public Schools. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really believe that the meetings held by the speaker need to be included in the main article unless they were particularly noteworthy and gave rise to sufficient coverage as this is routine business for a parliament I believe. This seems to be just a way of trying to add stature to the person involved. This is the only page that has a section "International activity of the Speaker". Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 27 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 21:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Enos733 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The speaker of a legislature taking meetings with politicians and ambassadors and other officials is a routine part of his job description — these are not inherently noteworthy events that we need to maintain lists of. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Both a speedy keep and regular keep given nom withdrawal with no deletes, plus a conventionally justified keep over the 7 days. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free Lebanon State

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

The one citation that is used to prove that it exists, doesn't actually mention the term "Free Lebanon State" There is little to no proof that it exists, outside of one opinion article from gulfnews which doesn't cite anything, the one book that mentions it that provides a citation cites Azar and Haddad (1986) and hanf (1993), but this is very vague. I couldn't find either Azar and Haddad 1986, nor hanf 1993. Hopefully I am wrong here, but due to the very limited evidence that it existed, the actual article by free-lebbanon that the article provides is fairly sketchy as a citation for the existence of a State and doesn't mention the existence of such a State specifically anyway, I am under the impression that the "Free Lebanon State" never was actually a thing. There is actually a few citations on the Hebrew page, but the one actual thing that it really provided as a citation was a book called "בעין הסערה - חמישים שנה בשירות מולדתי לבנון" which I found actually exists, though not much else on it specifically. The Arabic article cites the same thing the English article does, and the Português article cites 2 books for the States existence, one of which is the one I mentioned earlier, the other one is a book that doesn't cite the claim at all, and merely marks it as a date.

UPDATE: My mistake, I found some other books, that talk about it after afd'ing it. Sorry everyone, though a quick note, if you search for books, the vast majority of them are false positives for some reason, but there are way more than 2 that actually talk about it, though some are clearly biased, there does seem to be some more proof that it existed. When I originally searched, I just looked at the Wikipedia citations, news and a general search, and a google books search without quotations, and only the first 2 results mentioned it, the rest I assumed were all false positives.

ShimonChai (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the article is about a declarational state, which quickly dissipated and disintegrated. It was however very much notable. We have plenty of similar cases with articles, such as Azawad, Bangsamoro Republik and others. Don't expect to find much sources for late 1970s Lebanon in the web, but here is one from the literature: JG Jabbra - ‎1983. Lebanon: Gateway to Peace in the Middle East?.GreyShark (dibra) 14:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I made the update, I don't know if blanking the page is considered a proper procedure for stopping an AfD though. ShimonChai (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not blank the page. Please withdraw the proposal in such case.GreyShark (dibra) 07:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Greyshark09. One can easily find several books mentioning this state, for example Arab-Jewish Relations: From Conflict to Resolution? : Essays in Honour of Moshe Maʻoz, and Lebanese Army, The: A National Institution in a Divided Society. This article also mentions it: Ambiguity and Conflict in Israeli-Lebanese Relations. Applodion (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. as per Greyshark. Kudos to Nom for seeing his own mistake.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 31 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) Sam Sailor 07:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dima Khatib

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

Puff piece : award-winning (without telling which awards she won), speaks 8 languages (without sources) , unprecedented insight. It also contains unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 20:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this comment above that she is a non-notable journalist. She is a journalist that has not worked most of her career for English-speaking media, but has rather been reporting in Arabic and Spanish, which is why someone from who speaks those languages will be able to find sufficient evidence and sources. Bilal Randeree (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup - though the article undeniably does need cleanup, Khatib is notable - checking quickly I see mentions of her in multiple full length books about journalism published by academic publishers OUP OUP SAGE Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will be happy to help with cleanup. Learning a lot about editing at the Wikimania event today in Cape Town Bilal Randeree (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 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 13:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Tons of mentions in Google Books, one about the Arab Spring describes her as "the most prominent commentator on Tunisia when the country erupted, and she served as a key information broker for the revolution through Twitter" and is mentioned in a 2003 article in the Australian Journalism Review. She's even prominent enough to have been mentioned in the 2016 SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism. Given this and the comments above I'm convinced there's sufficient sourcing that exists offline and/or in other languages to satisfy the GNG. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:50, 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. With thanks to Yopienso for her work on the article. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 07:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Pedersen

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

Puff piece : tremendously successful, major competitor, championed various innovations, extremely loyal and so on. » Shadowowl | talk 20:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article clearly indicates biography of Vivint co-founder. Granted the "puff" portions are a little blatant and those alone should not be a determining factor to delete the article. Maybe a re-write of the "puff" portions are in order? — Mr X ^☎️ 20:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 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 13:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vivint is big enough/covered enough/sued enough (?) that its co-founder is notable, and can be covered in a stand-alone article. I might have a bit of bias, however, so take my !vote as very weak: I know someone who's an employee. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was glad to find the article after a Vivint salesman appeared at my door. That was my comment as what I presume to be a "typical" Wikipedia user. Now, for some comments as a Tutnum: The man is CEO and co-founder of a $2B company that we have an article on. The arena the Utah Jazz play in is 3 years into a 10-yr. Vivint naming contract; the man appeared on a prime-time CBS show; he's covered in the media; all that's notable. --YoPienso (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the article quite a bit. There's still a lot to do, specially with the refs, but I think the tag can come off now. YoPienso (talk) 07:10, 29 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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thetextpage

