Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 October	12 October >

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph Records

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

Defunct record label which I can only find mentioned in passing or on its own website. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After performing assorted source searches, not finding any coverage at all in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination; article is a stub that lacks sourcing, too.TH1980 (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources at all, except for the label's webpage. I can't even find unreliable sources. Non-notable by any definition. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:05, 12 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Fare

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Less than 50 locations (I seem to find that at least 100 locations passes NCORP) and no presented notability. There are dozens of health food stores, being one in multiple states doesn't make it notable. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A good AfD nom to look at similar to this is WP:Articles for deletion/Kilwins. Corp with 125+ locations in 20+ states. Barely passed as no consensus. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, added a couple secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see how two sources can help meet WP:GNG. Yes, they count towards it, but they aren't generally recognized as sufficient. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Redditaddict69: I said "weak keep" because I was still in the process of adding sources. Most of what I'm finding is coverage of new store openings, but this seems like particularly substantial coverage, as does this article in a retail trade magazine (albeit a Google Books snippet). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a ref to a 1300+ word profile from 1998 in The Post and Courier. Bakazaka (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources in article and available in newspaper databases meet WP:NCORP requirements for significant, in-depth coverage. "Number of locations" is not part of policy or guidelines, except when discussing whether individual stores should have articles, which is not applicable here. Pre-internet coverage matters just as much as Google-able coverage, and this company has it, primarily because of their unusual and early pursuit of organic food as a niche market. Several sources are local, but WP:NCORP is clear: "the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source" but by reliability and independence, both of which are met by available sources. Bakazaka (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be enough sources - [1] [2][3][4], should qualify under WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. It seems unusual but there are a lot of passing mentions in Google Scholar, which suggest that the company, unlike Kilwins, registers strongly in the consciousness of the academia, even if passing mentions don't qualify for notability purposes (I should also say that I had not check all of them to see if they are more in-depth coverage there). Hzh (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Authenticity (reenactment). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farb (reenactment)

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

This is a definition, not an encyclopedic article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Authenticity (reenactment) Farbies are a well-known notion, but there's no reason to talk about the term outside a discussion of reenacting authenticity in general. Mangoe (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Authenticity (reenactment) I agree with the reason listed above.TH1980 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Moore (broadcaster)

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

Biography of a recently deceased local radio host, whose claims of notability are resting on directly affiliated primary sources rather than independent ones. Of the ten footnotes here, eight are connected to his own employer: four come directly from the radio station he worked for, two come from its co-owned television sister station, and two are reprints in two different newspapers of the same wire service obituary written by his radio station's own news director. And of the two remaining footnotes, one is the publication details of his own book cited as metareferencing for its own existence, which is not how you reference a person over WP:AUTHOR as a writer either. As always, to be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia both broadcasters and writers need to have independent coverage about them in sources that don't directly issue their paycheques -- but the only reference here that actually meets that standard is a brief and unsubstantive blurb on the website of his same media market's other television station, which is not enough coverage all by itself to deem him notable if all of the other sources fail the "unaffiliated" condition. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I am afraid this AfD seems rather disingenuous WRT the sources used in this article; the first ref is an obituary in the National Post which may not be my favourite newspaper but which would certainly count as a source for establishing notability. There's also references in the article currently to CTV as a source. This subject, clearly meets WP:GNG and I can't understand how his former employer, also a media organization, having eulogized him, and that being used as a source of uncontroversial information on this obviously notable person would be grounds for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being disingenuous at all. The National Post did not write its own independent obituary of him; it merely ran a wire service article distributed by Canadian Press, which is bylined "Ryan Price, CFAX" — which means it was written by Terry Moore's own colleague, not by a journalist independent of him. (And yes, by the way, Ryan Price does verify on Google as an employee of CFAX.) And The Globe and Mail doesn't bolster his notability either, because that citation is actually the same wire service article, still bylined Ryan Price. And the CTV sourcing is to CTV's local station in Victoria, not to the national network — and Bell Media, the owner of CTV, is also the owner of CFAX. So that source is still not independent of him, but still represents directly affiliated coverage from his own employer's co-owned sister station. I am evaluating all of this exactly correctly according to what the sources actually are, namely non-independent coverage created by his own colleagues — passing GNG always depends on receiving independent coverage in sources the article subject is not directly affiliated with, and can never be gamed by the subject's own employer's self-created metacontent about its own staff. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bell media owns nearly half of the TV and radio stations in Canada. That's hardly a strong argument against the reliability of the sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not just have to be reliable to aid in making a person notable — they also have to be independent of the subject. Media companies cannot singlehandedly make their own employees notable by "covering" those employees themselves — Bell Media-owned sources help toward establishing notability if they're covering employees of Corus or Rogers or the CBC, but not if they're covering employees of Bell Media; Corus-owned sources help toward establishing notability if they're covering employees of Bell or Rogers or the CBC, but not if they're covering employees of Corus; and on and so forth. Each company counts for significantly less as evidence toward the notability of its own employees than it does as evidence toward the notability of the other companies' employees — because each company fails the independence test with regard to its own employees. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're, at best, being far too strict in your interpretation of independence by trying to exclude all Bell Media companies plus a National Post article derived from CP. Notwithstanding the origin of the Post article, it was subject to National Post editorial guidelines for inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm being exactly 100 per cent correct in my interpretation of independence. The "CTV" coverage, again, is not from the national CTV News division, but from its local news staff in Victoria, which is a direct sister station to CFAX, and thus they are covering their own coworker. The wire service obituary is explicitly bylined with the name of an employee of CFAX, who is thus covering his own coworker. The citations to CFAX itself are covering their own coworker. I'm not incorrect about one iota of this. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The wire service may have originally been bylined by one of his co-workers but the National Post editorial board approved its inclusion; it was subject to their editorial standards. Considering the monopsony of Bell, Rogers, Corus and Shaw in the Canadian media landscape almost every media personality is a technical co-worker of a huge chunk of other media personalities. The standard you're setting is such that we couldn't use Global TV as a source to report on Mike Holmes despite there being nothing but a parent company connecting them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that "the National Post editorial board approved its inclusion" — if the byline is from his own coworker, then it is not independent of Terry Moore and fails to constitute support for Terry Moore's notability regardless of who reprints it after his own coworker sends it out. The byline de-independents the source all by itself, because the content's author was a direct personal colleague of the subject.

