Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 June	4 June >

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. Steve Smith (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Cadé

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

Fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. No Olympic participation (the highest level of competition), and source provided shows that he appeared in only a single competition site out of the 21 2015–16 Fencing World Cup competitions. No significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The two referencess provided that are "articles" are actually promotional blogs and improper as references. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:32, 11 June 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, default to keep. This was a busy AFD, in which many of the comments actually dealt with the appropriate treatment of another article, currently entitled Yale student abortion art controversy. However, with respect to this article, there were seven keep !votes (counting the nominator, paradoxically) and four delete/merge !votes. There is some argument that WP:BLP1E applies, since the bulk of the truly independent coverage relates to the 2008 controversy. However, not all of the suitable sources relate to that period, and the majority of the editors to participate here seem to be of the view that the non-2008 sources are sufficient to give Ms. Shvarts notability beyond that incident, which is a viable interpretation of WP:GNG. Steve Smith (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Shvarts

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I am nominating this article for deletion to test the notability of the subject. This is an article I created, as I was told it was a necessary first step in resolving the larger problem at the Yale student abortion art controversy page. Because certain editors have expressed strong reservations about the subject's notability, and yet have declined my request that they bring the article here to clear the air, I am doing so now. Vera Syuzhet (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (U

— Vera Syuzhet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This really isn't an adequate account of the situation here. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no, there was really no need to do this, as it seems to be a well written and properly sourced example of a Wikipedia article. Your article was the first I've heard of the topic and the individual, and both of these articles educated me about an event I had missed. You bringing this page here may be a unique (has anyone seen this done before?) and principled step in the process of writing a Wikipedia page. I also don't understand why it has received "primary source" and "too close" tags, as the sources are wide-ranging and reputable. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randy Kryn. I'm surprised the primary source tags are on the page, were they added before the refs were cleaned up? Nanophosis (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, those were added after the refs were cleaned up. Vera Syuzhet (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... did you see the last half of the refs? Every source used in the "Exhibitions and publications" section? They're literally all affiliated sources, not secondary, hence why it reads like a CV. czar 17:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation Note that an article on the subject was deleted back in 2008 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Shvarts), then I think moved to user space before returning to articlespace as Yale student abortion art controversy, where it sat for 10 years without issues. Recently the nominator began suggesting that was moved to a biography, and a move was requested, which failed. There was then a long discussion at Talk:Yale_student_abortion_art_controversy#Proposed_WP:MOVE_for_this_article_only,_target_name_not_necessarily_specified, then another failed request to retitle that article to "Aliza Shvarts". These discussions made it pretty clear that there is absolutely not consensus to rename Yale student abortion art controversy as a biography, or replace it with one. The issue here is whether Aliza Shvarts is notable for more than that one incident, in other words whether WP:BLP1E applies, or do we need a biography as well as Yale student abortion art controversy? Merging to the controversy article is one possible outcome. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the 2008 events there is still quite a bit of independent coverage and ongoing notable projects by the subject. The 2008 data then augments that, and combined there seems to be enough for a stand-alone BLP page. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! I don't think my vote will change, but this will be helpful for other voters. Nanophosis (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need the article on the artist and the article on theYale abortion controversy, as that is a highly notable piece done by the artist-- a subset of her practice.104.163.150.38 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a "highly notable piece" then why does it have the title Yale student abortion art controversy? Should articles on highly noted pieces be called controversies? Wouldn't a preferable title be for instance 2008 Yale student abortion art? Wouldn't that be a preferable title for a "highly notable piece"? Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The biography can stand alone and, since that seems to be what this really is about, the Yale student abortion art controversy should be renamed to the proper title of the work, Untitled (Senior Thesis). Note that we cannot use the correct brackets in the title due to technical restrictions. An article about an artist should use the name by which the artist is most commonly known and an article about an artwork should use the title of the work. It's Fountain (Duchamp), not Richard Mutt Controversy, for example. I can't find a single article a bout a controversial artwork that has the word "controversy" in its title. Vexations (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the title of the other article are best added (if you must) to the huge pile over there. Issues to consider include whether it is about the artwork or the controversy, and whether the artwork ever existed, and whether that matters. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article on "abortion art" and re-title to approximately "Yale student abortion art". Both issues should be addressed at once. Vexations had the right idea. This compartmentalized reasoning is detrimental. Artist and artwork are closely related subjects. Especially in the case of a merely ten-year-old career. I think there should be only one article. The other article is about an artwork even if that artwork never existed. A concept of an artwork is still an artwork. We are not the arbiters of what is and isn't art. The sources all refer to art or performance art in that "abortion" piece. No source is referring to it as a controversy. Sources might refer to the controversy in the wake of Shvarts' performance art. There are many parallels between this situation and that found at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). That article is not in the name of Emma Sulkowicz but obviously a redirect facilitates search. The article is in the name of the main artwork. And "controversy" does not grace its title. The parallels end in that an important dispute involved the accused rapist (and fellow student) that was targeted by the "Mattress Performance", necessitating a separate article, titled Columbia University rape controversy. That article's title receives the term "controversy" but importantly it is not about an artwork. There is no good reason I can think of to have the term "controversy" in the title of the Shvarts performance piece. The name of that article could be the name of the artwork or a descriptive title such as "Yale student abortion art" or other possibilities. Bus stop (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Randy Kryn. Aliza Shvarts was born in 1986, thus 2018 is the year of her 32nd birthday. The article Yale student abortion art controversy basically covers the events which took place ten years ago, in 2008, with 18 inline cites, 17 of which are from 2008 and one is from 2006. On the other hand, the Aliza Shvarts biographical entry is a full-length article containing 49 inline cites dating through 2018. It does not seem reasonable to accept that subject is a WP:ONEEVENT personality dating back to when she was 22 years old and that the additional 31 inline cites are of no consequence, which leads to the conclusion that the biographical entry displays more than sufficient prominence to stand of its own accord. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds very logical, but suggests you haven't actually looked at the "additional 31 inline cites", which are pretty much all about, or at least mentioning the 2008 affair. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the biographical entry displays more than sufficient prominence to stand of its own". It is not a question of whether or not the biographical entry can stand on its own—it definitely can stand on its own—but the question is should it? The person is notable but only by a small margin—just like Emma Sulkowicz. A more important factor is that it only takes one article to do this subject matter justice. That is what we should be discussing. The primary question is whether we should have one article or two articles. My primary argument is that there should only be one article on this subject. Both Aliza Shvarts and the artworks of Aliza Shvarts can be covered in one article. Dividing this material into two articles does the reader a disservice. Most readers have a single unified interest in both the artist Aliza Shvarts and the artwork of Aliza Shvarts. One sheds light on the other. Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have already lost two Requested moves on that basis, but just won't drop the stick. You keep repeating the same points, but won't accept that other people just don't agree with you. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to write about what basically is one subject. Are we required to have separate discussions when it is perfectly possible to discuss the entire subject at once? You are not responding to my primary point, which is that we should have only one article on the entire kit and caboodle. I don't care if the title of that article is "Aliza Shvarts" or "2008 Yale student abortion art" (or some other title, but not a "controversy" title). Do you see any great advantage in dividing this subject matter into two separate articles? What, in your opinion, is the advantage in having two separate articles on this subject matter? Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article about performance artist nominated for deletion with no intention of deleting it - hmm... Keep, but, can we not do that, please? The discussion was almost unanimously "if someone else wants to nominate it, we won't stop them, but we will argue for 'keep'" - that did not mean "hey, let's have a deletion discussion among people all of whom want to keep the article". See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/preach_to_the_choir --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More like an exception to WP:POINT. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban—do you think there should be two articles? Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think Vera Syuzhet and company have shown that Shvarts has independent notability beyond her first project, while the first project has sufficient notability to stand alone. --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can each stand alone, GRuban, but should they? What is the advantage in having two separate articles? Couldn't one article cover all the territory that needs to be covered? Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. If we merge the two, since Shvarts's first project got noticeable coverage, we'll either have to rip most of that coverage out, or be giving the impression that her main focus is this one work, while in actuality it was just her student project, and doesn't seem to have been what she has built the rest of her career around. Her career does seem to be focused on the somewhat related gamut of feminism, gender, sexuality, and rape, but not necessarily repeated abortions. --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say we don't want to be giving the impression that her main focus is this one work but a separate article on that one work gives that impression. Wouldn't this article be very much like the Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) article? Not only the artwork in the title is mentioned in that article. Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't buy that. I'm reading the article Macbeth without thinking that was basically the only thing Shakespeare was notable for. Yet if it were pasted word for word into William Shakespeare, that would be the impression we would be giving, due to the sheer proportion of the article it would take up. Same for most reasonable sized articles about works, and their authors. --GRuban (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the William Shakespeare article. Is he another 30 year old performance artist like Emma Sulkowicz and Aliza Shvarts? Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep refs over time establish notability. However some should be trimmed. For example the Women in Perfomance board reference amounts to a namecheck that is self-promotion of a cv item, published by some friends of the artist no doubt. About ten refs could easily be cut to reduce the puffed-up nature of the claims.104.163.150.38 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)— [[User:104.163.150.38]|104.163.150.38]]] ([[User talk:104.163.150.38]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/104.163.150.38]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete/Merge to the other article (without changing the name). Actually I think WP:BLP1E does apply, at least so far in her career. Without the 2008 incident I really can't see she would be notable. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and REDIRECT name to Yale student abortion art controversy where her notability almost entirely lies. Coverage of her has been in the context of that project, or is sparse and trivial; gNews search [1]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory There are many additional sources that do not come up in a Google news search, please consult the many scholarly and news sources cited in the BLP in consideration. In the event of a merge, do you support keeping the current "controversy" title, or changing to a title more in line with Wikipedia precedent (articles on artworks are always titled using the artwork's title, rather than a title describing the artwork's reception)? —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.GregoryAn appeal to the Argument from ignorance is hardly convincing, especially in consideration of the sources that have already been provided in the article. That your search (which, BTW is not guaranteed to yield identical results when performed by different users) doesn't yield results that support a claim to notability is both questionable and irrelevant. You have to show that the sources already provided do not establish notability. Vexations (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is silly that so many of you ignore sources. Yale spokesperson Helaine S. Klasky tells us: "Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body. She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art. Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns." The reference there is to an "art piece". Should we be overlooking that this as an "art piece" and misconstruing it as a "controversy"? Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What has this to do with the matter at hand? Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"What has this to do with the matter at hand?" Johnbod—you are saying "Delete/Merge to the other article (without changing the name)." Obviously the name should be changed. I quoted from one, of many, sources which indicate that it is an artwork that we are talking about. The title does not acknowledge that it is an artwork. The title misconstrues the subject of the article, calling the subject of the article a "controversy". Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep telling you, you have lost two rename proposals over there. People just don't want to do it. Even by your account, the artwork took precisely the form of a controversy, so you shouldn't object to it being called so, any more than a statue or altarpiece. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have I lost two rename proposals? The first such proposal is still ongoing, although inactive. The second such proposal was withdrawn by me the same day that I created it. It was decided that a biography article on the artist was going to be created. TonyBallioni wrote "Vera Syuzhet: I’ve deleted the existing redirect. Feel free to move your draft there, which seems to be what is being proposed here anyway. Then a merger discussion can take place as to if we need both articles, and this RM can be withdrawn. Pinging Bus stop as they started this RM." As I see it, a rational discussion should take place including all the possible outcomes for this subject matter. The hassle has been the compartmentalization of these discussions. We should be able to discuss everything at once in one place. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first ended with "The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title or any other title at this time, per the discussion below; it is possible that a separate article on Aliza Shvarts is warranted, but that is outside the scope of this close. Dekimasuよ! 23:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)". You have gone on adding below, but it is very much closed, as is the 2nd. Nuff said. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how we can properly consider the second move discussion closed, as I have followed exact instructions on how to go about resolving that move discussion. I created the BLP, per instructions, and was told to "see if it survives." We continued going in circles about the artist's notability, which is why I brought the article to AfD. Currently, there are more "keep" than "delete" votes. Re: the title, I have pointed out many times that if we consider the performance a work of art, which we do, it would be literally the only work of art on Wikipedia not titled using the artwork's title. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this AfD an act of performance art? I recognize the irregularity of this comment. However, given that page creator of Aliza Shvarts is a new editor with the, er.... highly unusual name Vera Syuzhet, which translates from pig Latin as Truth narrative construction; that Vera Syuzhet'a one-edit user page reads "Writer of fiction(s)."; and that Vera Syuzhet's editing had been dedicated to this page about a minor performance artist, I do think that we should at least consider the possibility that we are being played.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Another artwork? There was a bunch some years ago who tried creating fake articles "as art", which all got deleted pronto, Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the artist isn't real, and this is an elaborate con? I tried to check some of the references but got too many ads piling on and came back from those links quickly. If she isn't real, then yes, of course delete. But if she is, and the references are real, there seems enough notability to qualify for a separate page. (this comment has been a performance art piece) Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my first post on the Talk:Yale_student_abortion_art_controversy#Requested_move_14_May_2018 page, I am a writer and scholar who is currently working on Aliza Shvarts's practice. IRL, I am an art historian and fiction writer who has no previous experience with editing Wikipedia. The arguments I've been making are sincere. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got this [2] from an IP on my talk page a couple of hours after noting that "Vera Syuzhet" is a word play name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world we are all wordplay (you had me at "art historian"). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory I'm not sure if you're suggesting that IP edit came from me—it didn't! My arguments and investment in the subject are sincere. It seems that most Wikipedia users have usernames that are not their real names? —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems kind of foolish that we improperly title an article and then expect to make sensible decisions regarding whether or not a related article should be created. The first order of business is correcting the error in the title of the first article. Then, from that vantage point, we can weigh future decisions such as those concerning the contemplated creation of a second article. The sources call it a work of art yet we call it a controversy in the title of the first article. The correcting of that error is the first order of business. We shouldn't even be talking about creating a biography of the artist if we are incapable of titling the article of the best-known artwork as an artwork. It is ass-backwards to consider whether or not there should be an article on the artist when the most-well-known work of art is not acknowledged to be a work of art in the title of its article. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. I have looked at the sourcing. It had not only persuaded me that the article on the art project controversy project, under its current name, is appropriate and that this one should be deleted. The Yale student abortion art controversy is notable as a controversy about a student art project. It is not notable as a work of art. Sources have not been produced to show that Aliza Shvarts is not notable for anything beyond than being the creator of an art project that became controversial, despite the fact that the page is stuffed with PRIMARY sources and with sources that feature he as the creator of that single project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Shvarts was an art student enrolled in Yale's art program. Her senior project required the making of an artwork, which she did. The artwork was already completed when Yale demanded that documentation not be provided. She did not inseminate herself publicly or abort pregnancies publicly. The artwork is in the in the will to inseminate and the will to abort. The"documentation" is merely peripheral to the work of art. I think Marina Abramović makes this argument. The title of the article is taking a swipe at the work of art. That is the impropriety. It is unfortunate that our project is taking such a parochial approach to writing an article about a work of art by slighting it with a title that doesn't even refer to it as art. That is patently non-neutral. The documentation is not the heart of the artwork. The idea of deliberate insemination followed by deliberate abortion, multiple times within a defined, finite period of time, is the artwork, and no good quality source can be produced contradicting that, which is to say that there is no good-quality source saying that this is not an artwork. We are alone among good quality sources in implying that its status as art is in question. That is a ridiculous thing for us to be doing because article titles are not even a place for passing any kind of commentary on the content of articles. The purpose of article titles is to identify the subject matter in articles. Calling it a "controversy" in the title is entirely gratuitous. We don't call Duchamp's Urinal Duchamp's ridiculous urinal as that would be a slight to what all other good quality sources are calling a work of art. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The performance is notable as an artwork, which I clearly established in this discussion, and will reiterate here. The coverage surrounding the work is indisputably part of the artwork according to:

1. The artist, who writes: “The piece exists only in its telling. This telling can take textual, visual, spatial, temporal, and performative forms—copies of copies of which there is no original … The artwork exists as the verbal narrative you see above, as an installation that will take place in Green Hall [which was censored and never exhibited, but as you can see, is only one aspect of the work], as a time-based performance [the video documentation of which was never exhibited, but video documentation is but one mode of documentation, and performance doesn’t rely on documentation, anyway. Another mode would be the aforementioned “verbal narrative.”], as a independent concept, as a myth, and as public discourse.” The last three items claim the space of public discourse on the work as part of the work. This is not a new concept in art, especially contemporary performance and conceptual art. It has been theorized significantly as Relational art. Under the rubric of relational art, the discourse surrounding the work can easily be considered part of the work. Per the Wiki page on relational art: relational artworks “take as their theoretical and practical point of departure the whole of human relations and their social context, rather than an independent and private space.”

Given that, in conceptual art, artworks do not necessarily have to be created—the idea suffices—and in relational art, “the whole of human relations and their social context” is artmaking material, and in performances such as Rhythm 0 or Carry That Weight, the outcome of a given performance situation is not necessarily known by the artist beforehand, but relies on the participation of (willing or unwilling) collaborators, why should we not take the artist at her word that this artwork takes many forms, including public discourse?

2. Harvard art historian Carrie Lambert-Beatty, who coined an entirely new term, "parafiction," to describe Shvarts’s work, which bridges performance, rumor, fiction, discourse, mass media reaction, public debate, and so on. “Fiction or fictiveness has emerged as an important category in recent art … in parafiction real and/or imaginary personages and stories intersect with the world as it is being lived … parafictional strategies are oriented less toward the disappearance of the real than toward the pragmatics of trust … these fictions are experienced as fact.” Lambert Beatty writes that if Shvarts had shown the documentation and sculptures, this “would have destroyed the piece.” What is the piece, then? The piece is the parafiction, the story, the conversations with Yale, the rumors and gossip of a performance which can never be fully authenticated.

3. Theorist Jennifer Doyle, who writes, “the content of the performance has expanded to include nearly all reaction to it.” Later: “Shvarts’s project explores the discursive field through which the female body is produced and read as a reproductive body. She hardly needed to exhibit in the student thesis show to realize the full impact of this dimension of the project. In fact the interruption of the project by Yale’s interdiction brings the work to its most compelling formal conclusion.” Doyle then goes on to assess the formal aspects of the temporal performance, writing about Shvarts’s “removal of sex … [and] all traces of romance, love, and desire”.

3. Art historian Nikki Cesare Schotzko: In analyzing the “lack of [sculptural] materials,” Schotzko considers that the lack of physical artwork caused the “archive of immaterial documentation accumulating in virtual space.” This sounds like formal analysis of an artwork to me. And if you check Shvarts’s exhibition at Artspace, you’ll see pieces called “Banners”, which are print-outs of comment feeds on articles about the work: the “immaterial documentation accumulating in virtual space” becomes (or always has been) part of the work. Shottko goes on to say that “the project [was] restricted to … its linguistic narrative—both the narrative generated by Shvarts herself, in response to Yale’s censorship, and that generated on the part of what became a virtual audience to a work made virtual through the ensuing controversy.” So, the linguistic narrative generated online and in mass media was part of the project. Schotzko sees no neat conclusion to this restriction asking: “How do we reconcile the site (and cite) of Shvarts’s performance with its ongoing virtual reiterations? How do we reconcile the documentation of the event, to which we, as audience, have no access, with the event of its documentation, which we ourselves have created?”

All these academic, peer-reviewed sources, written by art historians, theorists, and critics, agree that the work’s reception—the discourse surrounding it—is part of the artwork. The artist herself claims this space as part of the artwork. Why are we so resistant to this?

No other artwork on Wikipedia, including controversial artworks such as the following, is titled after the work’s controversy. They are all titled either as the artist or as the artwork:

Myra (painting)
The Spear (painting)
Piss Christ
My Bed
Mirth & Girth (Note that this page redirects from "Harold Washington painting controversy, not the other way around. Editors on the talk page seem pretty unbothered by the idea that, although the article is mostly about the controversy, since the painting generated the controversy, the article should be titled after the painting (and be an article about the painting).
Adam's Song Here's a “work of art” which is categorized as a controversy, but is still titled after the work’s title.
Edward and Elaine Brown Here are some people who are notable only for being controversial, and are categorized as a controversy, but are still titled after their own names.

Also, please note that according to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for creative professionals, Shvarts clearly meets criteria 3 and 4, and is notable. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that all this reinforces that she is only notable for the single 2008 event, which is the relevant issue here. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yale student abortion art controversy, for reasons already discussed to death at its talk page. Source review: If you remove the "Exhibitions and publications" section, which appears to be based entirely on affiliated and primary source refs that compose half of the bibliography's bulk, what remaining sources discuss the artist's oeuvre/career as independent from the affair (and suggested retarget)? For those playing along, those are the refs on the two remaining paragraphs of the "Career" section. Well, Schotzko almost exclusively recounts the 2008 media response (see my summary on the aforementioned "discussed to death"), the small art mag Out of Order ref is an interview that provides next to nothing we can paraphrase for an encyclopedia article, which leaves a short paragraph on her 2012/ongoing performance in Lilith. The rest are either excerpts from the recent Artspace show's catalog or primary/affilated sources. Anything we can pull from these would be out-of-place in the existing article about the 2008 event, hence the redirect instead of merge. We standardly build articles in summary style: If and when the artist begins to receive profile/feature pieces from reliable, secondary sources, we can expand and possibly split from the existing article, but until then, the subject of the extant coverage is plainly the media circus (events/affair/controversy) surrounding the 2008 piece, not the artist's extended oeuvre, biography, or the actual 2008 never-shown performance itself, about any of which our reliable sources say little.
Non-consensual Collaborations (2012–ongoing), in which the artist "retroactively designates events and interactions not initially conceived as part of an artistic project as art"
I'm not sure what there would be to gain from declaring this discussion—extremely minor in the annals of Wikipedia—part of an artistic project, but for posterity, we certainly didn't consent to an artistic collaboration here either. Had this discussion not been so prominently advertised, I would have much rather spent this time building biographies on underserved artists about whom we already have an overabundance of reliable, secondary sourcing but just no article. Such sourcing determines whether we are able to do justice to an encyclopedic summary without deviating into primary source original research, the latter being antithetical to Wikipedia. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 17:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

czar—it is important that you understand that we are writing an article about a work of art. An article on that work of art should not be titled "Yale student abortion art controversy". The article is about the work of art. This is something you should address because it is at the heart of all discussions on all Talk pages related to this topic. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article isn't about a work of art. It's about an affair/event/controversy surrounding what was reported as a work of art. The notable topic is the media circus that existed independent of whether the artwork even exists (and alas that is part of the artist's point). The contents are closer in lineage to a celebrity tabloid blow-up that happens to pertain to the art world than to a discussion of an artwork. This is how our article is currently written and also how the topic is covered in the extant reliable, secondary sources. However, this whole matter is a separate discussion and my defense is already crystal clear at its talk page so no need to get off-topic here. czar 19:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

czar—you write "That article isn't about a work of art" and "The contents are closer in lineage to a celebrity tabloid blow-up that happens to pertain to the art world than to a discussion of an artwork". How can something happen to pertain to the art world if it is not art? What is it—pseudo-art? Meta-art? Is it an approximation of art? I hope you can weigh in and enlighten us as to how it pertains to the art world but it is not art. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

czar—the Yale student abortion art controversy is incorrectly titled. That is the underlying problem. We don't write about a work of art and call it a "controversy". It is a work of art. We don't pass commentary in article titles. The purpose of an article title is to identify the subject of the article. "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Articles on works of art do not use the term "controversy" in the title despite the artwork sometimes being "controversial". The term (controversy) is merely a characterization of the artwork. That isn't what titles are for. Titles are only supposed to identify the subjects of articles, not to "characterize" that subject. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I've made the same point to you a half-dozen times but you don't seem to be engaging with it. And it's off-topic in this deletion discussion either way. czar 19:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally you need to stop compartmentalizing this discussion. There is only one discussion for anyone who can chew gum and walk at the same time. We are discussing how best to cover an artist and an artwork. This is a standard task that we do at Wikipedia. You are departing from standard practice when you argue "The notable topic is the media circus..." Stop it. We do not write about artworks or artists by instead titling the article to indicate that the subject of the article is "the media circus". Whatever Talk page we are on, you are constantly referring to the other Talk page. Stop it. The crux of the matter is the original and improperly titled article. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason the SPA tag is at the top? ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific reason, L3X1. Its presence can be attributed to paranoia and suspicion. I obviously did not put it there. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 11 June 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 20:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Top Kid