AfDs for this article:

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

Million pixel knockoff sourced from minor mentions in minor papers, no evidence of significant or lasting coverage. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCOPR; significant RS coverage not found. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fails WP:NCORP and WP:INDY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Paine

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

Delete No indications of notability, references are mentions-in-passing, fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 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) 11:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not independently notable of Golden Gate Ventures, the notability of which is unclear, being at AfD itself. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete I agree with the nom's assessment.~~ Subject does not appear to meet the criteria for notability, fails WP:BASIC HighKing⁺⁺ 19:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck part of the post directly above, because it is from the nominator for deletion herein agreeing with themself, and because only one !vote is allowed; the nomination is considered the delete !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person only notable indirectly by being a leader of a company whose article was deleted... for not being notable. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus among participants that participation in the 2018 Piala Indonesia cup satisfies WP:FOOTYN. Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PSKT Kemutar Telu West Sumbawa

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

Despite what is noted in the infobox it did not play in the national round of Liga 3 in 2017 as per 2017_Liga_3 and does not claim to have gone through to the national round in 2016 the club so fails WP:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Club_notability and sources do not show it meets WP:N Dom from Paris (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. Won their first-round match in the 2018 Piala Indonesia and have played in the national cup. SportingFlyer talk 06:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY is for people and not teams. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The article clearly passes club notability guidelines due to the cup participation. SportingFlyer talk 06:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are playing in the 2018 Piala Indonesia. That is a national cup, so the club meets the notability guideline quoted by OP. (They are reported to have won their first match, though I would prefer some other source than Instagram.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN .Have played in the Piala Indonesia a national cup.All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:49, 30 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. I am happy to provide a userspace copy to anyone who wishes to merge content from this page to any other. Vanamonde (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Origin's On the House games

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

A list of video games that a company gave away for free at some point. Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:N. While the Origin (digital distribution software) is notable, I fail to see how a list of freebies it once offered is. Sandstein 11:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To Origin. Agree, do not need a separate list. However, fits nicely within the article Origin. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR and would take up too much space if merged to the main Origin article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this particular article is useful for users of Origin but doesn't fulfill notability because it is just a list of a particular class of freely given-away games from a particular brand, and therefore should either be deleted or changed. I think it can be merged into the Origin article or alternatively it can perhaps broadened into something like 'list of games given away for free by major gaming companies' that includes all similar promotions over the years. Reesorville (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article. WP:NOTCATALOG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content is unencyclopedic; there's no real need for a redirect. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SNOW is appropriate at this time, given the many policy-based arguments for keeping. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Soutter

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

Tragic death but fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL JMHamo (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was a competitive sportsperson who represented team GB at winter Olympics and won medals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julzyboy1973 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was NOT at the Winter Olympics,but the Winter YOUTH Olympics.12.144.5.2 (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject was notable before her death as she medalled at an international event. MurielMary (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable sportsperson. Sometimes, articles just aren’t made before people die, but they’re worthy. Kingsif (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - competed in a number of events for GB, won awards & medals etc.; article needs improving, not deleting Spiderone 17:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,those who medal in children's competitions are not as notable as those who do so in adult ones.(Still no cause of death?) 12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been disclosed, but British Ski and Snowboard referred the media to the Samaritans in a statement.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@12.144.5.2: Your logic is flawed. If that was the case, young Olympic medalists would also not be notable. And CODs could take a long time to be given, if ever. — Wylie pedia @ 04:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not their age that cheapens a child's victory, it's the fewer, relatively undeveloped and less-experienced competitors they're up against. Nothing like beating (or medaling beside) the general best in the world, at any age. Or even the best in your part of the world. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A young Olympic medalist is notable because she beat the best as opposed to just her age group.12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable sportsperson. Details of her death are still emerging. Possibly link to mental health article(s). Needs improving, not deleting. Eesn (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable sportsperson, represented her country at international level, achieved medal success. A. Carty (talk)
Keep passes notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable sportswoman. PamD 14:30, 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 08:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J Rankin

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

I cannot find evidence that this article meets the criteria of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NPROF. A Google search for his name and variants does not bring up significant discussion of the individual in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 19:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete his works are shown to exist yes, but merely publishing is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked Google Scholar and his published works don't seem to meet WP:NPROF. There's no evidence he meets the GNG either. Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I looked through the Professor Test, he has published noteworthy work. He does fulfill most elements. Because its South Australia, and its laid back culture has not publicised his works compared to other universities. I propose not to delete with accordance to WP:NPROF. GoddessV (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some examples of his journal articles that were cited by others? I have been unable to find a single journal article he's even published, let alone one that's been cited. Also, WP:NPROF doesn't provide dumbed-down standards of inherent notability for South Australians due to their supposed lower levels of productivity (i.e. "laid back culture"). South Australian law professors are evaluated to the same standard as Dutch and Japanese law professors. Chetsford (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FlinLawJl/2011/6.pdf

Recent developments in Australian abortion law: Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory Rankin, Mark James 2010-07-27T06:58:40

Legal ethics in the negotiation environment: A synopsis Flinders Law Journal Volume 18 Issue 1 (Jul 2016) Rankin, Mark J GoddessV (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the below from WP:NPROF ‘Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality’’ As per the guidelines, individual does not need to follow all criteria. Furthermore there are exceptions. GoddessV (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of bookkeeping, can you please strike one of your two !votes? Also, as per my previous question, can you please provide the volume of citations for these two articles? Your rationale for Keep was that he has "published noteworthy work". You've only evidenced he's published work, not that he's published noteworthy work. "Exceptions" do not cover self-assertion of noteworthiness (see WP:OR). Also, please take care to sign your comments. Chetsford (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2001/10.pdf

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2013/1.pdf

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2003/15.pdf

Citation

Rankin, Mark J. Legal ethics in the negotiation environment: A synopsis [online]. Flinders Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, Jul 2016: 77-120.