And what you're missing — the reason why your Mike Holmes comparison doesn't wash — is that it is entirely possible for a source to be perfectly acceptable for the purposes of verifying information, while not counting as data points toward the initial matter of getting the subject over GNG in the first place. Once a person such as Mike Holmes has already shown enough non-Corus sourcing (which Mike Holmes very definitely has) to get him over GNG in the first place, then there's nothing wrong with using some Corus sourcing as supplementary verification of facts after his basic notability has already been clinched by unaffiliated non-Corus stuff — but what you can't do is deem Mike Holmes notable if Corus sourcing is the only sourcing there is, and unaffiliated non-Corus sourcing is nonexistent. (This is, for example, why the repeated attempts to write articles about the Real Housewives of Toronto keep failing AFD: they're lacking the unaffiliated non-Corus sourcing that Mike Holmes has.)

It's the same thing here: the directly affiliated sources would be fine for additional verification of facts if Terry Moore's basic notability were covered off by unaffiliated sources, but the directly affiliated sources do not count toward the basic matter of whether he's notable enough in the first place. Unaffiliated sources have to cover off that piece, and then an affiliated source or two can be used to verify additional stray facts afterward — but directly affiliated sources do not, and cannot, make a person notable all by themselves in the absence of adequate unaffiliated sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'd say a media personality with a 60+ year long career whose obituary is picked up nationally through a wire service by media outlets as disparate as City TV, National Post, London Free Press, etc. etc. etc. can be assumed pretty safely to be clearly independently notable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If his own coworkers created all of the sources themselves, then no, he can't. Wikipedia offers no notability freebies for the length of a person's career — the notability test is not what the article says, it's the quality and independence of the references that can or can't be used to support what the article says, and a person whose sources are all directly affiliated content created by his own colleagues does not get exempted from the independent references piece just because he happened to have a long career. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This line of reasoning would only work if every newspaper and TV station in Canada published every single article CP produces every time. And trust me, that's not the case. Media outlets select which wire service articles they republish, and that means that those wire service articles are subject to independent editorial control. The byline is irrelevant from that perspective. I mean, should it be a shock that a person's obit was written by his colleague? That's kind of normal. But for that obituary to run nationally across multiple media channels is notable.Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not normal for the initial news story reporting someone's death to be written by their own colleague. The death notice that runs in the classifieds might be, if there was no family or they're too grief-stricken, and the Lives Lived in The Globe and Mail three months from now might be — but it's not normal or expected for the only news story initially reporting the death of a notable person to be written by their own colleague. If a person was genuinely notable, in fact, then each major national media outlet would be assigning its own staff to write its own original content about their death, not just aggregating a single wire service article written by the person's own colleague. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is a WP:MEMORIAL, which is an issue that could be overcome if better coverage existed on details of his life prior to his death. But I can't find it at all, the only reporting I can find on any aspect of his life is contained in an obituary. If I limit my Googling to a few months prior to his death, I find a little incidental coverage of his broadcasting career, mostly notes in radio history blogs that he moved from one station to another, but no significant write-ups. I find no coverage at all on his opera work, his best-selling book(s?), nor his work in film and television. I also, weakly, share Bearcat's concerns that we only see obituaries penned by Moore's co-worker and only republished in media affiliated with the owner of their radio station - not because I think this makes them poor sources (it doesn't) but because it indicates that Moore's death was not considered noteworthy beyond a local scale, else you would see other outlets (even affiliated ones) writing their own obituaries. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the article about this person does say that he was a best-selling author, so the article on him might be worth salvaging. Vorbee (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any article about any author can simply claim that they're a "best-selling author" — that's actually one of the single most common ways for self-promoting writers to try to game our rules, by self-ascribing one or more of their books with "best-selling" status that they don't actually have at all. So we don't keep articles about writers just because the word "best-selling" happens to appear in the text — we require reliable source proof that the book was actually a best-seller, by citing exact day and date of the exact edition of The Globe and Mail's best-seller list that the book showed up in, before the word "best-selling" turns into a valid notability claim in and of itself. (Oh, and one more thing: I can check the archives of The Globe and Mail to see if a book ever showed up on the Canadian bestsellers list or not. Wanna take a wild guess what book doesn't turn up when I search for it?) Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get the noms argument but its too strict an interpretation of independent for this. Szzuk (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "too strict an interpretation of independent" at all. If a media company creating and distributing "coverage" of its own employees is enough to make those employees notable, then we automatically have to keep an article about every single radio or television personality who exists in any city or town — every such person can always show verification of their existence on their station's website, and some form of "tribute" content on their station when they leave for another job or die. So if we don't hold to the correctly strict definition of "independent", then every broadcaster on earth gets an instant guaranteed inclusion freebie. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearcat may be strict, but he's right; an article syndicated from the subject's own radio station (and I don't understand how CA is sourcing from a radio station, which going by most radio station websites, is just a transcript of the radio story, which #1 completely reads as) doesn't meet N, along with all the others sourced to the station itself. This reads more as a MEMORIAL than a neutral look at the subject's life. Nate • (chatter) 13:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appreciate Bearcat's outstanding contributions and time invested to review this entry, however, I cannot agree to delete it. The person in question has not only been a public media figure, but at death received a broad coverage. The argument that the obituary losses validity because it was written by the Canadian Press is, for me, unsupportive. What matters the most is the spread of a news story. If the obituary was reprinted and re-voiced from multiple media outlets that's more than enough to become notable. I agree that the WP entry reads like a memorial (WP:MEMORIAL), but that has never been a reason for deletion where the coverage from reliable sources even crosses national borders (here). Den... (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any sources about him from before he died? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that the obituary loses validity because it comes from the Canadian Press. What was said, and is true, is that the author byline on the obituary is Moore's own colleague. It loses validity because it was written by his own friend — its status as a wire service article isn't the problem in and of itself, it just fails to be enough to negate the thing that is the problem, namely the fact that it was written by his own friend and thus isn't independent of him. And the only hint of "crossing national borders" that shows up in that Google search at all is the Puget Sound Radio forum, which is not a reliable or notability-conferring source at the best of times — and isn't evidence that he's special, either, because it routinely includes Van-Vic in its coverage area and so an obit of a Van-Vic radio personality would simply be expected to show up there. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 04:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buulo Weyn

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

As an "estate" it has to pass a higher standard than just being a "dot on a map", which it isn't anyway (best location for it is in the middle of a bunch of fields). There's one passing reference which doesn't say anything about what it is; everyhting else is either geonames mirrors or us or the usual geoclickbait. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only claim is that there is (or might be) a large farm of this name; GNG/GEOLAND are not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest redirect to the district. Deb (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep, though it has been pointed out that the article has issues that need work. Tone 04:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ding