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

This article about a Malaysian reality television program has been unsourced since George W. Bush was President and we all had Nokia candybar phones. A WP:BEFORE turns up nothing. My knowledge of Malay fits comfortably on a fortune cookie paper so I will happily withdraw this nomination if there are great sources for this article in Malay that I could not find. A Train^talk 19:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching for the title in Chinese turns up no relevant results, and the article itself is puffy and promotional. Even if sources do show up, the page should be deleted for now and be recreated if/when that occurs. Nanophosis (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not verifiable in its present form; searches for the contestant names gives no results. Indistinguishable from a hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:40, 5 June 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 20:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call bombing

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

Essay-like article discussing a specific way of delivering bomb threats, which already has an article. I would redirect, but I can't find evidence that this term is widely used to refer to bomb threats. Creator was later banned for repeated creation of unsourced articles with dubious content. RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see much salvageable for a merge to Bomb threat (which is also in a sad state). I am against a redirect, since I think call bombing is synonymous with call flooding - which is a denial of service attack on a telephone switchboard or call-center.[3][4].Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just as Nom and Icewhiz say.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even accurate in 2009 when it was created, " ... the clear majority of Bomb threats are made over the phone" The information is misleading, considering all the bombings that have occurred worldwide with no advance warning. "Typically bombings don't cause many casualties compared to other types of terrorism". Compare to any terrorist attack that has happened anywhere in the world. This article is bizarre in its misinformation and needs to be taken off Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not widely used. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Icewhiz. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:56, 10 June 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. Steve Smith (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reina González

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

No notable wrestler. It's just a WWE develoment talent with just a few matches, without any important feud or storyline. His most notable match is the Mae Young Classic, but is just one match. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete WP:TOOSOON Dannys-777 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Too soon. Also, being in the Mae Young Classic means very little, as other performers aren't notable even whilst doing this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only non-routine coverage sources are about the signing. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 17:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of mentions, but little in the way of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (but not salt—this article hasn't been created since 2013, so there is no particular reason to believe in the existence of a sustained campaign to re-create it...and, of course, it's not impossible that the subject will achieve notability somewhere down the line. Steve Smith (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Chadwell

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

Fails notability guidelines at WP:NACTOR. Previously PROD'ed and previously deleted at AfD. Ifnord (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt- The article has weak sources, a google serch found nothing better. It was probably created as a marketing tool and salt to prevent recreation.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only claims of notability are appearing on reality TV shows, and none of the appearances seem sufficient to meet WP:ENT. The referencing in the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, and apart from Youtube clips from the show I don't see anything useful in Google search. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 11 June 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. Steve Smith (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Fantasia

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

Subject fails notability guidelines at WP:NACTOR. Only real news coverage was for a one-off event, WP:BIO1E. Two of the articles in the reference actually appears to be the same article, likely a newswire. Ifnord (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:43, 10 June 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. Steve Smith (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Dawkins

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

No notable wrestler. He is just a develoment talent in WWE's farm territory. Just had a few matches. Too soon for this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any independent sources which would support notability. - Galatz ^Talk 17:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the referencing is atrocious and the best refs are summaries of TV episodes, where his appearances appear to be minor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 11 June 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mac (Radio Presenter)

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

Notable shows but subject matter fails WP:RS and WP:CREATIVE. It is just Too soon, i believe a radio presenter such as Dave Mac should have reliable coverage. Edidiong (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article which is effectively the CV of a radio DJ and stadium announcer, sourced to routine role listings. The subject was briefly in the local news in 2012 [5] but that falls under WP:BLP1E criterion 1. Neither on his previous roles nor on his current venture am I seeing the substantial coverage needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 04:11, 11 June 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! 09:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Matha

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

No notable wrestler. It's just a develoment wrestler with WWE with just a few matches. It's too soon to create this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here is the logic: if he was released tomorrow has he done enough to be notable? Not yet, he may or may not end up being notable but that'd be WP:CRYSTALBALL'ing at the moment. MPJ-DK 22:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I moved this from drafts to the article space after he was featured in the Greatest Royal Rumble match. If the consensus is for delete I would request this to be returned to drafts, as it's highly likely that he will pass GNG in the future. Dannys-777 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete - Most likely is going to be notable, if not now, but I can't find any in-dept coverage. No problems against recreation though Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am border line on whether or not he meets WP:GNG. Therefore I lean toward keep rather than deleting someone notable. - Galatz ^Talk 17:27, 6 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tian Bing

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

No notable wrestler. It's just a develoment wrestler with WWE with just a few matches. It's too son for this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here is the logic: if he was released tomorrow has he done enough to be notable? Not yet, he may or may not end up being notable but that'd be WP:CRYSTALBALL'ing at the moment. MPJ-DK 22:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is quite a few sources that talk about him in depth Yahoo Sports, Sky Sports, Bleacher Report, Sportskeedia, UK Magazine The Sun (Unreliable as a source for BLPs, but should still prove some notability), and even the South China Morning Post. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on Lee's sources, although some are not RS, i believe he has provided enough to meet WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 17:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the first Chinese person to compete in WWE, he has received significant coverage from both Chinese- and English-language media, as shown by Lee Vilenski above. Meets WP:GNG. -Zanhe (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His on stage performance doesn't matter, WP:GNG already met when he sign the contract. --Skyfiler (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How? That is not in the guideline. MPJ-DK 17:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

multiple reports with significant coverage from independent news agencies like Reuters and the Sun.--Skyfiler (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which was not your comments before. MPJ-DK 02:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The article, in its current form, obviously does not establish the subject's notability. However, the multiple RS discovered by Lee Vilenski should help it easily pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:30, 10 June 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 20:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cutler (wrestler)

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

No notable wrestler. It's just a develoment wrestler with WWE with just a few matches. It's too son for this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here is the logic: if he was released tomorrow has he done enough to be notable? Not yet, he may or may not end up being notable but that'd be WP:CRYSTALBALL'ing at the moment. MPJ-DK 22:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is clearly WP:TOOSOON. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The philly.com article has him as a passing mention. There is one article about his military background. All the others are just routine coverage of matches, etc. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 17:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is too soon, currently fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:14, 7 June 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 Millstone, New Jersey#Education. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millstone Academy

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

I have been unable to verify the existence of an academy by this name, and the sources used in the article don't even provide a name for it. When did it open? When did it close? Is it still open? What age range did/does it cater for? This is very basic stuff and this is a complete failure of WP:V. There's no chance of a redirect or a merge because we don't even know the name of this academy. It's not even worth moving to a draft without a verifiable name. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even in the two sources given, the subject wasn't even notable enough to be given a name. One refers to "a two-storey building, known as the academy", and the other mentions "an academy at Millstone, Somerset County". Brad v 14:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am seeing that most often the phrase "an academy at/in Millstone, New Jersey" is used often in one-sentence content that says someone attended or was on the faculty of the school. Which, along with one instance of Millstone Academy, is used for the one person linked to the article. But, I am not finding but a couple of instances of Millstone Academy and one instance of Academy at Millstone (which could have been a capitalization typo based upon all the other uses of "an academy at/in Millstone"). Since I am not finding information to build more content and there is only one person linked to the article, I vote to delete (over an earlier proposition I made to merge into the history section of Millstone, New Jersey.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the two sentences in this article provide little information beyond saying that the Millstone Academy was a school in New Jersey. Vorbee (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG nothing found in a before search. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am perhaps somewhat restricted by not having access to newspapers.com but I do know that some of those who have already commented do have access. I can't find any indication that this institution, whatever its name may have been, satisfies GNG based on sources to which I do have access. Perhaps just one of the many small, privately-run schools that proliferated at the time and survived often for no longer than the life of its founder? - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nom, it's unclear - from the single source - if there was actually a school named Millstone Academy. Chetsford (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Retarget to Millstone Historic District~~Retarget to Millstone, New Jersey#Education, the building is now known as Millstone Borough Hall. [6] It was once the school house. [7] "The intellectual life of the community was not neglected as Millstone began the new century. A co-educational public school called the Academy opened in 1814 in a building next to the church. During the Civil War, the public school moved to what is now Borough Hall, where classes continued until about 1940. Starting in 1826 a Classical School for the study of Latin was held at the home of Dominie Zabriskie. Joseph P Bradlee, one of the early teachers at the Classical School, went on to become a United States Supreme Court Justice. Members of the Congregation of the Reformed Church at Millstone formed the Millstone Lecture Room Association in 1858. Lectures, readings, debates, and concerts were held in the old school building by the church." Point is, the district covers the important places associated with the schools like the Hall and the place next to the Reformed Church, which may or may not be there anymore. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC) updated 15:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, the education section could be beefed up with the related paragraph in Millstone, New Jersey. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the redirect would be a good idea. It does appear, according to your text, that the Millstone Academy is not where Joseph Bradlee (Bradley? Sources differ on spelling) taught - he taught at the Classical School in a different building. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather from this source [8] the Borough Hall was built in 1860 as a schoolhouse and was not known as the Academy but Millstone Borough Schoolhouse. So I think it would be incorrect to say that the Academy is now known as Millstone Borough Hall as there are no sources to attest to it ever having been called The Academy. All we can say is that there was a building that was used as a shcool under the name The Academy between 1814 and circa 1836. We don't know if the school continued to be called The Academy after Bradley was the principal or teacher at another school called the Classical School depending on the source. We are not faced with some very reliable sources I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is the problem when someone cobbles together an article from a bunch of single sentence, passing mentions that may or may not be about the same place - leaving others to clean up their steaming deposit. From a quick look, I found 3 places called Millstone in New Jersey and it's not inconceivable that more than one of these places had a school. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the redirect because the article deals with an historic district of existing buildings. The source says that it was opened in 1814 in a building next to the church, but the church listed in the historic district was built in 1828. Was the church that it was next to in the historic district or elsewhere? Over and above that the definition of an Historic districts in the United States "a geographically definable area, urban or rural, possessing a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district may also comprise individual elements separated geographically but linked by association or history". I don't agree that the district covers demolished buildings especially when we are not sure exactly where they were situated. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, well made. A redirect from a WP:SYNTH title of something that we don't know the name of is slightly tenuous anyway. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple books that describe Bradley as associated with Millstone Academy so that name has some relevance, but yes, I agree it could go into the history section or the education section of Millstone. If the concern is about the Millstone Borough Schoolhouse, that's covered by historic district, and the Reformed Church is covered in the historic district article. That the original "Academy" building is next door to that church indicates the site in the same district. It doesn't seem like SYNTH to me, but if you want to play it safe you can just expand the education section or history section for the town to include this. I'm not sure why this wouldn't be thought of as a reliable source. Perhaps somewhat primary, as It's published by the town; you'd think they would know their own history of what buildings are there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link for the classical schools in Hillsborough/Millstone. [9] It discusses Zabriskie's house used as a Latin school in a paragraph. The paragraph after that talks about a Millstone classical school conducted by John Cornell and continued by Bradley (supreme court guy). Then there's a third classical school that went from 1870 to 1876. So this would be good stuff for the early educational history of the town. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree that we're discussing potential content for another article, not this one, so this AfD might not be the place for it. I'd hate for someone to come along, skim-read and then !vote in a misguided slapdash fashion. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I don't think any of these "classical schools" can be described in more than a small paragraph, which can easily be merged into the sections of other articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same source as the classical schools a few pages before [10] (Everts & Peck, 1881) confirms an academy, established in 1814 from the lot from Daniel Disborough, two-story house, with Abram Montfort the original teacher, and Mr. Wallbridge from 1821-1828. In 1860 it moves to the new location north of town, (which is strongly likely to be Millstone Borough Schoolhouse as that was established in 1860), and indicates the former school lot which was "in the rear of the church", was bought by the trustees representing members of the church. The 1814 academy mentions teachers William Lytle (1832-1833), Mr. Kingsley, Stephen H. Rowan, James S. Taylor, Mr. Pillsbury. The school at Dominie Zabriskie's place was for teaching Latin and ran in 1826-1827. The classical school (not clear if the same as Zabriskie) lists John Cornell (1828-1835), Mr. Addis, Joseph P. Bradley, and William I. Thompson. Most of the biographies for Bradley have him briefly teaching at an academy in Millstone after graduating from Rutgers in 1836 but before enrolling in law school. [11] Some sources called him a principal at Millstone Academy [12] Well, after all that, I still think the education section would be the best retarget for academy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High schoos are usually kept at AfD, and academy in this context is probably a high school. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence it was a high school. The only students mentioned are "smaller children", see here. Brad v 04:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source taken from the page about Millstone Rutgers Law Journal, Volume 33, Issue 2, Rutgers School of Law, Camden. Accessed June 4, 2018. "Abraham O. Zabriskie was born on June 10, 1807 in Greenbush, near Albany, New York. At age four, he moved with his family to Millstone, Somerset County, New Jersey where he received a thorough education at the Millstone Academy and under the tutelage of his father, a pastor." It was a town that had between 40 and 50 dwellings so very unlikely to have had a high school as such and more likely to have had a small primary school. It is not because it is called an academy that it is "probably" a high school. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice !vote there Eastmain. You didn't even read the rationale, did you? Exemplo347 (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Everts & Peck, 1881 source is the one that mentions the "smaller children" occupying the second floor while the lower floor was a "schoolroom proper". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead & add your information to the other article before we get swamped with more skim-reading !voters and we get stuck with this article. People are going to assume that you want your info in this article - if you do, then be clear, if you don't, then be clear too, because it's becoming a bit confusing and new !voters aren't going to bother to read through the discussion properly. Exemplo347 (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added with the references provided to the Millstone education section, and changing my vote to redirect to there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Millstone, New Jersey#Education Thanks to the digging by AngusWOOF, we now know that school existed, what its name was, when it existed and where it's located, which addresses all of the pertinent issues raised in the nomination and those delete voters who have not taken this added context into account. While the school might not (now) merit a standalone article, a redirect to the section where AngusWOOF added details about the school would be appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. We can be sure that this was a real school but there is not much in the way of notability for a seperate article. I think merging all the info to Millstone, New Jersey is the way to go. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:10, 6 June 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 12:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Salman (entrepreneur)