Mark J Rankin, 'The Offence of Child Destruction: Issues for Medical Abortion' (2013) 35 Sydney Law Review 1.

GoddessV (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the test to determine noteworthiness? Would be great if you could explain it futher, please. Thank you. The area in which the author is writing about Abortion Law is crucial to the development of society. It is in this aspect I am making a submission that the author's credibility and content of his works can be considered noteworthy within Australian standards. I hope you will be able to give some advice on this. Thank you and please. GoddessV (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to User:Chetsford

Others who cited his works: http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/35-1-12.pdf https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Abortion%20Law.pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.590.8687&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://www.adelaide.edu.au/press/journals/law-review/issues/37-1/alr-37-1-ch03-heath-mulligan.pdf http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableoffice/tabledpapers/2016/5516t1337.pdf https://www.otago.ac.nz/law/research/journals/otago672752.pdf https://www.aspg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/01-PRINGLE-ABORTION-FINAL.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b9e7/3cde35dee42c766dc04b018bd2008a09fc2e.pdf GoddessV (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the general test for notability is whether there has been significant discussion of the individual or his research. His research might be timely and important from a social point of view, but that is not relevant to a notability discussion here. Yes it's been cited by others, but that's true of all professors. Notability means that others have noted his work, or himself, and not just cited as a matter of course. I've been cited too but nobody has written anything about me (in reliable sources anyway), so I wouldn't be notable for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. Profs can also pass the notability test if they are a fellow of an academic society or hold a named chair at an institution. ... discospinster _talk 13:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GoddessV - to clarify, I wasn't necessarily trying to get a comprehensive list of people who have cited him, just trying to establish if they met criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC which seemed to be what you were claiming. Generally this is translatable to an H-index indicative of "significant impact". Chetsford (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability, no information, lack of sources. Inexpiable (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with only 32 cites (that I can find) on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The evidence is far too thin for satisfying WP:Prof#C1, and there does not appear to be anything in the record to indicate satisfying WP:Prof on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability via WP:PROF nor any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Kirkham

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

No indication of notability. Clearly fails GNG, no indication of meeting either WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH. John from Idegon (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG as per [21] [22] and [23] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Since when is one detailed article, which incidentally only covers about 2 years of his life, enough to make GNG, Editorofthewiki? The NYT piece is detailed enough to count towards making GNG, but doesn't get it in and of itself. The other two are very brief passing mentions in articles about other subjects. Nothing better in the article. John from Idegon (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are links to stat pages and local articles. Signing with the JBA is not sufficient to show notability. I see nothing that shows either WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it looks more updated. I can't say I know what the quality was like before, but with my recent edit for the JBA, I can say it looks more like a proper article for at least a typical JBA player. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I missing something? Why does it matter if the article looks typical for a JBA player? How is playing in a minor league a guarantee of notability? AGreatPhoenixSunsFan, can you explain that to me? If I am mistaken, please explain why. If I am not, please justify your !vote. John from Idegon (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just saying when I look at players like Isom Butler and Niles Malone right now, I barely see any difference between them and Taylor Kirkham's article. Not to mention he is someone that has played for multiple JBA teams this season. I've seen the JBA change players in their teams, but not any JBA players going from one team to another just like that over halfway into the season. Oh, and for what it's worth, I also found an article mentioning that he was also a redshirted sophomore at Moorpark before trying out in the JBA recently. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you share this article please? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable player. I thought the only good source comes from Yahoo! Sports, but it does not even mention this player. All other sources are from statistics websites, while one source is an interview with the player. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG at all. Runningibis (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nothing to show the GNG or WP:NHOOPS is met. Playing in the JBA doesn't give automatic notability and neither does being redshirted at a community college.Sandals1 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 07:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UK, Europe and Africa Malankara Orthodox Diocese

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

AFD then. This article has no reliable sources and it is unknown if it passes WP:NCHURCH, which it doesn't in this state. PROD was removed without reason. » Shadowowl | talk 21:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Vorbee (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is the equivalent of a small denomination. Originally it was a single parish (whose notability would be questionable), but with about 20 parishes, in fact all in the British Isles, it is substantial enough to retain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has twenty parishes, so significant enough for an article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We almost always keep Dioceses of major territorial churches. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 29 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. Anyone interested in merging content into a different article may request restoration to their userspace. Vanamonde (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kadampa Buddhist Temple