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)

Since an IP is now edit warring over a notability tag that's been on the article for a while, I guess it's time for AfD. This seems to me to fail WP:NACADEMIC as someone who has only won minor awards and has received only passing mentions in news coverage, certainly not the "significant" coverage we'd expect for WP:GNG. Quantity doesn't equal quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep - per WP:PROF#1 based on citation counts in Google Scholar [5] Thsmi002 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thsmi002: Fyi, since this caused a bit of confusion earlier, "speedy keep" is not the same as "strong keep". Speedy keep has its own list of criteria at WP:SK, and isn't something to be thrown around lightly. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FenixFeather: Thanks! Thsmi002 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 4
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a really hard one to analyse on WP:GNG grounds. Per WP:PROF, he is mentioned in several different papers, and is the lead on one or two of them with a bunch of citations. He's been name dropped in a bunch of different articles. He fails WP:NPOL. The article is so badly source-bombed and promotional that it's difficult to understand what exactly he's notable for, or how he would pass WP:NACADEMIC. I have no comment either way apart from the fact this at the very least needs WP:TNT, if not deletion. SportingFlyer talk 01:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though he didn't win his race for Congress, he did get double digit % votes, seemed to have good fundraising according to FEC.gov website for his PA 10th campaign. FEC filings for his committee also showed 3 unions endorsements. And Science seemed to have done an in depth profile on him ^[1], which conforms to WP:SIGCOV.

As for his academics, he has a first authored New England Journal of Medicine paper from 2009, and several first and senior author JAMA papers over the years, plus an H-Index of 62 (as of October 5, 2018)^[2]. NYT did a 2011 in depth profile^[3] and he had a few book chapter features over several years (e.g. this book chapter^[4] was also detailed). Various independent credible sources. Recommend strong keep, but agree it can be cleaned up slightly.Dthut (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT He was recognized in 2012 with the Ten Outstanding Young Leaders (TOYL) Award from the Boston Chamber of Commerce. Recent TOYL award winners^[5] include members of the city council and Congress like Joe Kennedy III, Seth Moulton, and the unopposed incoming 2019 Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley. Maryam Hu (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The following two comments were from contributors making their first and third edits to Wikipedia. SportingFlyer talk 20:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/public-health-scientist-hopes-take-his-activism-congress
^ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TQ1na-MAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
^ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/a-web-campaign-for-cancer-prevention/
^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=szPOcd_ai2QC&pg=PT37&dq=eric+ding+facebook+philanthropists&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=eric%20ding%20facebook%20philanthropists&f=false
^ https://bostonchamber.com/media/events/TOYL/2018/TOYL-honorees-list_2017.pdf

Delete?/Prof cites. I opened around half of the refs in the article, the coverage is mixed, from trivial to semi OK but based upon them alone I want to delete. I have a question mark in my vote because I can't remember how to read the PROF cites "count". So an explanation of what is a lot and what is little would be helfpul. Szzuk (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP His page doesn't mention it - but he developed several commonly used scientific methods not on this Wiki page. For example, the 'Isotemporal Substitution' model used in physical activity epidemiology - he developed it originally. And it's pretty well known as described in this paper's 2nd paragraph quote that called his original paper (by Mekary et al) a "seminal" work^[1], which came from a systematic review of the 56 studies worldwide that have been arisen out of his method. Someone could maybe add this detail to his profile, though I agree the page should be cleaned up a little. I would pare down his awards list - maybe delete all the ones are that isn't the PD Soros and TOYL award, that someone mentioned above. But I recommend keeping his page. Sahiljain22 (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the third comment or keep vote from an inexperienced contributor in four days - what exactly is going on here? SportingFlyer talk 10:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer - its not an IP war. I know a few public health/medical research scientists have monitored his page over the years ever since 2014 when someone unscrupulous unfairly maligned and attacked him and his family (records under federal court). We just noticed the new deletion discussion and decided to chime in - but only on his scientific and public health work. Dthut (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm neutral, but the three SPAs above look like either socks or off-wiki canvassed !voters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Hijiri88 - I'm also NOT a random canvasser. For example, I'm a board-certified physician - and my username is my real name (I'm a primary care doctor). We are simply giving our scientific opinions. And nothing we said is some generic unsupported commentary - but rather discussion of Eric Ding's scientific work, and cite other independent reviews that objectively mentioned his work. Sahiljain22 (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I never accused you of being a canvasser; I said canvassee. And how did you find out about this AFD? Do you know someone here off-wiki? Or Ding himself? If the latter, you should definitely read WP:COI: on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if someone, especially your friend, says you are an important leader in your field; standalone biographical articles require reliable, independent sources covering the topic in enough depth to fill out an article. Also, could you clarify if you have any connection, to your knowledge, to the article's creator, Milton129 (talk · contribs)? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I watch the page. I have never worked with him. I have not encountered him other than once >10 years ago. I have no idea who Milton129 is - I did not create the paper. I'm removed any earlier unnecessary opinions. End of the day, I only chimed in to point out his scientific work.

Comment Dear Szzuk - the citation count that Thsmi002 mentioned in his/her 'keep' statement perhaps refers to his Google Scholar citation count and H-Index.^[2] While there are differences in academic fields, an H-Index>60 is respectable. Though don't simply take my word - you may google 'what is a good H-index'^[3], or read the entry on H-index which I have never touched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahiljain22 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Sahiljain22 (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His H-Index as an independent author appears to be just 4, as a co-author with 100+ others it is 57. [6] I'm not sure what the wikipedia guidelines are with regard to authored material and co-authored. If he'd authored those documents solely there would be nothing left to discuss. Szzuk (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've never heard of an 'independent author H-index' being used in academia. Virtually all scientific papers have co-authors. Sole authored papers are almost unheard of other than op-ed/editorial pieces. And not sure what your value of '4' and '57' from your linked URL is referring... there is an 'Eric Y. Ding' who has 4 papers, but he doesn't have a Y middle initial, and that 4 is not an H-index value. H-index is not complicated - its the joint max of both citations/paper & # of papers, which one can manually eyeball in the citation-sorted list of pubs. Honestly, don't take my word, just find a random friend of yours who works in academia and ask him/her what a good H-index or citation count is. I'm not going to comment any further here other than say I think this article should be significantly condensed - and future edits should be vigorously enforced against fluff. You guys seem diligent and should all police it. best, Sahiljain22 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-018-0691-3
^ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TQ1na-MAAAAJ&hl=en
^ https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+good+h-index