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

An advertisement for the entrepreneur, not an encyclopedia article. And not notable: There are no significant accomplishments, except an award from a Bahrain Businesswomen's Society. Essentially every one of the many refs is a press release or notice or both , often in connection with the opening of one of her facilities , The most extensive is a cover story in a magazine, "Woman - Bahrain edition" but that "story" is actually an interview where she says whatever she wants to in response to the usual leading questions of that genre. And the "magazine" is apparently published by a company called "redhousemarketing" (see https://issuu.com/redhousemarketing/docs/wtm_january_2016), and is thus simply elaborate PR. DGG ( talk ) 13:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 21:26, 4 June 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 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mount (streaming)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for subject failing WP:WEB and WP:NSOFTWARE. -The Gnome (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:27, 3 June 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. Enigma^msg 16:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Lawson

AfDs for this article:

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

She has not done anything relevant to increase her notability since either of the last two discussions. JDDJS (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It doesn't matter what she's done. All that matters is that significant coverage has been given in independent sources. Since the deletion took place in late 2016, the following articles have been published specifically about her which alone make her meet the WP:GNG: [13], [14], [15] each in the New York Post, and the Playbill interview/article [16]. Miyagawa (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was rightly deleted in 2016, but, since that time, there have been plenty of sources one can easily locate online about its subject. So, the article has been rightly recreated. -The Gnome (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is clearly notable and well documented actor. The page could use some copy-editing and preferably inline citation, but worth keeping for sure. Shushugah (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems pretty clear from the references provided that she meets the notability guidelines. Million_Moments (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep critical note merits inclusion per NACTOR. The 2009 Rent appearances gained significant note on their own e.g. [17], [18] (by the way, the dates in the article for thisntour must be wrong). ☆ Bri (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NACTOR. -- Dane ^talk 02:52, 7 June 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. Neutrality^talk 04:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Old Arkansas City High School

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

The place no longer exists independently and is now a hall in another school, Cowley Community College, in whose article all the relevant, historical information is already presented. Subject fails WP:GEOFEAT. Deleting this page and placing a redirect to Cowley would be the sensible move. The Gnome (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification This AfD is not about a school. It's about a building. The subject of the contested article no longer exists. Its building, refurnished, is part of the campus of a college that already has an article in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep. High schools are inherently notable, and notability does not vanish whenever a school (or any other institution for that matter) closes. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 12:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Didn't you read the clarification above? This AfD is not about a school! (As to whether or not "schools are inherently notable," the jury is still out on that one. But this is an altogether irrelevant issue. We're not talking about schools.) -The Gnome (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Delete. I have been informed that consensus regarding the notability of schools was not what I imagined it to be. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG; no reliable secondary sources. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 12:57, Sunday, June 3, 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which usually has sufficed to turn aside AFDs, because the standards for NRHP listing (including explicit standards given in guidelines for NRHP listing, experts' judgment, multiple levels of review and approval, documentation, bibliographies of sources, etc.) are generally higher than Wikipedia's notability standards. It is notable for its architecture and history. From the NRHP nomination document "The old Arkansas City High School is an outstanding example of the stonecutter's art. The fine detail and workmanship evident on the exterior make it one of the city's architectural landmarks. The building is also significant*to the educational development of Arkansas City, having served the community since 1890.". Article could be tagged for more development.

Merger to the community college article would be an alternative to deletion (and we are obliged to seek wp:ATDs), and would be obviously superior to outright deletion. However there is not much sensible overlap; the community college article is and should be about the school, and not about the fact of architectural and historic significance of one of its buildings, not necessarily an important one to the community college (I don't know about that actually). Simply keep is better, with tagging for further development. --Doncram (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is disputed is the independent notability of the hall in Cowley college; not its notability as a building per NRHP. Hence, the proposal to delete & merge (even though there's nothing more in here than what is already in the Cowley article). -The Gnome (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:DENY - FloridaArmy is under a community sanction preventing them from creating articles. Creating one over a redirect is still creating.Exemplo347 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a stretch. I created the article. The fault here is The Gnome's outrageous or BOLD edit, in this redirect, which eliminated the article on June 3, and put this into play. If FloridaArmy did not revert that edit, I certainly would have, as is proper under wp:BRD or under stronger reasoning of reverting near-vandalism. There is no way the elimination of the article would qualify under any Speedy criteria, and a PROD would be removed, and elimination by redirect is even further out of order, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't allow emotions to get the better of you, Doncram. I suggested a merge back in April 2018, but no response came. Some two months following that, I redirected the article. I never nominated this for a Speedy Delete. FA immediately reverted the tag. So, instead of edit warring, I nominated the article to be deleted and merged. All according to procedure. Please do not use words such as "vandalism" so casually. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal is fine, which had barely started; i was just pinged by the first participant, and was coming to see what was going on. You then violated process by redirecting it, pre-judging the merger proposal. Also opening the AFD seems inappropriate given the merger proposal outstanding. There is no way that an outright deletion is appropriate, so IMHO it is wrong to open an AFD, and doubly so given a process underway to consider merger. --Doncram (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on wikilawyering yet again, can I point out that by reverting the merge the "process" was effectively stalled. AfD is as good a place as any to progress things in these circumstances, given that we do not have WP:Articles for Merger. FloridaArmy is notoriously inept and you are bound to favour keeping it as the creator. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an organized process for mergers including having an uninvolved administrator close a given discussion: see wp:MERGE. Here there was a merger discussion in process, which was not closed. No need for personal attacks against FloridaArmy or myself. --Doncram (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also, the high school is notable as a school on its own, per User:SwineHerd's comments, despite The Gnome's protestations; once notable, always notable. The article currently is about the building, but it is perfectly fine for it to be developed about the high school per se, its alumni, etc. We don't need two separate articles about the high school, like we usually just have one article for any church and its current/past buildings. --Doncram (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not assume inherent notability for schools; not yet, anyway. So, has anyone found any sources that give substance to the claim of the school possessing independent notability? All we have is the building, which is now a hall, already having its own text in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome's claim/implication that the building's architecture and history is fully covered in the community college article is just false. Description of the size, architecture, materials, story of a builder going into bankruptcy due to cost overruns and a requirement to finish stonework in the basement, etc., etc. based on the NRHP document, would not be appropriate in the community college article. --Doncram (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into a back and forth about what's already there and what's missing, let's just agree that everything that is not already there can be, and quite easily too. And I repeat, this is not about a school article. -The Gnome (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely about that. --Doncram (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up changing the comments you mentioned. *Not* all high schools are notable; in fact, per WP:ORG and WP:GNG, schools must be covered in reliable secondary sources. Which this one is not. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 14:50, Sunday, June 3, 2018 (UTC) 14:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry i did not follow your change of position. I disagree about schools, but let's leave it for elsewhere to debate the RFC about schooloutcomes and about the general advisability of Wikipedia choosing editorially to shut down interest of thousands of beginning editors who create articles about schools, etc. There is no way this topic is not notable on building history and architecture, reflected in NRHP listing, alone, so let's just agree about that and withdraw this AFD, and also choose not to allow this AFD to be used to harass FloridaArmy. --Doncram (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, we are engaging in "vandalism"; now we are "harassing" people. What next? This does not do your credibility any good, Doncram. I sincerely wish you step back from the cauldron of emotion. -The Gnome (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you are twisting my words, both about vandalism and harassment. I did not say what you are implying I said. --Doncram (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not characterize the redirect I did as "near vandalism"? Did you not demand that this AfD, which I initiated, should not be used "to harass" another user? No one is "twisting" your words. If you regret writing them, just say so. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The building itself is notable, as are pretty much all properties on the National Register of Historic Places; the National Park Service has higher standards for listing properties than we do for notability. Most of its history came before the community college bought it, so I'm not convinced that it belongs as a section of that article, and at any rate AfD isn't the place for merge discussions. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does the National Park Service have to do with anything? -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The National Park Service oversees the National Register of Historic Places and its nomination process. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:GEOFEAT policy does not state that inclusion in the NRHP automatically confers notability. The relevant paragraph about buildings is, in its entirety, as follows: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Note plural in "sources" and the term "significant." But even if we accept the automatic notability supported by the Keep suggestions, let's not forget there are more than one million properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Do we call for the creation of one million articles? -The Gnome (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCatalyst31. The building was notable enough in 1973 for the state historical agency to nominate it for the National Register and for the NRHP to approve the nomination. Its notability has been well documented by experts since then, if not before. As far as the "one million properties" on the NRHP - most of these are in historic districts. This is a stand alone site. The total of stand alone sites + historic districts is under 100,000. And yes we have articles for about 70,000 already and look forward to another 30,000 or so. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:GEOFEAT states: "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." That should cover it completely. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOFEAT has separate paragraphs for buildings and for artificial geographical features. This means that the notability criteria for buildings are explicitly different from the criteria for constructs like a dam or a bridge. What you wrote is irrelevant. -The Gnome (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reasonable way to read the three bullet points in the "Buildings and objects" section pointed to by WP:GEOFEAT is that buildings and objects "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable" whereas buildings or objects that are not so designated require additional third party sourcing and some infrastructure objects such as dams are more properly covered in articles about the geographic features where they are constructed. This NHRP-listed building is, accordingly, presumed to be notable. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that further down in the policy it explicitly states that "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Ergo, NHRP does not convey inherent notability for buildings. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those "experts" who testify to the building's independent notability, "since [1973]" or "before"? Beyond NRHP, do we have anything else? This is the gist of the nomination, see. No one and no thing possesses inherent notability in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk)