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

All self-published sources; no evidence of third-party notability. Notability tag has been on the page since 2014. Bangalamania (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:01, 20 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 00:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with New Kadampa Tradition. Considering both articles deal with the same teacher, it is obviously the same tradition.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 04:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for deletion, I see no reason for another page for what is a tiny offshoot of buddhism Lythalicious (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Olde English Bulldogge. Content remains in history for merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leavitt Bulldog

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

Fails WP:GNG. No more than an Olde English Bulldogge renamed by a backyard breeder as a marketing exercise. All of the references are for the latter breed or "statements" by said backyard breeder. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Further, the only partially reliable (self published) cited source^[1] on these dogs describes them as no more than a line of the Olde English Bulldogge, so named to destinguish them from other lines. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalryman V31, can you produce any WP:RS that support your assertion that Dr. David Leavitt and the breeders noted on his homepage are backyard breeders?? Good luck with that -:) IQ125 (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IQ125, I am not trying to include that into the article, as I have requested below, can you produce any WP:Reliable sources that establishes the notability of these dogs? Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In other words, Cavalryman V31 has no citations, references or knowledge to support the assertion that Dr. David Leavitt is a backyard breeder. You should redact your opening statement as you have confirmed you do not know what you are talking about and are defaming a legitimate dog breeder and veterinarian. IQ125 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: article is notable and well referenced with citations. Dr. David Leavitt's, a licensed veterinarian and certainly not a backyard breeder, work was and continues to be very important in the recreation of the Old English Bulldog.1 2 3 Bizarre that this deletion +tag is here, it confirms the lack of canine knowledge of some Wikipedia members! IQ125 (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IQ125, can you produce any WP:RS that describe these dogs as an independent breed from the Olde English Bulldogge? Currently the page fails WP:GNG. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Cavalryman V31, You can find significant amounts of information on the breed at the Leavitt Bulldog breeders and kennels listed here. The United Kennel Club recognizes the Leavitt Bulldog UKC, see also 1 2 3 4 5 6 IQ125 (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IQ125, thank you for your response. This link confirms that the Leavitt Bulldog and the Olde English Bulldogge are in fact the same breed. As for your other links:

1. Supports that they are the same breed as the Olde English Bulldogge.

2. Is a mere mention in an article and does not establish this as anything other than a line of OEBs.

3. Is not a reliable source but still supports that they are the same as the OEB (until a reputable organisation like the UKC recognise the name change then it remains un-notable).

4. Supports that they are simply a line of OEBs.

5. States emphatically that the Leavitt Bulldog is a line of the OEB, something I have already covered above with this edit.

6. States the Leavitt Bulldog Association as one of two parent clubs of the OEB breed (along with the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club), again confirming they are in fact OEBs, something I have already covered below with this edit.

Everything you have shown me confirms the Leavitt Bulldog is in fact simply a line of the recognised (and notable) Olde English Bulldogges. Do you propose this page be merged into Olde English Bulldogge? Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, Cavalryman V31 has proven himself to be a deletionist editor at Wikipedia. Deletionists are very harmful to Wikipedia as they attempt to delete even well written and well reference articles, as is the case with this article. This is my final words on this matter. IQ125 (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IQ125, I have tried to find some reliable sources to improve this page but cannot, all sources I (and you) can find indicate this is no more than a line of the Olde English Bulldogge. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The Leavitt Bulldog is an UKC recognized breed: This deletion procedure absurd. Its only started by haters. The Leavitt Bulldog is just being broadcast in March of this year on the BBC in a program '''Saving the British Bulldog''' with Catherine Tate [24] see at 42.37[25]. The discussion is going on now since April 2014 [26]. The wikidogs scaled the breed to a C class wich is low but still approved by them. [27]. There was and is no notability issue only haters who are childish and giving fine people like yourselves extra nonsense work to do.So please delete the deletion procedure and keep the article. User:BarryS75 — BarryS75 has made no other edits outside this topic.

BarryS75, can you provide any WP:RS citing this is anything other than a line of Olde English Bulldogge? Because currently there is I can find nothing that indicates this page meets Wikipedia's notability policy. The UKC does recognise these dogs as an established breed on their webpage and a further reliable source I could find describes these dogs as Olde English Bulldogges, and the Leavitt Bulldog Association as one of two parent clubs of the Olde English Bulldogges breed (along with the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club).^[2] I certainly do not hate these dogs, they are very handsome and healthy looking animals, I am simply questioning the notability of this line of Olde English Bulldogges beyond a mention in the OEB article. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ Walter & Marlene Zwettler, The great book of bulldogs, bull terrier and molosser: Part 1 Bulldogs and Bull Terrier, epubli GmbH, Berlin, 2012, ISBN 978-3-8442-3922-5.
^ Dr Davis Harris, The bully breeds, Kennel Club Books, Freehold NJ, 2008, ISBN 978-1-59378-664-9, pp 74-75.