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more input by experienced contributors, not new accounts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was originally going to stay out of this AFD because it's a complete mess of an article to go through, but it seems like this AFD has just been overwhelmed by people who have been canvassed here. Can keep editors provide a few (just 2-3) independent, reliable sources that cover this person in significant detail? Quality matters more than quantity on Wikipedia, and let's not make participants in this AFD have to go through the WP:REFBOMB that this article has. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what User:FenixFeather is trying to say is WP:THREE. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep The article is rather a mess, managing almost to bury the subject's strongest claim to notability under a mass of what experienced Wikipedia editors tend to see as largely promotional detail masquerading as notability. However, the subject's h-index of 65 would be stupendously high in most fields, particularly for someone who is still only 35. In the subject's field of research, in which papers with 100 or so authors seem to be common, this is obviously not quite so rare an achievement but I am still inclined to regard it as fairly comfortably high enough to judge the subject as notable by meeting WP:NACADEMIC#1, particularly given that several of the papers with hundreds of citations either have the subject as lead author or as one of only four or five collaborators (or both). Looking at the article and some of the available sources, I think it quite likely that the subject could also be shown to meet WP:NACADEMIC#7 - though doing so would require the subject's campaigning and advocacy activities to be treated more carefully and from quite a different angle than is currently done in the article (and, however odd it might seem, with rather less emphasis on the subject). However, the subject's recent political candidacy, while worth a short sentence in the article as a verifiable point of interest, effectively adds nothing to the subject's notability - particularly as the subject did not win his primary. Finally, a small plea for the (at least apparent) WP:SPAs - this is just the kind of WP:AfD which is likely to attract people with only a very indirect connection with the subject but a substantial respect for them. Every remark I have seen from them above suggests no (at least conscious) WP:COIs and a genuine (if inexperienced and extremely intermittent) belief in building the encyclopedia. PWilkinson (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but shorten Agree with above, the subject is notable, but the article length is way too long, unreadable and biased, so the article needs to be significantly revamped/just straight rewritten. Parts like this need to be removed: "was recognized in The New York Times", the political campaign endorsements and funding, the awards being stated both on the infobox and article, and repeated full title Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Drug Scandal. If kept future editors should read WP:NPOV. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:00, 15 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Falkenhagen

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

BLP fails WP:NBIO. Article relies almost entirely on primary sources - external links at that, and has been doing so for almost a decade now. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (see explanation for the change below). Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 22:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Completely agree with the OP. It reads like a resume and fails to show any notability.~~ Caballero/Historiador^⎌

Keep I cleaned up the article and found plenty of good references about her and her work. I hope that Caballero1967 will take a second look. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Reviewing your comments and following your leads have made me change my mind about my vote. Thanks for cleaning up the article and for pointing out to the coverage Falkenhagen has received, but you or someone else, may want to spend a bit more time with it. I still think the article fails to demonstrate its significance (GNG). Right from the first sentence, the reader should understand that Falkenhagen’s work is significant enough to justify its own WP entry. Caballero/Historiador^⎌

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Post clean-up, I do think there is sufficient coverage to satisfy notability requirements. Tone is iffy, but just warrants additional clean-up, not removal. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 11 October 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 12:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Eyton-Jones

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

Non notable. Fails WP:BIO. It is all about CERN. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Promotional. scope_creep (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been through the sources and removed those that blatantly did not verify the claims they were being used for. The only claim to notability in the sources is that he is CEO of CERN's Pension Fund. A WP:BEFORE search does not find more. Fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 14:35, 19 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom Academic School

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

Two sentences and a blatantly Photoshopped image about a school in India. No sources available from what I can tell and no attempt has been made to cite any since February 2016. Wodgester (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, c'mon any school called blossom cant be bad:)), BAS appears to be an elementary school located at Jevpur (according to gmaps (L-shaped building south of Jevpur-Mahewa Road), so it can be mentioned there. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have to agree with you there regarding a merger but the creator of the article is long gone and I'm not experienced enough to figure out the process. Then again, Jevpur itself is a tiny, also unreferenced mess itself so is it really worth it? Wodgester (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - @Coolabahapple:, @Wodgester: - I was going to say merge, since Jevpur would generally be viewed as safe via GEOLAND, despite its awful quality. But there isn't actually any reliable source to demonstrate the school's existence - adding it to the article could actually reduce the quality. Redirecting wouldn't make any sense given that we'd be redirecting to an article that makes no mention of it. Thus I think delete (without prejudice) is appropriate. Thoughts?

you may be right, although there are sites like here that list it, CBSE doesnt (Blossum Senior Secondary School is a different school), so probably better to delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sounds about right.Wodgester (talk) 15:34, 17 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shob Choritro Kalponik

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

Fails WP:NTV. No sources, thereby failing WP:GNG and WP:V. WP:BEFORE check did not bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above reasons.TH1980 (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notible and lacking in available sources. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have added a citation to this mention on ToI, but it is merely a TNN blurb. Fails GNG and NTV as it stands. Sam Sailor 07:17, 18 October 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. Seems to have been deleted, but this was never closed? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Strange Place

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

Notability of student film not established. Article appears to be written by writer/director. Release and reception section features promotional and unsourced material. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 13:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't the significant coverage required for an article on wikipedia. Szzuk (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere WP:PROMO for a student film. Fails WP:NFILM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 19 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amon-Ra St. Brown

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:CFBNOTE and may be WP:TOOSOON. No notable achievements with so far during his college career. GPL93 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.GPL93 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with ease.--Yankees10 17:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably WP:TOOSOON, the best sources are about his family, not about him. SportingFlyer talk 21:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~/Merge there's a significant amount of coverage about his family and he's a part of that as highly rated prospect. Possibly worth an article about the family? Note: yes, I'll copy the same to his brother's AfD as I created that one after finding this and not that StarM 00:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge Most the information on this page can be moved to the personal life section of his brother's page GPL93 (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your location, but not deleting. No reason to lose the history/content. It can be trimmed StarM 22:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep feature articles like this one really point to Notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the article points more to that his family is notable, not the individual. None of the 5 points in the article focus specifically on Osiris or Amon-Ra. GPL93 (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title is "5 things to know about the wide receiving St. Brown brothers as Stanford visits Notre Dame" --Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as SportingFlyer pointed out earlier most of his coverage are more about the family as a whole than the two younger brothers.GPL93 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is specifically about him. So is this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split view over Keep vs Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitley passes WP:GNG. this is about him as well. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Bleacher Report. Passes WP:GNG.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG by a mile. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:02, 19 October 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 12:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Menon Mariano