@The Gnome: you've made over a dozen edits to this nom. It's time you do some listening to other folks. Telling me that my opinion is "irrelevant" is a problem, take a break. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to sit back and listen to anything relevant. So far, we only have zero sources beyond NRHP and citing irrelevant policy. -The Gnome (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should focus on the achitectural history while the community college can talk about the school itself. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge (sorry, I accidentally posted this comment in the wrong place first time round. :I'm inclined to agree about the merger (originally proposed in April, although a listed building is, as Doncram said, notable for being a listed building. In my experience, it's not unusual for us to make articles about listed buildings under their new name, e.g. Ulster Museum, Mar Hall, Playmakers Theatre. If the article were significantly expanded, it might be appropriate to have two separate articles for readability purposes.Deb (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT NRHP listing and discussion about the two above at Smallbones's !vote. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NRHP listing is enough to show it is notable. Indyguy (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was initially torn between keep and merge... but what settled this for me was reading the nomination document at the NRHP website (here). Had that document discussed events and personages associated with the building, I would have said that the building's history is what makes it notable (and, since being part of a larger campus is also part of the building's history, I would have said merge it into the article on the larger campus). However, the document barely mentions the historical aspects, and instead goes into great depth about the buildings architecture (calling it "an outstanding example of the stonecutter's art" and noting "The fine detail and workmanship evident on the exterior"). The fact that the building is now part of a larger campus is actually irrelevant to that architecture. It would be notable for that architecture no matter what was around it, or who owned the building. I do completely agree that the article's title should be Ireland Hall (as I think the more modern name will be more recognizable, and thus better meet our WP:Article titles policy)... however, this isn't the place to discuss that (for name changes see WP:RM... not WP:AFD). Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to respond here because the editor has moved numerous articles on NRHP-listed places to temporary "current" names, when the long-standing permanent name of the place was deliberately chosen in the NRHP listing name. This sometimes amounts to trashing/near-vandalism of Wikipedia articles; I have recently been coming across a number of these and reverting the moves. Often/usually the "sources" used to support a name such as "Adams Sewing and Vacuum Center" are gone from the internet, because the temporary business is long gone, while the "Masonic Lodge" name used in the NRHP nomination and permanently emblazoned across the top of the building, continues to be used by history books and by city/locality plaques and common usage. The permanent names chosen in NRHP naming tend to persist and resurrect, and we should not go with "Spooky's Halloween Costumes" or "Monroe County History Museum which will last 10 minutes" or the like. They don't need the promotion / it is inappropriate to promote "The Antique Emporium" or whatever. The name in Wikipedia should usually reflect the permanent long-term significance. Per NRHP naming guidelines, that's what the NRHP name does.

So, no, User:Blueboar, I don't think anyone here "agrees" about changing the name, or at least no one agrees that it would be obviously better to go with the current community college name. The building is known and notable as "Old Arkansas City High School" or "Arkansas City High School". There is documentation at the time and since on its architecture, as having been built at that name. Probably nothing about its architecture appears under "Ireland Hall" name. --Doncram (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't the venue for discussing what the title of the article is. However, I suggest that you read our WP:Article titles policy (especially the section on name changes) and the essay WP:Official name. We don't do things here on Wikipedia the same way the NRHP does things. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National Register of Historic Places are notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge - Restore the redirect from this version and merge the content to that article. I agree that the content is notable as a listing on the National Register of Historic Places, but the content relevant to it being a building on the Cowley Community College campus. (Although I was tempted to vote Deny because the article was created from a redirect by a user that was sanctioned/prohibited from creating articles.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability of this building evidenced by inclusion in NRHP. MB 01:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has enough sources to show independent notability of the building. There is no good reason to merge or redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Independent notability established. There's enough to make this a decent article separately from that about the college. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being on a register of historic places is a sufficient claim of significance; the article is in a state that would qualify it as a WP:TNT delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the documentation for a successful NRHP nomination alone is more than enough to satisfy GNG. There is a reasonable presumption that numerous sources exist for any public school in the US; the strength of that presumption increases with the age of the school. Notability is not temporary is a very strong keep argument for this article. I see no merit whatsoever in either of the nominators arguments, and neither does the community in general. The school was notable when it was extant; hence it still is. The building is notable enough solely on the merits of achieving an NRHP designation. Even the author of the last school RfC had stated that it was so poorly crafted as to be meaningless. Outcomes since have shown that to be true. Sorry, whether you like it or not: high schools are virtually always going to be notable. John from Idegon (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After voting, it dawned on me that we actually have three articles containing details about the same building. A more logical place to put the information about the building, it seems to me, is within the Arkansas City High School (Kansas) article, where there is already a photograph of it. Assuming this nomination fails, I might put in a redirect request accordingly. Deb (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Deb, that article is one of Florida Army's stellar creations. From a school article standpoint, it should be completely re-written, a task I'm planning on taking on as soon as the community decides what they are going to do about its creator. Perhaps Doncram and I could work together so the history of the school in the old building could be used as a partial content fork of the history section of the school article. It's clear that an NRHP building is notable in its own right, and so is the school. Carrying them as two separate articles with appropriate cross references seems the much neater solution to me. John from Idegon (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building itself is notable, and regarding notability for the high-school - notability is not temporary (though the question is whether, as schools (as opposed to the building), whether Old Arkansas City High School and Arkansas City High School (Kansas) are separate or the same).Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, may as well pile on here, meets WP:GEOFEAT due to being on the NRHP, the article's references, and the consensus here. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By inclusion on the NRHP means that the building's significance has been verified by people on the local, state, and national levels. The article may need some work, but the building is independently notable beyond the institutions that have used it. Farragutful (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep registered on NRHP is a slam-dunk keeper. Cannot think of a single time that such a location was deleted, even if the article is as stubby as a stub can get. And this one looks good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone link to the consensus that NRHP listed buildings are automatically notabled? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can link you to a guideline that says exactly the opposite. Per WP:GEOFEAT, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, *but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability*." Which this article blatantly lacks. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 21:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- IP, the article itself is not what is or isn't notable, it's the subject. An NRHP application is a huge, highly detailed document. It alone is more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. Your claim shows both a lack of understanding of what AfD is for and a drastic lack of WP:BEFORE, which is a requirement if you are going to express an opinion. John from Idegon (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is on the National Register of Historic Places. Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is on the National Register of Historic Places. Passes WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 7 June 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. Enigma^msg 16:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baylus C. Brooks

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

This article is essentially a coatrack for promoting the subject's pop history books. There is no indication that the author himself meets WP:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR or the WP:GNG. The only sources I could find are promotional materials from his publishers and the odd review in non-RSes. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deletion as earlier I nominated this for A7 speedy delete, and it was deleted that way, as well as copyright infringement. Since then it was recreated. Though I must admit this author got his name in a newspaper along with celebratory cleavage gossip. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Baylus Brooks offered a valuable contribution to history with his discoveries of the Thache family records on Jamaica. He published these in a professional Journal and is endorsed by the UNC press as well as the North Carolina Department of cultural resources. "Pop history" is not published by the North Carolina Historical Review. Also the article I believe has been sufficiently reworded from the original source. See:https://www.uncpress.org/book/9780865264793/blackbeard-reconsidered/ SC9370176CEC (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is maligning Brooks' contributions to either scholarship or popular history, SC9370176CEC. Our concept of notability is based purely on whether a person has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case here.

The section I removed and revdel'd earlier today most definitely was a copyright violation. You can't just reword published sources; close paraphrasing is still plagiarism. About 50% of the text was also a word-for-word copy. – Joe (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Joe. My feelings were that Brooks deserved mention for changing the narrative on Blackbeard. My Hope Is that others will feel it this way as well. If it helps:http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/15010736.New_research_shows_family_of_notorious_pirate_Blackbeard_came_from_Stonehouse/ and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3373461/Was-Blackbeard-GENTLEMAN-Historical-records-feared-pirate-actually-aristocratic-family-man-gave-wealth-help-brother-sister.html SC9370176CEC (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:AUTHOR. -The Gnome (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass NAUTHOR or GNG. PROMO and FRIGNE concerns.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to indicate notability; he may deserve mention for his discovery, but that can be done in the article on Blackbeard.TheLongTone (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Making a modest discovery about a notable person is not sufficient to confer notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the work on Thatche is interesting, he himself does not seem to me to meet notability requirements. However it would be appropriate to mention him in the Blackbeard article and some text from here could be perhaps moved to it. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional article. We start off with "may have" and as you move along you realize this is a strong may. THen we have the truly horrid prose of "almsot every author usually wrote", which is two conditionals which means you are saying nothing of worth. Scholarly articles are a dime a dozen. My cousin, who is a history professor, has had two books published, but I can most clearly tell you she is not yet notable, she may be some day, but that day is well in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pile on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 7 June 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(G11) (non-admin closure) Pratyush (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Shaktiputra Ji Maharaj

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

Unsourced, promotional puff probably written by a follower. Apart from mentions in a few blogs and social media, no sources available on the web are reliable. MT Train^Talk 10:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this devotional essay. No sources found of note. More importantly, and sacrilegeously, the photo does not contain the full length of the beard. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non encyclopedic. scope_creep (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- This sort of crappy stuff doesn't have a place on Wikipedia — F R ⁺ 06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly WP:G11 speedy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is WP:PROMO. -- Dane ^talk 02:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nukable mess... Fails WP:GNG Accesscrawl (talk) 19:56, 7 June 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. Enigma^msg 16:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Asian Girls' U17 Volleyball Championship squads

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

This article is incomplete, listing only one of the twelve squads that took part in last month's event. None of the individuals taking part in the event are likely to be notable and this unfinished article seems pointless to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, for starters. Some similar text, though more complete than this flamy-ist mess, will probably appear in the article about the Games themselves. -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if info about the other 11 squads becomes available, merge to 2018 Asian Girls' U17 Volleyball Championship. Info could easily be placed in main article; a separate article, especially one as incomplete as this one, is unnecessary. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 12:58, Sunday, June 3, 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Profectus theory

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

Non-notable term, with zero relevant ghits that I can find (see also discussion on Talk page). None of the references used in the article mention the term, either. Some of the content might be salvageable for the human overpopulation article, so CSD may not be appropriate, but the term itself seems to be made up. Anaxial (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this term seems made up. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 04:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at the very least, the term itself seems to be an invention. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence, outside this article, that either "Profectus Theory" or "Profectus Point" has ever been used. (I wonder why those words are capitalised, none of them is a proper noun.) Maproom (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From my searches, the only uses of the term seem to be on Wikipedia, primarily in edits by Bigthinker109 (talk · contribs), which appears to be a Single Purpose Account. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:07, 9 June 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! 09:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Shade Greener