All is provided in the past if you look at the page history in talk We all been through this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryS75 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BarryS75, am I correct in presuming that you are in fact User:Freedombulls (talk • contribs)? I do not believe the talk page does establish the WP:Notability of the breed, it paused discussions of notability (with almost unanimous agreement of a lack it) presuming in time WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable sources would emerge to establish notability, it has been over four years since the last such discussion and no such sources have emerged. As I have outlined above, all reliable sources indicate Leavitt Bulldogs are in fact a line of the recognised and notable Olde English Bulldogge. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Merge and redirect anything useful, to Olde English Bulldogge. The breeds appear to be the same.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be supportive of a page merger into Olde English Bulldogge. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Olde English Bulldogge, as they appear to be the same breed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hurtz

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

He has yet to qualify for a major tournament. Fails WP:GNG due to a total lack of significant independent sources. Dougal18 (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable darts competitor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No stretching needed - speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woodland edge-A beautiful painting of Reny Vettical.jpg

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

I just checked the speedy deletion criteria, and it looks like the article is not covered by them (unless we stretch them), so I have to go here. The article is an unsourced personal essay about a painting of an author who has no Wikipedia article and unknown notability. For the time being, the notability of the painting has not been demonstrated. Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has created a series of similar pages.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I have just CSD-ed one of their other so-called articles, as being close to A11, and have written them a clear note on their talk page not to create encyclopaedia pages of this sort ever again. I agree this page doesn't quite meet CSD criteria. But there's no place for this type of page in an encyclopaedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:32, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Race-of-work system

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

there is a tag on a article created in 2018 from 2015. edit history shows that this may be a copy paste. Author of article is creator. Can't find any substantial coverage of this JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 09:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 09:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find absolutely no sources on this whatsoever. Agreed that this is basically a speedy. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also could find zero sources. Without reliable sources, this topic has no verifiability and should be deleted. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per nom, WP:NOT, WP:NEO, WP:SPAM and WP:TRIVIA. We are a charitable encyclopedia, and are not a forum for spammers spamming spam about the next new term used in bitcoinery. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional currencies

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is largely WP:OR or WP:INUNIVERSE and gives undue weight to extremely obscure fictional currencies. I see no encyclopedic reason for the list to exist, as the amount of notable fictional currencies with their own articles is so low that they can be counted on one hand, and can be integrated into Fictional currency. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an indiscriminate list with no possible clear criteria for inclusion. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current list seems quite clear and, browsing it, it's good to be reminded that Groo uses Kopins, Ferengi use latinum and the Gamesters of Triskelion use quatloos. Andrew D. (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the clarity of the list itself; I'm referring to the lack of clearly delineated inclusion criteria. You have only made a WP:ITSUSEFUL (non-)argument. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN. Here's a selection of sources. Andrew D. (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The five most valuable fictional currencies
Fictional currencies from Harry Potter to Star Wars
Top 10 fictional currencies in film and TV
Fictional currencies get a real life conversion
Commercial Transactions in the Virtual World
Money, Speculation and Finance in Contemporary British Fiction
The Strange Parallel World Of Fictional Currencies
Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek

As I said in my rationale, none of those are things that merit a separate list article. All of these refs can be used in fictional currency without creating an article or list so long that it needs to be spun out._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:LISTN; the entries themselves do not appear to be independently notable. The sources offered above are better suited for the existing article Fictional currency. The list is not need at this stage. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:LISTN: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." So your argument regarding LISTN is contradicted by that guideline's language. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is so many different kinds of cruft that I don't even want to list them, and there is no practical encyclopedic reason to have such a list. Also, it's very difficult to find reliable secondary sources covering this stuff since the money used is usually such a background detail in these properties hat even "reliable" sources have no choice put to pull details out of their noses. Presumably when Palpatine took over and established the Galactic Empire, he had the old currency recalled and reissued to such an extent as was feasible, and kept doing so over subsequent decades, but maybe the "Republic credits" mentioned in the prequel trilogy are actually just the same thing as the "Imperial credits" mentioned in the original trilogy, and you'd be surprised how many fan sources are so convinced they have the answer that they take it as a given. The same is true for virtually every other entry that could be listed. I don't know a lot of fantasy or sci-fi works created by professional economists, but I imagine they'd be the only ones we could actually write anything about. Andrew's reliance above on click-baity top ten lists only highlights this problem, and I am legitimately surprised he could append a "keep" !vote to such a comment with a straight face. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give some more examples: for all the information given in Rick and Morty, those three currencies are all the same, or different units of the same currency equivalent to cents, dimes, nickles, dollars... and you will never find a reliable secondary source that elaborates on this. The "fictional currency" in Naruto is not "ryõ" but "ryō", a real historical Japanese currency that is incorporated into the fictional Naruto universe in the same way multiple other real-world elements are (it's one of "those" fictional settings where it's not entirely clear if it is set in a highly fictionalized version of the real world or in a purely fictional world with a large number of anachronistic elements that could only exist in the real world because of very specific historical circumstances). The "Lien" in RWBY, which was clearly heavily influenced by Naruto, might just be the Wu Chinese pronunciation of the same character. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, with the added issue of containing incorrect info (as Hijiri88 points out with ryō). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - the article being about a Religious creation story from a small ethnic cult is not a reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanamahi creation myth

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

Religious creation story from a small ethnic cult Aeonx (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references seem fine. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this seems important enough to the religion in question to have a place in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned in RS are reliable. Need a little Brush up and all is fine. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is already sources/references on this page .