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

Doubtful notability. Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Google Scholar gives cite numbers of 44, 36, 29, 20, 11.Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPROF. scope_creep (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:39, 18 October 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 12:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

House of Hakim

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

Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakim Shah Jahan, a supposed member of this dynasty. The article was created by someone whom I highly suspect to be a sockpuppet of a notorious inventor of Punjabi noble history, but that subcase was closed as stale. Anyway, I cannot find a single reliable reference for its mere existence. It is also unconventional to say the least, that a dynasty is named after its last member instead of its founder. HyperGaruda (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it looks very dubious to me. I would expect to see a substantial discussion of the Hakim's in one of the sources of the lead, but it's not there. The three sources in the lead are;
- Tīmūr Lang's article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. I don't have full access to this, but there is no mention of any Hakim in the article lintroduction. Perhaps someone with full access can confirm. The source is meant to verify that the Hakims are a branch of the Timurids. There is also no entry for any 18th-century ruler named Hakim.
- The Mughal Empire, mentions Prince Bidar Bakht, but does not verify any connection with the Hakims, the fact that the source is supposed to be verifying.
- Merchants, Politics, and Society in Early Modern India: Bihar, 1733-1820 refers to several Mirza's but I'm not seeing Bidar Dil Mirza, let alone that he was a Hakim, the fact the source is supposed to be verifying.

I looked at one more source, Emperors Of The Peacock Throne, and then gave it up as a bad job. The only Hakim in this book led an Uzbeg invasion of Punjab in 1580. Not only is this the wrong date (two centuries too early) but the invasion did not succeed and Hakim did not become ruler. SpinningSpark 12:22, 12 October 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).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Squad Wars

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

I haven't found any non-routine, non-pre-release coverage in reliable sources, except the Stevenson Villager review. wumbolo ^^^ 15:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per existing sources plus these: [7] [8] Modernponderer (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep considering it easily meets the WP:GNG criteria per sources in the article and what ModernPonderer posted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prank Academy (web series)

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

There is a little coverage, but no significant reliable source commentary. wumbolo ^^^ 15:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Even the sources already in the article are sufficient to pass GNG, but here's several more: [9] [10] [11] [12] (and also the first existing link can be replaced with [13] for more in-depth coverage) Modernponderer (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Literally the same thing as with Squad Wars nomination. Lots of sources presented in here and in the article, passes WP:GNG easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Robert Morse

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

I don't think either WP:BIO or WP:FILMMAKER are met. Most of the sources only mention him in passing, mainly related to EuroTrump (which is notable) and for example in Newsweek the subject is discussing Geert Wilders (the subject of EuroTrump) but there is nothing biographical about Morse. This source from broadcastnow.co.uk is probably the best in-depth coverage, but as a specialist trade publication it doesn't confer a great deal (if any) notability. Likewise, alumni publications don't confer notability either. SmartSE (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Emmy nomination is adequate evidence that the subject is a significant film maker. There's an alternative to deletion such as merger with a work such as Amanda Knox (film). Our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE, would thus apply. There's also their work for Mother Jones (see Dissed Trust), which seems to have attracted attention. Andrew D. (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC contains a criterion about awards, but there is nothing in FILMMAKER that says being nominated for an award makes producers notable. I had meant to say in the nom that I would support a merge and redirect to EuroTrump if the article existed. SmartSE (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write the article? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get to it later today.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1-2 million viewed viral video about the New Black Panthers, notable business MyTwoCensus, notable film Amanda Knox, notable film EuroTrump (I know, we don't have an article yet, but it's only a matter of time), many in-depth sources covering the guy. I've improved the article, almost doubling its original size and adding many references. I know Morse gets a lot of flak and abuse on social media for cuddling up to right-wingers like Steve Bannon and Geert Wilders, but I think he's just doing the same as Ed Balls and shining a light on what some people actually think, so we can all learn. This is one of the few places on the 'net you can get a totally unbiased and neutral view of Morse, so we should hold on to it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely amazed to need to say this but WP:NOTINHERITED covers most of your rationale. Please clarify which links are "many in-depth sources covering the guy" poetsandquants is in-depth, but not reliable. philly is the best so far, but that's still a single reliable source providing substantial coverage of the subject. The remainder seems to be WP:ILIKEIT. SmartSE (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how WP:NOTINHERITED is met. It's not saying "all filmmakers are notable", "all people who've created two films are notable", "all people who've interviewed right-wing despot maniacs are notable" or anything of the sort. I've had that argument lots of times - in response, you need to look at WP:ATD, specifically WP:ATD-R, which suggests a redirect. What do you want to redirect to? There are too many choices = default to "keep". An actual WP:ILIKEIT !vote would be more like "Stephen Robert Morse rulez lol he shows those libtards what Trump Bannon and Wilders can do to u dems. TRUMP FOR 2020!!! lol". Anyway, there are more dedicated sources dealing with Morse as the main subject, such as this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's pretty clear from the above two contributors that this is easily worth keeping. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As there is a significant (tho possibly non-notable) film besides the one nominated for an award, and other work, it justifies a separate aticle, not merely a merge to Amanda Knox. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is now sufficiently referenced and meets GNG.Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:38, 11 October 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 12:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nikolskaya-Ekseli

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

No notability. No content beside the lede. 3 references, one of them is her book's listing on a shopping website, the other is a review of her book. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some refs in the article but nothing that indicates notability (I translated them). Her own personal website appears to be 404. Her Russian language wiki is the same as this one. Looks like an advert. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 23:59, 17 October 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 13:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma Radar

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No reliable independent sources found. Current references are a link to the band's Last.fm page, and four reviews of their album, three of which are definitely blogs, and one which may be a legitimate source, but there appears to be no archive of the DOA page to confirm this. It's possible there may be reviews of the album in NME or Q from 2004, but given that any reviews from these publications will not be available online to be able to check, there will be no promotional interviews with the band as they had already split up by the time the album came out, and their entire recorded output was just two singles and one album, further sources seem unlikely to turn up, unless anyone has a subscription to access US newspapers from 2004 and check their music reviews. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I opened the refs which confirmed their existence but not notability, i read on lastfm a quote that took my interest so i went to youtube to listen to them, found their best song, was hopeful despite it having just 1000 views - and it hurt my ears. Szzuk (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:36, 11 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 01:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serah Singh