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

Written by the firm's PR, all sources are namechecks, directories or based on press releases. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom.Anne Delong, this seems to be a ghastly AFC-accept, in light of WP:NCORP and community-standards.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with both of the previous comments. Yes, the original AfC submission was written by a COI editor, but that's part of what AfC is for, to scrub the promotion and puffery before the article hits mainspace - which I did, making substantial changes. Only a few factual statements of the original editor are left. I don't know what at "namecheck" is, but there are no directory listings that I can see, and no press releases. Yes there are some articles that are likely written after a press release was received, but I used only content which appeared to be written by a journalist to support facts in the article, not any quotes or "according to" info. A lot of the sources have negative information about the company and can't be COI. The sources which have only as small mention of the company were included to support a specific fact; this shouldn't detract from others, like the BBC television clip and the Telegraph article, which are totally about the company. I added a few more sources that I found.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you acted in good faith, but the problem remains: the sources lack intellectual independence. It is trivially easy to send out press releases. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the sources do all lack intellectual independence but I also expect all the sources in Donald Trump are likewise doubtful. Even if one is independent we won't know which one for 50 years (or so, or ever). I think you really mean you don't like having an article about this subject. Neither do I to be honest. Thincat (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Trump is not drawn from press releases issued by the subject. This article is. Are you familiar with the term churnalism? Guy (Help!) 21:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange question. Yes, of course.. Thincat (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Guy, the sources are not press all press releases. Please point out which articles you feel have not been written by real journalists or authors. I found and added a citation to an academic paper which discusses the company's business model and how it influenced the solar industry in the UK.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. Promotional 'cruft for a nn private company. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Sutcliffe

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

Non-notable actress/producer/writer, with no coverage and no notable awards. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Awards sources

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] CastingMD (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC) — CastingMD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ "WINNERS August 2017".
^ "Los Angles Film Award - WINNERS August 2017".
^ "ACTING AWARDS & NOMINATIONS-SHORT FILMS".
^ "LA Shorts Awards Winners - November 2017".
^ "barebones film festiva" (PDF).
^ "ONIROS FILM AWARDS" (PDF).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the awards are not of such a level to confer notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a failure to meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Sourcing is limited, and awards are of questionable merit when trying to meet the criteria laid down by WP:ENT. Note also that the article creator has been deemed a sock (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sathish1127), so one could stretch out a WP:PROMO argument.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added 3 more sources and content for awards. Her works are notable in feature and short film industry. Teoin27 (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC) — Teoin27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created with promotional intent - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CastingMD. Deb (talk) 07:23, 7 June 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 Dissent. There is consensus that the topic is notable but that the content is very deficient. But editors disagree about whether this means that we should delete the article per WP:TNT or keep it as a basis for improvement. The redirection is a compromise that implements what consensus we have: the history is kept, but the content is omitted from view until somebody competently recreates the article. Sandstein 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression of dissent

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

The subject of suppression of dissent is probably legitimate for Wikipedia, but this article is not. It is drawn almost entirely from the work of a single person. Even the sources that are not authored by him are hosted on his user space at his institution. It's been flagged for numerous issues for over two years and there's no sign of it being fixed. Most of it reads as a personal essay. And the primary cited source is controversial to say the least: he considers Andrew Wakefield to be a victim of suppression, he considers the OPV-AIDS hypothesis to be legitimate science suppressed by the mainstream. It is not a coincidence that a notorious anti-vaccination activist sought him out to co-supervise her controversial PhD along with notorious quack Peter Dingle. This article is a WP:COATRACK and needs WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Bad faith nom - This editor is actively engaging (check 27 May contributions) in a WP:BLPCOI campaign to remove citations/mentions of Brian Martin who wrote about JzG in an analysis titled Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses in a peer-reviewed journal (paywalled, but available here). Note the aspersions about the author in the AfD justification and lack of any actual guidelines or policies which would justify deletion. -- Netoholic @ 12:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No COI, this article says nothing about Martin's kvetching about his article. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is quite notable as there are entire books about it, including:

The Suppression of Dissent
Where Silence Rules: The Suppression of Dissent in Malawi
Gag Rule: On the Suppression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy
"You Will be Thoroughly Beaten": The Brutal Suppression of Dissent in Zimbabwe
Managing Domestic Dissent in First World War Britain
The Price of Dissent: Testimonies to Political Repression in America
The Betrayal of Dissent: Beyond Orwell, Hitchens and the New American Century
Cutting Off the Serpent's Head: Tightening Control in Tibet
The Management of Dissent: Responses to the Post Kent State Protests
Schools Under Surveillance: Cultures of Control in Public Education

If the current draft needs work then, per our editing policy, this is done by improvement not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COATRACK. Incoherent. SPECIFICO talk 08:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SPECIFICO, WP:TNT and most importantly our deletion policy. The article meets points 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14 of WP:DEL-REASON, and Andrew's point, which essentially amounts to "Yeah, but at least it doesn't meet #8" shows a misunderstanding of our deletion policy unbecoming of an experienced AFD contributor. Citing the editing policy in an AFD in order to overrule a deletion policy argument is Mark 10 Jesus on divorce levels of pre-Enlightenment textual interpretation. It also seems highly unlikely he's read all , or even any, of those books, most of which unsurprisingly show up in the first couple of pages of GBooks search for the title of this article: some of them may be unreliable, or may contain nothing of use for our article, or... it doesn't matter. Netoholic's ad hominem argument, which essentially says this AFD should be closed because Netoholic doesn't feel like abiding by AGF, does not even merit a response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't TNT the page history starting from February 2005 just because the current version has one objectionable source (and indeed bases its content too much on one source which is never good). WP:JUSTFIXIT. --Pudeo (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article has only 'ever had one source. It has, ever since its creation, been an ever-lengthening exposition of Brian Martin's views on this subject. Edit number one is sourced to Martin, the first major expansion included almost entirely Martin, the second major expansion (by the same editor) did the same. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:RUBBISH. The nom admits that the article's topic "is probably legitimate for Wikipedia" though he says the current article should be deleted. But if the topic is legitimate, the article should be improved and not deleted. User:Netoholic's comment on the bad faith nom is credible and should be taken seriously.desmay (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic may be legitimate, but this article is not. Hence WP:TNT. Netoholic's comment is itself bad faith - he "forgot" to mention that he only came here as a result of stalking my edits after a content dispute. I know, you're shocked too. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. A fantastically broad topic, supported by fantastically narrow sourcing of remarkably dubious quality. We don't demand perfection, but we need our content to be better than this, and nothing here needs to be saved. (And longevity is no guarantee of quality.) XOR'easter (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. This a a perfectly decent start. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "start" that has never been anything else and is based entirely on the work of one fringe author. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite per nom. As the nominator admits himself, the subject is notable. The format of the article, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired, although much of the info currently in the article could be retained, if rewritten in a more encyclopedic fashion. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 12:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SwineHerd: So, are you going to rewrite the article yourself? If there's nothing in the article worth saving, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by deleting. The deletion policy allows for plenty of reasons to delete beyond lack of notability, and !voting based purely on the inapplicability of a rationale that no one actually invoked is disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and TNT - by which I mean, there aren't suitable/sufficient grounds to actually delete the article (and yes, 聖 is correct that no-one is arguing notability grounds, so defending it on that is unneeded). However once preserved it might as well be functionally blanked and reworked, since the content adds very little, is premised off a single source, and focuses in a non-beneficial fashion. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That works Although to prevent another Korean influence on Japanese culture-type fiasco where the article is blanked and then a bunch of super-suspicious SPAs (and even a "keep" !voter trying to retroactively "win" the AFD) show up and start reverting the blanking, I'd prefer revdel or something similar (and explicit close statement in support of the blanking?) being used in addition to simple blanking. It might also be worth noting that the reason that 2014 AFD ended in "no consensus" centered heavily on Andrew Davidson (and a couple of others saying "per Andrew") making straw-man notability arguments without attempting to refute the argument that there was nothing in the page history worth preserving, so my concern is not exactly unfounded... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:46, 4 June 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. Being unsourced, i.e. failing WP:V, is a compelling argument for deletion. Sandstein 12:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of libraries owned by Warner Bros.

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

List of the various companies' films and shows owned by Warner Bros. Unsourced, appears to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Trivialist (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have a number of notable entrys so is useful as an index page, references are on the article pages, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE per nom. Also per result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of libraries owned by MGM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
Delete: per nom. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 12:59, Sunday, June 3, 2018 (UTC) 12:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an interesting list and helps link articles together. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSINTERESTING. Also, every list "helps link articles together"; that this page performs that function is not a unique argument. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 18:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It's probably possible to write an article on this topic, but the current article is entirely unsourced, doesn't describe what the libraries contain, and doesn't link to pages that discuss the libraries. "Archives" might be a better term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Misra

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

Promotional bio DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Sources check out and show notability. If you think the tone of an article is promotional please edit it to remove the slant. Egaoblai (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not independent, reliable sources and are almost entirely PR pieces. So notability is an issue here.[19], [20] are from apparent non-notable organizations; [21],[22] are interviews (in non-notable sources); [23] is her organization's website; [24] is a promotional bio for a talk she gave. --regentspark (comment) 21:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RegentsPark above, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-What RP said.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poor sourcing and very promotional. -- Dane ^talk 02:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I failed to find coverage in reliable sources. Subject fails GNG. Pratyush (talk) 07:59, 8 June 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. Trending keep after improvements. Sandstein 12:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Eames