--Awangba Mangang (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 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. Likely A10-able, but this works too! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tours by Ariana Grande

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

There are tours that already exists in separate articles, every wording is copied from each article and the article may meet WP:A10. Raritydash (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to the copied wording and the other tours in other articles.JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Each of Ariana Grande's tours has its own article, so this article is entirely redundant and unhelpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons said above. ~SML • TP 13:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – concurring with the previous contributors. A well-intentioned article, plainly, but overlapping with the existing tour articles to an extent likely to cause confusion, while adding nothing of value. Tim riley talk 14:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is completely redundant. This should be covered either at the individual tour articles, or in a "touring/live performance" type section of her article. This is excessive. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unneeded. Quickfingers (talk) 21:33, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ross (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed, "AVN Awards for Best Supporting Actor-Gay Video", is not significant. The rest are niche or scene-related.

The first AfD listed appears to be about a different actor. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not come even close to meeting the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBiO & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 19:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Mitchell (actor)

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The awards mentioned are scene-related or in niche categories, such as "Best body". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO on its face as well as the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far short of meeting the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBiO & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 19:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that they are different people, and therefore to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Taylor Wood

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

I am nominating Zachary Taylor Wood for deletion because I am led to beleive that this person may be the same person as Stuart Wood. I say this because there are no sources showing him as a separate person, and the RCMP's list of former Commissioners does not include him, but does include Stuart. There is also a grave, shown here: http://www.rcmpgraves.com/commissioner/wood.html, showing the name "Stuart Zachary Taylor Wood" on the headstone. According to the RCMP site, as I stated above, (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/former-rcmp-commissionershttp://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/former-rcmp-commissioners), Stuart is the only member of the Wood family to serve in the top rank, and no sources have contradicted this to date. Likewise, all of our sources have shown the Stuart Wood's father was John Taylor Wood, not Zachary. (This article states that John Taylor Wood is Zachary Taylor's father as well, which would be impossible, if Stuart is supposedly Zachary's son). I have been unable to locate any publication confirming Zachary Taylor Wood's existance, only that of Stuart Zachary Taylor Wood. All this leads me to beleive that this is a duplicate article created out of confusion somewhere, given that Stuart Zachary's name seems to get varied from site to site, which may have caused the misconception. I previously nominated this article for WP:Speedy, under WP:A10 on two occasions, however both were unsuccessful due to unsourced objections from other editors, hence I've brought it here, suggesting that we either Merge it with Stuart Wood, and/or Delete it altogether. Fhsig13 (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I think they´re different people, and suppose you go on with the discussion of the identity without directly requesting a deletion if need be. For example the page you brought up for the grave (rcmpgraves) has a page about Stuart stating Zachary to be the father, putting him as Assistant Commissioner, which would make clear why not being listed as Commissioner, right over here. A quick google search brings the same information (father of the later and Assistant) in several books and on several pages. More importantly, Zachary is listed as Commissioner of Yukon and included at their governmental page (with dates and picture) right over here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @GELongstreet: I beleive that the Yukon government may just be listing Stuart Zachary under a variation of his name, omitting his first name, which as I stated before, has seemed to occur on multiple occasions. Also, if Zachary Taylor Wood was never Commissioner of the RCMP (acting or otherwise), I begin questioning his notability. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - For not mixing things up I think it would be beneficial if we´d refer to them as Zachary and Stuart, respectively, otherwise nobody will know who is meant. Zachary`s dates are given as born in 1860, in Yukon at 1902 and death in 1915. Stuart as born in 1889, would have been 13 years old at that time in Yukon, and live until 1966. You´re talking about a whole generation missing (or being invented instead). Both men have attested service times and life dates. A father and a son. It is very possible that a variation of a name is used in files due to several first names - but I see nothing that says only a single person was meant, to the contrary. And notabiliy is a different question so if you want him deleted because being non-notable I suppose you accordingly change your request. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have seen no attested service dates for Zachary, and I can't find sources for him either. That said, I think the author may have simply confused some dates, and as a result someone new got invented. Fhsig13 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - So once you drop the only-one-person idea it seems to resolve into a question of content and sourcing (which again should be on the article talk page). And it seems logical to tag the authors of most of the article: @Fat pig73: @Victoriaedwards:. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Different people (e.g. see - [28]). Is the namesake of a rather tall mountain - Mount Wood (Yukon).[29] Sourcing available - [30][31] Seems also he may have been acting commissioner as some point.Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if they are different people, the sourcing needs major improvement, especially in reference to proving that he led the RCMP at some point. There is no accurate source for that, however there are many for Stuart Zachary, thus I think Zachary Taylor's identity was either fabricated or confused with his father's (Stuart's), in terms of the RCMP. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read [32] Kraose (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep different people. Kraose (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly different people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraose:@Necrothesp: By what standard are they different people? No reliable sources exist to prove this, and the dates coincide in most instances, making it worthy of at best a Merge.