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

I think this hould be Deleted becasue this actor only has one acting role 4 years ago; not even listed in IMDb for the film (though other sites support her participation), therefore not assumed it to be a lead. WP:TOOSOON. Only one WP:Deadlink as a reference. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough roles to be notable as an actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One role that resulted in a handful of media mentions in 2014, classic case of WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —JJ B^e ^rs 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Hartford, Connecticut

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

This page is supposed to be a split out from the main article, but the History section on the main article is has more info making this page redundant. —JJ B^e ^rs 17:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the main article, Hartford, Connecticut is presently around 10,500 words, the high end of readability so having its history split off seems like a good idea, looks like a case of moving text not deletion. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Coolabahapple. Most of the information in the main should be removed in favor of this article. Markvs88 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit both articles to conform with WP:SUMMARY in keeping with the above comments. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wonder if this could be expanded into History of Hartford County, Connecticut, to make it more notable. That would be outside of AfD, however. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Editing is required. Even if someone actually taking the time to edit in this area decided to cover the topic entirely in the Hartford article instead, it would not be appropriate to delete this, but rather it would then be redirected. --Doncram (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Splitting the main article sounds like a good idea from me, so I'm going to change to Keep. (Not sure if I can do that since I'm the nom, so I'll just make this.) —JJ B^e ^rs 16:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJBers Public, if you're the nominator and want to withdraw and there are no opposing votes, as here, you can just go ahead and close the AFD early, and that would be better rather than continuing to demand that more editors read and consider this AFD. Instructions are probably at wp:AFD. Someone else probably could close it early, too. This is ready to be closed. --Doncram (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's entirely reasonable to have aarticles on the history of significant cities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 16 October 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 13:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of national teams with no AFC Asian Cup appearances

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

There is no reason as to why the page should exist. It is not even notable in regards of the tournament itself. This page fails WP:NOTABILITY. Furthermore, it is pretty obvious which teams did not qualify by looking at the participating nations chart. In addition, if such an article were to exist, it would also have to include teams that are not even part of AFC such as Germany or Uruguay. Ilovereo222 (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it sets a bad precedence to create articles that group together things that HAVE NOT been achieved. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless article, very unwiki and doesn't serve anything but to annoy. Govvy (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:ITSUSELESS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, neither of which are valid arguments. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely unnecessary article. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needless trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ WP:NOTSTATS Hhkohh (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge table then delete per below and WP:NOTSTATS Hhkohh (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is a merge then delete allowed under CCL? I thought we had to preserve the edit history of the merged content. Smartyllama (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Redirect is unnecessary and just histmerge to National team appearances in the AFC Asian Cup if that result is redirect or delete Hhkohh (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. I'm assuming you mean if that result is redirect or keep. If it's deleted, we obviously can't merge it there, but could still merge it to the records and statistics article. Though I believe we'd have to do that in the case the other AfD is closed as redirect too, since that's where the content ultimately would be. But I'll let the closing admin sort that out if that's where consensus goes. Smartyllama (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah Hhkohh (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever fate befalls this article, the same should probably also happen to List of national teams with no UEFA European Championship appearances and List of national teams with no FIFA World Cup appearances. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lowercaserho: posted to AfD Hhkohh (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with National team appearances in the AFC Asian Cup or AFC Asian Cup records and statistics per WP:ATD. It wouldn't be immediately obvious by looking at the table over there which teams haven't made it, since that would require the reader to have memorized a list of all AFC members. Nonetheless, this doesn't need its own article, it can be covered there just fine. The idea that the table would have to include non-AFC members is ridiculous. Smartyllama (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still, we wouldn't need to know which teams did not make the AFC Asian Cup. This is because teams that didn't make it don't really have anything to do with the cup (except for the qualification process, which probably isn't notable enough). It's not like we include a list of people who have qualified for the cup but didn't score a goal. I still think we should delete the page, or at least add it to the qualification process page as a list of teams that have not made it out of the qualification process. Also, how would the idea that the table would need to include non-AFC members be ridiculous? The page never specified that the teams had to be part of AFC. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include basketball teams too? Because those have never made the AFC Asian Cup. What about Manchester United? They've never made it either. But it should be obvious to any halfway intelligent reader that basketball teams, or club teams, or non-AFC teams, have not qualified for a soccer tournament for AFC national teams. And if you really think it isn't, go ahead and specify it. That's a content issue, not a deletion issue. And the threshold for inclusion in an article is a lower bar than the threshold for having its own article. WP:ITSUSEFUL can be an argument for including content within an article, since after all the purpose of an encyclopedia is to serve its readers. The subject as a whole needs to pass the threshold for notability, but not every single aspect of an article individually. Hence, merge it to another article where it's relevant rather than make it a standalone topic. And That being said, how is "add[ing] it to the qualification process page" any different from merging? Smartyllama (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying. We could easily copy and paste the content on this page to the qualification process page. But still though, it's not like the information on this page is referenced to any reliable sources to any extent. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is basically what merging is. Of course, under CCL, we'd need to either do a redirect or a histmerge to ensure everything is properly attributed. And I'm sure we can easily find reliable sources about who appeared when. After all, that's sourced in the individual tournament articles, it would be fairly easy to copy the citation links. Now, such sources probably don't get this article past GNG, which is why we merge rather than keep, but they should at least pass WP:RS and WP:V. Smartyllama (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I have merged the information, the only thing that's needed now are the sources. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that simple. We'd need either a redirect or a histmerge to properly attribute the history per WP:MERGE and the CCL. There may not be consensus for the former at the moment, and the latter requires an admin. On a related note, would you reconsider your "do not merge" comment on the UEFA AfD given they're largely identical (and if anything UEFA receives more coverage)? Smartyllama (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly if we were to merge we would need a redirect to the new page, since this page has been around for a while. Ilovereo222 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am against any merge. Govvy (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculous cross-section of items for a list. Also against a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that All-time Olympic Games medal table includes a list of countries which have never won a medal, and there are similar examples on other pages, so a merge would not be without precedent. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s meaningless unless it was kept in there as a result of some consensus from a policy-based discussion. Otherwise, youre just pointing at another mistake to justify this mistake, which isn’t valid. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a useful list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or just keep outright) to National team appearances in the AFC Asian Cup. Absolutely no reason to delete this information as it's a valid list per WP:LISTN, presented in chart format. Some delete votes appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SportingFlyer talk 03:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's already merged. But I don't think it passes WP:LISTN or WP:STATS. Pretty much you're implying that every list, sourced or not, passes WP:LISTN, when in fact that is not the case. Ilovereo222 (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm implying nothing of the sort. Does this come down to the lack of inline sources? [14] is independent and secondary and confirms the valid list inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer talk 13:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. So I somewhat support the merge. However, if the majority of the people here vote that it should be deleted, then that should be the case. Ilovereo222 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTVOTE. It's also not obvious from the chart presented during the nomination which teams have never qualified but have attempted to. I've clarified the article so it wouldn't "include teams like Uruguay" and added a source. SportingFlyer talk 00:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and not needed. Giant Snowman 15:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is already covered in another article on AFC Cup Qualification, so I'm fine with a procedural delete. SportingFlyer talk 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really notable (teams are notable for what they do accomplish, not what they do not) although unlike other delete !votes I would not be against a merge to an appropriate article. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:16, 17 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration and crime in Germany