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

Being a mayor of a city does not give someone default notability. In the case of Easmes he was for 1 year maor of a place that had less than 2,000 people, possibly well under that number. None of the sourcing is the type of indepdent, 3rd party reliable sourcing we need to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not as a small town mayor that he is notable but rather as the only member of Brigham Young's 1847 first expedition of 144 to fail to reach the Great Salt Lake. He later reached Utah but then seemingly abandoned the Mormon faith. This 1847 voyage was the first wave of massive Mormon emigration to Utah. A Google Books search shows plenty of coverage such as this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your source here does not support your claims. It says Eames was "one of the very few" of 149 not to make it to Salt Lake City, not the only one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources that in my mind establish notability. The amount of coverage talking about how he turned back on the expedition is pretty sparse - there are a number of sources, but the primary source only mentions he turned back with a bunch of letters. I can't find anything about his mayoral position, but I also sort of hope someone can save Ellis from deletion. SportingFlyer talk 21:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of whether he was the only, or one of the only, members of an expedition to fail to reach the destination, that is not a notability claim in and of itself — and the reference given above for that does not represent substantive coverage about him, but merely a glancing namecheck of his existence in one paragraph of a book about something else. But nothing else here is a strong enough notability claim to exempt him from having to be referenced much better than this is — Provo is large enough that a well-sourced article about a mayor could be kept, but not large enough that its mayors get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing if the sourcing isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond this, I think we should judge mayor's based on the size of their city when they were mayor, not based on its present size. It is hard to say what Provo's population was during the one year Eames was mayor, while most people who moved south from Salt Lake City in late 1857 had returned north by 1858 when the threat of the mob in disguise of a US army destroying and mass raping was no longer felt, it is probably some who moved south stayed, and the general level of LDS migration to Utah was high at least through 1856, and the population also was experiencing natural population growth, so th 2000 some odd in Provo in 1860 is probably a lot more than what there were for the year Eames was mayor. I have to admit that I remain less than convinced John R. Williams one year of service as mayor of Detroit makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't say I necessarily agree with the idea that a mayor's notability should be contingent on the population his city had at the time he was mayor — even New York City once had a population of just a couple of thousand people, but it's large and important enough now that the notability of its overall political history means we should still have an article about every mayor it's ever had regardless of any "what was its population at the time this person was mayor" criterion. That doesn't necessarily apply equally to all cities, I'll grant — I'm certainly not deluded enough to think that there's as much broad interest in the political history of the 160K city I grew up in as there is in the political histories of major cities with populations in the millions — but it does mean such a test can't be an invariable blanket rule. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we also delete John Winthrop because Massachusetts was such a small colony at the time? Pioneers in all fields and periods do accrue notability (i.e., coverage in reliable sources) by being pioneers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources on Ellis can be found under both spellings, Eames and Ames. And that he was also one of the victims of the Haun's Mill massacre (bullet hole through his coat.) Improvement to the page can start by clicking JSTOR on the search bar, 3 articles on Mormon pioneers come up. Sources do exist, page just needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I looked at the JSTOR article that claims to mentioned Eames, but evidently my reading was not close enough because I missed the evidently very passing mentions. "Ellis Ames" shows up lots and lots of stuff, but none that I could tell related to that individual. Gregory's claims do not add up. We do not have articles even on all those who made it to Salt Lake City with Brigham Young, I see even less reason to have an article on someone who didn't make it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you chose not to actually read three, long academic articles. But please do not make assertions like "claims do not add up" when you choose not to read the sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the one article I could find by my search. Your extreme rude comments are totally uncalled for and a complete breach of assume good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 articles in the JSTOR search. I randomly picked the 2nd., by Ronald E. Romig, Journal of Mormon History, to read; a detailed section about Eames and his two wives starts in the middle of p. 82, marked by a page break and subhead: Olive Jane Gibbs Ames/Eames. I have added details to the page. Olive Eames lived into the 1890s, when she sat for a photo and published an article about the Eames massacre.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More material about his life comes up in a gBooks search on "Ellis Eames" + "San Bernardino". Searching "Ellis Eames" + "Latter Day Saints," brings up a number of sources from which the sentence on Eames getting sick (one says "spitting blood",) and turning back during the 1847 expedition can be expanded. Of course, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, nevertheless I cleaned the article up a little and I think that the objections of editors above have been met.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some more sources. All of them are passing, but they add a substantial amount of insight into his life (another name spelling, mission trip, mill operator, publication of reminiscences, photograph). I'm not sure of the provenance of one source published by provolibrary.com[25] (and don't want to cite it for fear of citogenesis), but it references another source, "David M. Walden, Biographical Sketches of Former Mayors of Provo, Utah: A Report to the Provo Municipal Government, October 1, 1990, 5-7." which seems to be a fair source if someone has access to it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Mission trip is never a term Mormons use. It is an extreme sign of cultural ignorance to ever use it when referring to a Mormon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Johnson, the source for that statement, is not, I think an academic. The book, calls it a mission, not a mission trip. I'll change it. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In aggregate, the sources satisfy WP:BASIC and allow for an article that conveys more biographical detail about the subject than just being a mayor and the routine events associated with the position. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:30, 8 June 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 12:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bjorn Bjercke

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

A non-notable person in the blockchain field. Possibly WP:BLP1E as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few passing mentions, nothing in depth on subject, hence fails WP:BLP1E. Edidiong (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Would it be possible to merge this article with another article, such as blockchain or OneCoin?Vorbee (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merging with the general article on Blockchain would seem to be over-emphasis; it is possible that his lawsuit with OneCoin might be important enough to be mentioned in that article, but a great many people and governments are engaged in legal actions regarding them, & I don't know the relative significance of his in particular. (But the connection with OneCoin should have been at least mentioned in the nomination here), DGG ( talk ) 12:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Haynes

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 20:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's notable enouğf to have starred in several films and has multiple links to the article. It certainly needs improvement and/or expansion, but it's also relatively new of an article, of which are often kept to be improved upon (I can't find the specific rule riğt now, sorry). -User:Учхљёная ^{(talk,philosophy,edits)}. 20:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak, weak keep. She has a couple of major roles in two reasonably well-known films (and one not so well-known), plus a possible role in the 1950 Broadway revival of The Madwoman of Chaillot, according to the Valley News. (IBDb lists a Roberta Haynes in the cast, but also credits this Roberta with a 1925 credit as well,[26] so there's a mistake somewhere. I'm inclined to believe that IBDb is at fault here, as the role was played in 1948 by Leora Dana, who is only six years older than Roberta.) Also, she was seeing Marlon Brando for a little while,[27] and, like Cary Grant, was taking LSD treatments from Dr. Mortimer Hartman.[28] A bit of minor news regarding her career made a gossip column.[29] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has prominent roles in notable productions so passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added additional citations to the article to help establish notability, including a few books. Easily passes WP:ACTOR for her roles in film and also passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kelly

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. A WP:BEFORE search turned up some potential sources that could help make this less of a stub - the Bethune Cookman football field is named after him, he was named to a board of directors in 2001 [30], and he gets a blurb in this book [31]. I don't have access to this article, either: [32] While sources exist to show verifiability, these sources along with the two sparse ones currently in the article do not add up to WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Daytona Beach is large enough that an article about a mayor might get kept if it were referenced well enough to actually clear WP:NPOL #2, but it is not large enough that every mayor would get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. But there are just two sources here, which is nowhere near enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added the references listed above, as well as a few others to the article. I also greatly improved the article formatting and added more pertinent information. I want to point out he's received tens of thousands of mentions in the Orlando Sentinel during his time as mayor, which I don't have direct access to, but definitely indicates that he was quoted and written about extensively between the 1960s-1990s.[33] He was a major part of getting Spring Break coverage moved to Daytona Beach, including MTV's 6-week event, between the mid-80s to the early 90s, which he helped enable by appearing on television and advertising to college students around the nation to come to Daytona Beach. His actions and later regret about that was covered in a documentary called "Spring Broke".[34] I believe he easily passes WP:POLITICIAN for "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." However, even if you stick only to what can be easily accessed online (not a requirement for Wikipedia, but nice), he still passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources including discussion in newspapers as well as an entry in a book about legendary figures of Daytona Beach.[35][36][37][38] Lonehexagon (talk)
- Comment @LoneHexagon: Thank you for your work on improving the article. I reviewed many of the same sources you've added to the article in the WP:BEFORE search I did and even though he gets a number of mentions by the press, I did not think the coverage of him was significant enough to pass WP:GNG (many of the articles he's just mentioned, and the local election articles are often categorized as WP:MILL), so I won't be withdrawing the AfD - however if it's kept I'm happy it's better sourced now. I will note I cannot access the Daytona Beach newspaper sources, and at least one of those articles may be a feature article on him. SportingFlyer talk 04:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per the work done by Lonehexagon above. Good effort! ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another case of a figurehead mayor who is not the executive of a city. As such he has to pass the guidelines for a member of a city council, which he clearly does not pass, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per upgrades to article on this 20-year mayor made by User:Lonehexagon, and because the iconic status of Daytona Beach meand that Mayors o get national news coverage. New York Times: NEW FLORIDA LAW OUTLAWS DRIVING ON BEACH, "Daytona Beach and the county are conducting studies on how to end driving on the beach completely in the next few years.'We may be seeing the last of beach driving,' says Mayor Larry Kelly. The impetus for the turnaround was a Florida Supreme Court ruling this summer that permits victims of automotive accidents on the beach to sue local governments...".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's not national news coverage on him - that's the city getting national news coverage, and him getting a quote in. SportingFlyer talk 18:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's coverage of a political policy he was pushing in the national media. And do note that his efforts, first to steal Spring Break form Ft. Lauderdale, then to rein in spring break after it moved to Daytona drew regional and national coverage for years. The aspect of the story that the press had a field day with was the fact that Leading the anti-Spring Break chorus is Mayor Larry Kelly. In 1986, Kelly went on national television with former Fort Lauderdale Mayor Bob Cox and said his city would take every student Cox cast out. Then, when the rowdy spring break crowd came to Daytona, he spent years trying to get rid of them. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only is he the longest serving mayor of a well known city, but Kelly also made contributions to the development of the state and local tourism industries, including the promotion of (and backlash against) modern Spring Break, an event that was synonymous with Daytona Beach for decades. Scanlan (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of galaxies. Sandstein 12:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest galaxies

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

All prior XfDs for this page: Articles for deletion/List of largest known galaxies

Was PRODded with concern "The values on this page are in large part incorrect, wildly inconsistent with one another, and do not conform to what an astronomer would use when referring to a galaxy's size." However, it was previously AFD'd in 2014, so I brought it to AfD.

Discussion at talk

There is already the List of galaxies article. This could go there. Plus, the size of galaxies are too uncertain, so such list will always be misleading. I'm too lazy to go find the deletion template but here is my request Tetra quark (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally following up on this after 4 years, after being reminded of these problems due to a number of recent edits here.

The numbers given in many wikipedia articles for galaxy sizes are often not traceable to primary sources, may use very out of date cosmological parameters, were not produced from a consistent set of measurements (some come from NED's "apparent size", some are x-ray gas extent, some are radio extent, etc.), and almost none of them are what would be typically used by an astronomer to quote a galaxy's physical size (the half light radius in the optical/near-IR). Those incorrect wikipedia numbers get turned into this list, where the various objects at the top of the list exhibit all of the above problems. We're better off deleting this page and slowly correcting the individual galaxy pages or even just removing infobox statements about galaxy physical size entirely, than attempting what would be a very long process of primary source searching. And even searching through the primary literature is not a good approach: a consistent catalog of sizes should come from a single survey with a known surface brightness depth. This list has spawned hundreds of blogposts and webpages talking about the sizes of galaxies, so references to secondary sources cannot be used to correct it either.

Our best choice is to just delete it, to prevent further misinformation. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for AfD in 2014 (and the deletion rationale is similar), so PROD is not applicable. I have brought it to AfD instead. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of note is that this is the same concern as the previous AfD in December 2014. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of galaxies per WP:CFORK. Ajf773 (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such list is commonly found, therefore it is valid under WP:LISTN. If the nominator has noticed any error, then the thing to do would be to fix it, not delete. Hzh (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The errors are far too numerous and it is difficult to "get it right". For example, from a cursory examination, every single one of the first 10 items on the list violates one or more of my listed reasons, in addition to many not providing sources for their values. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge (to List of galaxies) as being WP:OR and failing WP:V. The criteria given for the size of galaxies is not supported by a WP:RS and there is no way to verify whether the cited sources actually apply that criteria or not (since many don't mention it). I agree with the statements in the discussion copied from the talk page. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of galaxies, books on largest galaxies, no, books on galaxies, lots. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I used angular diameters and distances to determine the current size of these galaxies using http://www.wolframalpha.com (sorry to have included them without adding their determined sizes in their own articles). I think the best is to give a note how they have been calculated. So please do not delete this page. Thanks. ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 10:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So that means this is WP:OR??? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but we can use them anyway, but it is better to add a note that this has been done, useless there is already a reference that has already given a size. Since a calculated value will not appear in any reference, it may be deleted. Even User:Lithopsian isn't disagree with calculating radii from bolometric luminosities and effective temperatures for stars (or angular diameters and distances). So maybe for galaxies we could do the same thing. ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 13:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To misquote WP:NOTSOURCE, I am not a reliable source. However, I don't see anything wrong with making trivial calculations such as the radius of a star from (preferably compatible) luminosity and effective temperature values, when nothing else is available, and properly noted. However, doing the same for a galaxy seems to be stretching the concept of a trivial calculation: galaxies are not spherical, not remotely black body radiators, and effective temperatures are often not available or not meaningful in this context. While the problems with the list have been well-explained, it is still the sort of information people come to Wikipedia looking for. Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angular diameters from where, measured how? Distances from where, measured how? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=290+Mly*sin+%282.2+arcminutes%29. ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 13:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to do the math. I'm asking where did you get the values from, and how were they measured? This is related to my deletion request: the values given on this page come from all over the place, with no consistency in what was measured. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of galaxies as per nom. Even if it may seem like a noteworthy list, size is a poor way to catagorize galaxies. - Spacepine (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. These are not "trivial calculations", hence the list consists almost entirely of OR and must contain incongruities with individual articles and published sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:49, 11 June 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Robbins