Zachary Taylor Wood (1860–1915). Stuart Wood (1889–1966). In what way do the dates coincide? Who's Who, which is a highly reliable source, has entries for both of them and states clearly that Stuart Wood (the article should be renamed Stuart Taylor Wood, incidentally, as that appears to be the name he used) was Zachary Taylor Wood's son. Most definitely different people. This AfD needs to be closed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the announcement of Assistant Commissioner Zachary Taylor Wood's CMG in the London Gazette (bottom name in the right-hand column). The CMG, incidentally, is considered sufficient for notability to be established in its own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Guichet

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

Almost no news coverage. Not sure they are notable. Editor who created it has no other edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The lead of his article states, known for inventing both the Albizzia Nail and the Guichet Nail used in distraction osteogenesis. The Albizzia Nail is an intramedullary rod used in limb lengthening. The subject is not mentioned in either article, nor linked to from any non-deletion related articles. However, by searching for the subject using the name used in publications, I found a fair number of peer-reviewed (French) medical journal entries related to his subject. --HunterM267 ^talk 23:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:41, 14 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) 19:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Notability. The only thing I found is a book that seems to have been written by him, but it can be found only on Google Books, not on other websites. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutdata

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Intelsohail with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created and developed by WP:SPAs, describing the company's wares supported by routine announcement references. Searches are not finding the reliable in-depth coverage needed to demonstrated this as more than a firm going about its business. Nor do the listed non-notable industry awards (emerging, top-10 in sector, etc.) meet the notability criteria. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article about a company with not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Byers

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

this boy (Just starting his senior year in high school) is obviously industrious, but unfortunately not notable. There are virtually no reliable sources discussing him, and although he is to be lauded for his efforts, starting your own label is akin to self publishing a book. Fails BASIC, ANYBIO, GNG, and NMUSIC. John from Idegon (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia_(U.S._state)-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with notability unable to be established. 100k Youtube views and #192 on iTunes might marginally establish significance, but independent coverage in reliable sources is minimal to nonexistent. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-punblish musician that fails MUSICBIO and well as GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 07:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article comes across as too promotional. Vorbee (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and they clearly do not meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Bermudez (footballer)

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

Non-notable youth footballer who has not competed for a fully-professional club or in a FIFA tournament. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN criteria. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and can not be presumed notable under the descriptive criteria WP:NFOOTY. WP:FOOTYN is a project-specific essay that specifically says it has been superseded by Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Sam Sailor 06:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not current meet the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. ansh 666 03:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grass skirt

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

Persistent attempts to delete this article (speedy, prod, repeated section blanking) from a single editor have become disruptive and make it impossible for anyone else to work on improving this article. To permit a clear consensus to be determined, I thus list it here at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A clearly notable topic, whatever the state of a current article is. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not;

A dictionary of definitions~ Defining other cultural clothing in a generic term.

A publisher of original thought~ The article is ripe with particular feelings about a topic by one or more editors.

A soapbox or means of promotion~ Advocating for a position where Wikipedia's voice of authority has been made to push an idea or opinion even over what the sources claim or say in regards to the subject.

A direstory~ Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Is a grass skirt really the things being claimed, or are they a more specific subject as the article seems to indicate?

A manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal~ The article depends entirely on the relationship between one factor in relationship to another.

A indiscriminate collection of information~ The article, as it stands, is a summary-only description of other subjects.