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

I have tried very hard to bring this article into line with NPOV but I see how that it is a hopeless struggle. As long as the article is present, certain editors will use it as an opportunity to peddle their view that crime in Germany is caused by immigration. Any historical facts that I've tried to introduce have been removed in favour of a long list of crimes committed by immigrants in recent years. As has been pointed out in the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Immigration_and_crime_in_Germany, there is no real need for this additional article rather than just a subsection of Immigration to Germany or Crime in Germany. The very linking of the two in the article's title is synthesis, with the clear implication that there is a direct connection between immigration and crime. It has also been suggested that the topic is, in itself not notable because "the article ... used to establish notability of the topic, the Federal Situation Report on Crime in the Context of Immigration for years 2015 and 2016, is specifically about the immigration in 2015 and 2016, when the government allowed one million immigrants to arrive, not about earlier waves of immigration such as Turkish guest workers". I'm afraid I can see no way of avoiding this turning into another POV disaster except by deleting it so that we can at least keep all the questionable material in one place. Deb (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts are in vain because you have tried to add material that is not about immigrants in Germany. Nor do I see any editors peddling "their view that crime in Germany is caused by immigration" (and this is a PA, and I ask you to strike it). I will add you have already managed to poison this AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The German Federal Agency for Civic Education has a page named Ausländerkriminalität. The German name of this institution is Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (BpB). The BpB page lists a number of further sources from the 1990s 2000s and 2010s and therefore the topic of this article lives up to WP:SIGCOV. While the article does have POV problems they are fixable. AadaamS (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also this 1991 report from Munich University supports the long-term notability of the topic. AadaamS (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. There are newspaper reports that can be used. It's a Notable subject. https://www.newspapers.com/image/193366967/?terms=immigrants%2Bcrime%2Bgermany BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Controversial article I guess. But I see plenty of good sources. I can not really see a reason for deletion. More so a clean-up or possibly re-write certain sections. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This a legitimate subject simply because it was discussed in a lot of RS. If the research concluded there is no connection between Immigration and crime in Germany, this should be stated on the page. Basically, whatever sources about it tell. My very best wishes (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article on a significant topic that is central to the contemporary German political and media conversation, article is well supported by WP:RS and has had dozens of editors over the years. Nomination is WP:FORUMSHOPPING by an editor whose arguments were rejected on article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable topic with ongoing coverage of various aspects. In as much as there is a POV issue - deletion is not cleanup. Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the paragraph about Nazi period spreads Nazi propaganda.

That paragraph was about German interwar racism, not about immigrants, so I removed it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my English, but I mean Forced labour under German rule. The crimes included consensual sex with German women (hanging), no bending toward German people, any protests caused by bad conditions. Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and have deleted this material which is about forced labour, not about immigrants, see my comments at article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Germany describes also criminality of immigrants. The two pages should be integrated.Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Germany is an article in need of improvement, not least because it fails to even address the most salient aspect of the topic, which is that Germany has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Nevertheless, it it should serve as an overall summary of the topic, not least because with almost 300 articles in Category:Crime in Germany we can hardly redirect everything form everything from Human trafficking in Germany, Rape in Germany, and Corruption in Germany to Crime in Germany, which is the logic of your proposal. What might make sense would be to redirect some of the material on organized crime in immigrant groups ("Russian mafia," "Albanian mafia," and so forth,) which feels like WP:UNDUE overemphasis on the page Crime in Germany to this page on "Immigration and crime in Germany." Caveat: sourcing for some of these organized crime groups looks pretty thin, and page Crime in Germany has not received much editorial attention, and little improvement in sourcing in the years it has existed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Apply for a lock and do God's work. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 12:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep already - An excellent, well-sourced article with very solid WP:RS. Can it be improved? Sure, what Wikipedia article can't? XavierItzm (talk) 11:46, 15 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Guild (franchise)

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

Two entries in the series. Does not need an overarching main article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: Do you want to delete article or talk page? If just a talk page not an article, please go to WP:MFD, not here. Hhkohh (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid mobile editing :-/ @Hhkohh:, are you able to fix my mistake perhaps? Or do I need to resubmit my AfD? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: I fixed it. Regards So Why 17:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that there is no need for a "franchise" page, and there is no information contained in this page that is not included in either of the two game-specific articles. Not to mention, this article has no references to indicate that the franchise itself is noteworthy apart from the individual games. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A "series" of two articles does not need an umbrella page. --wooden superman 08:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:38, 18 October 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. Merging was supported but no target was suggested, so it's non-actionable at an AfD, but can be discussed on the talk page afterwards. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pied-à-terre

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

Perhaps the classic example of a dictionary definition masquerading as an article. E Eng 13:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<added later> I guess it wasn't obvious that I don't see GNG-qualifying sources anywhere. To repeat the analogy I give in the discussion below, if there were news articles discussing how households with more than one dog can be a neighborhood nuisance, and the city thinks about enacting a special tax on anything beyond one dog per home, that doesn't mean we should have an article called "Second dog", even if there's a catchy name for second dogs like "Doggie deux". E Eng 12:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DICDEF: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." The pied-à-terre article is a concept, and the article can be expanded with further examples, especially with sources from the corresponding Dutch article. SportingFlyer talk 23:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. The Dutch Wikipedia entry reads in its entirety (in automated translation):

A pied-à-terre (French for foot to the ground ) is a second home, usually located in a different city and usually smaller than the primary residence in the municipality where one is registered. A residence where one occasionally stays, or a few days a week, because of work while living elsewhere.