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

No evidence of notability. Seems to be a family biography. Natureium (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable BLP. Written in an alarmingly personal style, which might indicate the author is a family member as Natureium suggested. Nanophosis (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The cited sources all either 1) based on an interview of unknown provenance, (possibly with the article's author?) and almost certainly not fact-checked or subject to editorial control, 2) do not mention Robbins, or 3) are explicitly labeled as by the author, and thus OR. MarginalCost (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just came across another one of these articles on a non-notable veteran. Serving in the military is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a number of more notable people name "Christine Robbins" in my BEFORE. This particular individual seems to have given an interview, and this glowing bio of a Wikipedia article was written about her.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wildly fails NOT, NPOV, V, and NOR. I could imagine an encyclopedic article written about many people, but I don't see turning this one into such an article without a major effort, finding sources I couldn't find, and more. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable at all for stand alone article. Not even trivia of a regional nature; more like a family history blog. Kierzek (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's a longstanding consensus at AfD that ambassadors aren't automatically notable. Sandstein 12:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Langtry (diplomat)

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

Notability concerns. Ambassadors are not inherently notable by any WP:SNG, and I don't see enough coverage for this person to meet WP:GNG; this interview is purely based on his position. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, lean keep WP:POLOUTCOMES says that "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable" The question is - do ambassadors count as political figures under this guideline? They are usually high ranking officials, usually appointed by the ruling government, so I'd lean yes on it, therefore lean on keep. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no, diplomats do not qualify under WP:NPOL. No indication found that Langtry is notable - only a small percentage of career diplomats are.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did run a few searches using keywords, very little and what there is is WP:MILL, routine creeping up the career ladder with various postings, and now, Australian Ambassador to Mongolia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 6 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Httpd.conf

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

Relaying deletion/redirect suggestion by 24.7.14.87: "notability disputed since 2011, no user has made any case for notability. Redirecting" (01:00, 3 June 2018‎)

I am perfectly capable of nominating an article for deletion and find it a bit frustrating that TBF would bring this question here without actually having any objection to my redirect. Redirect to Apache HTTP server since "httpd.conf" is meaningful and notable only within that context, and I can see no way to develop this article that does not make it a technical manual in violation of WP:NOT. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was trying to help and I wasn't aware that you also have an registered account to create a deletion discussion page. I think you are right, and I didn't know about this guideline: Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects_that_replace_previous_articles ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:26, 3 June 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 Frontier Enterprises. The article is unsourced, which precludes keeping per WP:V. The redirect is an alternative that takes into account that there is no consensus for deletion. Sandstein 12:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Ross (actor)

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

Working actor, but does not meet WP:NACTOR, and I can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to show he meets WP:GNG, and the article currently doesn't have close to enough to show he meets that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a properly targeted search of Google Books shows he did in fact have major roles as an actor, voice actor and dubber. And there is coverage of him and his rokes although not all of it is available readily online. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A jobbing actor, but this isn't IMDb. How does he meet WP:NACTOR? The list of works on his page are minimal, the awards and/or peer recognition he has received are non-existent. Darthamender (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is still not sourced. Even though the subject's notability should be verifiable (no need to be "verified"), adding some good references would not do any harm. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added the IMDb-ID and some films as actor. -- MovieFex (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but draft. There is a good write-up of him in "Japan's Favorite Mon-star: The Unauthorized Biography of "The Big G"", page 152, but I found almost nothing else to source. I think this article at some point could have enough sources to justify, but I'd like to see it put in draft for now. Esw01407 (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link: https://books.google.de/books?redir_esc=y&hl=de&id=cqSOkywWeX4C&q=william+ross#v=snippet&q=william%20ross&f=false -- MovieFex (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frontier Enterprises as his primary contribution to anime and film production. The biography relies heavily on the book source Japan's Favorite Mon-star: The Unauthorized Biography of "The Big G" by von Steve Ryfle, and while it has details on Ross' life, it is mainly in the context of Frontier Enterprises. Alternatively Frontier Enterprises could be merged into his biography. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 4 June 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 17:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Exchange

AfDs for this article:

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

NN 32-store strip mall. Appears to be very WP:ROTM. There is some info about a controversy over the destruction of a "Native American mound", but the one source cited for that only says the mound is behind the center - so it's not directly related. Furthermore, I doubt this "controversy" is all that notable either - from reading the source it seems to be a minor local issue. Searching for info about the controversy does turn up some coverage and that issue might be notable or could be covered in Oxford, Alabama. But either way, this mall does not inherit notability from an adjacent mound. MB 00:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thoroughly non-notable; deletion of the aforementioned reference and the content pertaining to said article leaves no reliable independent secondary sources. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 13:11, Sunday, June 3, 2018 (UTC) 13:11, 3 June 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:BOOKCRIT certainly appears to be met, and nobody is really arguing otherwise. Two of the four delete !votes focus primarily on the WP:COI issues, which are not grounds to delete, and a third one focuses, somewhat oddly, on the fact that the book meets WP:BOOKCRIT. Steve Smith (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supremely Partisan

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

Non-notable book; perhaps merge to the article about the author, James D. Zirin. This AfD is concurrent with one on the same author's other book, at WP:Articles for deletion/The Mother Court. The Zirin bio article very narrowly survived an AfD, with "no consensus" a few months ago. A regular merge proposal at Talk:James D. Zirin produced almost no input, aside from suggestions that:

One of the books might squeak by under WP:BOOKCRIT.
A countervailing view that there's really little salvageable here, since most of the content is excessive pull-quoting from reviews, not encyclopedic coverage.

I would add that the primary editor of these pages continues to be Zirin himself (see, e.g., rejected edit "request" here that is really more of a statement of how Zirin is going to continue writing about himself). I thought that this would all be taken as a warning sign by Zirin that he needed to abide by WP:COI, find independent reliable sources, and suggest neutral, improving edits (if anything) rather than continue to work directly on his own bio material here, but the situation's simply gotten worse. And this is after multiple CoI warnings at the user's talk page. The entire mess is just untoward and inappropriate, an abuse of WP as a self-promotion mechanism, and it needs to stop. Zirin + his work are perhaps marginally notable, gathered into one article, but we definitely do not need three articles, two of which don't really qualify as encyclopedia articles at all.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, is blocking Zirin an option? If it is, it might be a better solution than deleting 2 books that so clearly pass WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NB--Jaldous1 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It needs two independent reviews to pass WP:BOOKCRIT, yes? Here's one possible one, I cannot read the article. [39] Here's another possible one: [40] I can read this one: [41] And there's a blurb on it here: [42] And that's about it in terms of reviews. I note the sources not in an attempt to show notability, but to show if it passes WP:BOOKCRIT, it's by a hair. A lot of the sources have the author talking about the book or the topic of the book instead of actually reviewing the book, and the sources that do review the book seem to be British? SportingFlyer talk 07:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you "cannot read" the review in the The Times (of London,) is not an argument for deleting; nor is the fact that "the sources that do review the book seem to be British."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an advertisement for the book. Which is its purpose, as we know who authored this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 reviews in major publications are already on the page. Passes WP:NBOOK. This seems to be a case of WP:FORUMSHOP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Multiple book reviews in The Times, The Spectator and the ABA Journal unequivocally satisfy GNG and NBOOK. This is not even remotely doubtful and comments like "squeak by" are simply nonsense. Moreover, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, since the author has an article. Quoting reviews is not unencyclopedic either. James500 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, the ABA review is neither brief nor a single paragraph. Moreover, the reviews in The Times and The Spectator would satisfy NBOOK even without the ABA Journal. Since NBOOK requires two sources, an argument that ignores at least two sources can never defeat NBOOK. And GNG doesn't even necessarily require more than one. Also WP:SUMMARY does not authorise the merger of this notable topic, and it would be a misapplication of SUMMARY to argue that it does. James500 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I should also point out that there are other reviews besides the three in the article such as The Federalist and Kirkus. (There seems to be something in Questia but my browser won't load it.) So three reviews has just become at least five or six. James500 (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Add to that the New York Law Journal, seven reviews. James500 (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC) And if there is a review in Slate, that makes eight. Unequivocally notable. James500 (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to author. ABA and Slate "reviews" are brief paragraphs. Not confident that there's a whole lot to write based on the extant other two sources alone, so the procedure is to write about the book in summary style within the parent article. czar 21:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is, unsurprisingly, material in the reviews from which the article can be expanded. But Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to me? I addressed why the sourcing wasn't a clear case for sufficiently addressing the topic. We have summary style exactly for these cases: expand there and feel free to split out when warranted/proven. czar 02:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory. Numerous reviews in secondary sources. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 13:16, Sunday, June 3, 2018 (UTC)
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK as Supremely Partisan has been reviewed/covered by Kirkus here, The Times here, The Spectator here, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries (Choice) here, The East Hampton Star here, ABA Journal here, and The Federalist here. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus and Choice are librarian trade publications: they review non-fiction routinely, so inclusion isn't a sign of notability. As mentioned above, ABA is a short blurb. East Hampton Star and The Federalist, getting towards the dregs, are a community paper and unreliable blog, respectively. So we're left with two reviews: Times and Spectator, which we would normally cover summary style within the parent unless there is some overabundance of summary or secondary source coverage to warrant a split: not forthcoming, in this case. czar 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Gatenholm

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

A weakly-sourced advertisement that REEKS of undeclared conflict editing. KJP1 (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reverted the unsourced promo added yesterday. KJP1, is your deletion rationale only about the tone? That was easily fixed. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the sources that are reliable are not about him, but the company or the product. The ones that are about him are press releases. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You've certainly made it less objectionable, by the removal of the promotional crud, but I'm not seeing Notability myself. But others may take a different view. As an aside, I think it highly likely the originator, and the expander, have undeclared Conflicts. KJP1 (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not independently notable of the company per WP:BIO, and I can't find significant coverage online in WP:RS. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main contributor, who's obviously very keen to keep it (still no COI declaration) has been refbombing the article. But with what? Take 26 and 27, about his mother. 26 is a Google translate page which appears to give nothing but her address. 27 is her company and I can't see her even mentioned. Or 15/29/30/31/32/33/50/53. These "8" sources are the same, primary, non-independent, interview, with tough questions like "We’d love to hear more about your business". I suspect many others will be similarly weak, if one could be bothered to check all 59, and rising. KJP1 (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how this person is notable, and having a COI makes me suspicious. Making lots of money, short of being a billionare, is just insufficient to pass as generally notable. There are insignificant secondary source coverage about this person, even if his parents and companies were notable. For what it's worth, my sister's in-laws are from Sweden, home to the subject. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was very promo'y and doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:26, 7 June 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 17:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Lopez

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

Fails WP:Bio. Only source I could find online appears to be a bio for a business he works for, and no other coverage about him seems available. Editor10293813 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia notability requirements. Searches do not provide reliable sources. Second source in article barely has information on the person. Araratic | talk 09:43, 6 June 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] "WINNERS August 2017".

[2] "Los Angles Film Award - WINNERS August 2017".

[3] "ACTING AWARDS & NOMINATIONS-SHORT FILMS".

[4] "LA Shorts Awards Winners - November 2017".

[5] "barebones film festiva" (PDF).

[6] "ONIROS FILM AWARDS" (PDF).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]