The actual term; "Grass skirt" is not notable, as it is only used to describe other things of true encyclopedic value. The article is best as a redirect to more accurate information.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one has suggested this yet. But I am just going on record as opposing any redirect to a non-related article as was done here or to hula. Any suggested redirect must include information on grass skirt and consider its global implication as a term. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I will go on record as saying you have a record of insensitivity to cultural subjects and have used references in an extremely dubious manner. I am speaking only to your Wikipedia contributions.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So...I suggest a redirect to any appropriate subject be done if and when consensus determines such.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and believe your insistence that this article is deleted and disruptive editing (I have seen it as such and the nominator of this AFD has seen it as such) thus far to accomplish that objective has based on a goal to censor content that are cultural offensive to you. The grass skirt is culturally insensitive to modern Hawaiian and a non-authentic costume to the traditional Hawaiian dance. I agree with that. Then that should be noted in the article not deleted and censored from Wikipedia. The Fu Manchu moustache is culturally insensitive to my culture and I do not advocate its deletion because the history of racism and cultural insensitivity is important to note and learn from. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a good example of your attacks and assumptions on what I am even talking about. As if I don't have Chinese ancestry. Please. Get over yourself. This was nominated by another editor even after you requested assistance.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" history of racism and cultural insensitivity is important to note and learn from" not this way sir.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't request assistance. An AFD is actually what I wanted all along. Also I apologize any of my comment which have been taken as personal attack, I was merely commenting on the editing and suspected (I may be wrong for all I know) motive behind the edits. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...you did indeed request assistance, and yet even with your claim to want this AFD (which I actually started originally, was deleted and then started again..but thank you to Andy for re-nominating) you have yet to !vote. As for your apology, you owe that to more than just me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines personal attacks when it comes to editors, not you. Sorry but that is something I have been attempting to relay to you for years.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for helps on finding sources not assistance to intervene in your disruptive edits on the page or to any particular user to start an AFD on my behalf. I have only asked that any deletion attempts if it must be done be made through an AFD. You never started a AFD. You tried deleting via speedy delete and then a proposed delete which are not the same as AFD. None of these attempts to delete these ways were removed by me and I did not ask any of the users who made those removals to do so. In the times between these attempts I requested any deletion be made via AFD three times [33] [34] [35] KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...you asked for assistance. Please note that you crossed the line here when you say that you didn't ask for intervention. I did not say anything about you requesting intervention. This type of dishonest tactic is unacceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did attempt to nominate this article for AFD after the speedy was declined. I still much appreciate Andy's involvement. [36].--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (prod as noted in the nomination) not a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. A proposed deletion does not let any other input except outright removal of the tag and deletes the article if the tag remains after 7 days. You’ve been on Wikipedia long enough to know the difference. You made one in 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Bartels. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now there you are correct, so I stand corrected. Perhaps it was best that I errored in the attempt, as it got us to where we both wanted. Yet again...I am !Voting and you are still just arguing. Of course..I am as well so, let us leave this for others to add their input.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also...that cherry picked link to an AFD is not my last nomination but does demonstrate my willingness to understand Wikipedia guidelines and policy as well as community input.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge A Grass skirt is simply a historical/traditional type of Skirt, my vote is for the content to be merged into Skirt. The same as Trousers provides historical information. -- Aeonx (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is surely a notable article of clothing, and the articles has many references. In answer to the above objection that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the article is too long to be a dictionary definition, even if it is currently stub status. Vorbee (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the surprisingly useful citations currently in the article. [I wouldn't have expected sufficient coverage for such a concept.] They're not used the best, but we're not into WP:TNT territory, and deleting this on notability grounds wouldn't make sense. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded the article a wee bit. We have thousands of mentions in literature, both fictional and factual, at our disposal, the term covers traditional skirts of many plant materials, not only Poaceae. I don't see or hear any good reasons for deletion. The concept deserves a mention in skirt, but I don't think a merge is appropriate here. Multiple much shorter articles can be found in Category:Skirts. Sam Sailor 14:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion showing worldwide use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing and cross cultural relevance. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure of how it looked when the discussion started, but in it's current incarnation, clearly passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's certainly enough for an article now, beyond just a definition. The merge target would have to be something like Traditional Polynesian clothing, which is a redlink and unnecessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sad to see the article in a less than ideal state, but deletion is not cleanup.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT "The nominator ...fails to advance any argument for deletion ... clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Andrew D. (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, this is quite a reasonable AFD. Haven't you ever seen people nominate something and say "This is a procedural nomination"? Assuming he's telling the truth (I've not investigated at all, so expressing no opinions), we have someone trying every other way of getting it deleted, and the person's being disruptive, so AFD was a good idea because it would likely result in a clear and enforceable consensus. Also, pretty much any other type of deletion process would be seen as disruptive during such an AFD, so this has the effect of stopping other kinds of actions: either the disruptive user will stop, or he'll keep it up and become an obvious candidate for a block. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be more a case of WP:POINT than a procedural nomination. RFC is the correct procedure for editing disputes when you want more input. Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, AfD is not some general purpose place to discuss article issues. Andrew D. (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I corrected you on this the last time you made this bizarre argument, and requested you retract your !vote for that reason (a request you ignored). This WP:IDHT behaviour is unacceptable, and is adding to the growing case for your being TBANned from deletion discussions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly per Vorbee, Nyttend, and Sam Sailor.. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this article had serious problems and needs improvement but it is already getting better. The concept "grass skirt" is common and applies to traditional dress in many cultures throughout the South Pacific including New Zealand, Fiji, New Guinea and parts of Africa. In New Guinea, the flammability of grass skirts is a public health problem in some communities as this article in The Lancet called Grass-skirt burns in Papua New Guinea shows.

As for grass skirts in Hawai'i, that garb was not part of traditional attire and is rejected by contemporary Hawai'ian traditionalists, but was adopted in the 19th century by highly respected hula dancers such as Kini Kapahu Wilson who toured the world in the 1890's promoting Hawai'ian culture. This woman was a giant in Hawai'an history. Yes, the grass skirt was also long associated with inaccurate and sexist stereotypes of that culture, and protests against the grass skirt cliche go back 100 years or more. But we do not deal with that long problematic history by deleting an article about a notable topic, but rather by improving the article using the highest quality sources. We do not impose contemporary Hawai'ian traditionalist concerns on a worldwide encyclopedia, although we must treat those concerns with respect as they are described in reliable sources, by summarizing those sources accurately and neutrally. The bickering in this debate among editors who work on articles about Hawai'i is very unseemly and those editors are advised to control themselves in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, with a name like The lancet, I figured it was some minor news website with attendant reliability problems, but Elsevier Science Direct is a good aggregator, and Ulrichsweb describes it as academic/scholarly. Good find! Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're questioning The Lancet now?! Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lancet is one of the world's most prestigious medical journals and has been published for almost 200 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would this CNN source which mentions the same dangers in a different manner be as reliable for the subject?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, Mark Miller. That news story describes a single fatal incident involving a synthetic novelty grass skirt in the context of a party among Merrill Lynch employees. The article in The Lancet is about a public health problem among indigenous people wearing traditional garb, and documents a pattern, not a single incident. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Snow? In July? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep. Please someone close this unnecessary AfD. AfD is not WP:DR or WP:ANI. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 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.

[1] ttp://www.businessinsider.com/two-percent-of-americans-eat-burgers-for-breakfast-2012-11

[2] Walter & Marlene Zwettler, The great book of bulldogs, bull terrier and molosser: Part 1 Bulldogs and Bull Terrier, epubli GmbH, Berlin, 2012, ISBN 978-3-8442-3922-5.

[3] Dr Davis Harris, The bully breeds, Kennel Club Books, Freehold NJ, 2008, ISBN 978-1-59378-664-9, pp 74-75.

[1]

[1]

[2]