In the Paris property market, mini-apartments, sometimes less than 8 m², are marketed as pied-à-terre for people living in the province and working or studying in Paris during the week.

In Amsterdam, a home must be above a certain rental value that is designated as pied-à-terre. If an owner of a pied-à-terre allows his / her child to occupy the house, the child must register with the municipality. [1]

Apart from students, politicians also use a pied-à-terre. Many ministers and MPs have a pied-à-terre in The Hague while they remain registered in their own municipality. [2] Pied-à-terre also occurs in the world of entertainment, for example with television personalities who have a pied-à-terre in Amsterdam while living elsewhere. [3] [4]

In 2014, the former home of King Willem Alexander , the Noordeinde 66 building in The Hague, was adapted to serve as a pied-à-terre for Princess Beatrix. [5] She lives at the Drakensteyn estate in the municipality of Baarn. [6]

Source

Eerenbeemt, Marc van den A staccato life in the city : De Volkskrant 25 August 2010 Consulted 13 July 2015

References

1. Website City of Amsterdam: May I keep a second home (pied à terre) in Amsterdam?

2. Pied-á-terre in The Hague

3. My Amsterdam pied-à-terre

4. Quote 29 March 2015: The new director of Stage Holding buys a pied à terre in Amsterdam

5. Questions and answers about the budget of the King (HI) 2015 of 3 October 2014

6. De Volkskrant 20 June 2014 The renovation of The Hague pied-à-terre Beatrix costs almost a million

Perhaps you could share with us which of these tidbits and sources you foresee being used for this projected expansion here at enwp? Would it be the Amsterdam registration requirement? Princess Beatrix's address? E Eng 23:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The social and legal uses of the concept in Paris, Amsterdam, New York, et cetera. New York proposed a tax on it [15] and it appears it's not always allowed in New York City as per this source: [16] It's clearly a social concept, an expandable article, and not something that's better off at Wiktionary, which is the only reason you proposed deletion. SportingFlyer talk 00:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and copy-edited the article and added references about the social context of pied-à-terres. SportingFlyer talk 00:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could say I thought you were kidding, but I fear you're not. E Eng 02:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under no obligation to agree with you and really don't appreciate your condescending tone, which adds nothing to the AfD discussion. SportingFlyer talk 03:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For "social context" you added [17] a real estate broker's blog post as a source, and the statement -- unsourced -- that Pied-à-terres can be controversial, especially in cities where affordable housing is an issue. Then you used a primary-source municipal webpage from the city of Amsterdam to conclude that "In Amsterdam, pied-à-terres are regulated", and give your own unintelligible interpretation of what those regulations are; what in the world does it mean for a property to be "not rented out, and ... above a certain rental threshold"? Do you know what a "home withdrawal" is? It's laughable. E Eng 04:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first one's called a topic sentence. I've edited both sentences for clarity. There's nothing wrong with the blog post source, especially because other sources show notability. Furthermore, in making this AfD about me and my edits and not about the topic itself, you're being rather uncivil. SportingFlyer talk 05:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the blog post source -- see WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOG. It's like if some cities had a tax on people who kept more than one dog, and therefore we should have an article on second dogs (perhaps called "Doggie deux"). E Eng 11:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The blog in this instance is run by StreetEasy, a Zillow-owned real estate/apartment website. While probably not subject to the same editorial content as the New York Times, it is more reliable than something someone wrote on WordPress. Furthermore, it doesn't matter for WP:GNG as other sources show notability, and WP:GNG wasn't argued as a reason for deletion in the first place. SportingFlyer talk 12:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really??? A local real estate agent's blogpost on a Zillow-owned real estate/apartment website is a reliable source? Since apparently I have to make the GNG concern explicit, I've done so back at the top. E Eng 12:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The blog post was written by a journalist, not a "local real estate agent": [18] Furthermore the New York Times articles (including [19], not in the article yet), Forbes article, and [20] demonstrate the concept passes WP:GNG easily. SportingFlyer talk 12:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the journalist (I must have clicked the wrong link) but the fact remains that Zillow is hardly any kind of reliable source. For the rest, the "second dog" argument still applies. While we here: you really need a secondary source for the Amsterdam statement (and the statement needs to be made intelligible) or it will have to go. E Eng 16:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've seen much less been involved in an edit war with an AfD nominator over a WP:HEY. I have no problem giving due weight to the Zillow blog under the guidelines at WP:QS, and we don't need it to establish notability for purposes of this AfD as plenty of other sources exist. The Amsterdam statement is a secondary source but not an independent source (as I'm sure it restates the local bylaw, which would be the primary source - even confirmed here they have bylaws: [21]), and I did my best to make an accurate, good faith translation, even if the first attempt wasn't the clearest. City and State NY was tagged as "reliable source?" when I have no doubts about their credibility: [22]. I've also updated the sentence about Paris. SportingFlyer talk 22:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no edit war; I've simply tagged OR and PRIMARY sources, removed statements not found in the sources, and so on. The "Second dog" argument still applies. Just because the "concept" of a second-home-in-town has a catchy French term for it, and that term has been used now and them (as terms will be, now and then) in articles talking about second homes, doesn't mean there's anything constituting an encyclopedia here. It's just an incoherent collection of news factoids cobbled together under the meaningless rubric of "attracted discussion during the 2010s". E Eng 05:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree about the OR and PRIMARY sourcing, but it doesn't look like any more words here will solve the impasse. This article is the urban companion to our Holiday cottage article, has been covered in major news sources in different languages per WP:GNG, and deserves to be kept. SportingFlyer talk 06:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you've scoured the earth and come up with two municipal regulations, a statement of the obvious fact the "pied-à-terres cause a reduction in the overall housing supply", and the observation that there's three blocks in Manhattan where more than half of apartments are second homes make my argument better than I ever could. This is a collection of disjointed factoids. E Eng 14:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "scoured the earth," I've cleaned up the article a bit (it needed it) and added a couple obvious sources. You're making three arguments: it fails WP:DICDEF (it doesn't); it fails WP:GNG (it doesn't); and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (obvious from the fact you're getting into content and not sources - deletion is not cleanup.) It's a valid geographic topic and at worst, the well-sourced content should be merged somewhere, but that's not needed since the proper place is already in this article. SportingFlyer talk 22:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're saying there are more sources that aren't in the article, you certainly haven't put your best foot forward (meilleur pied en avant). E Eng 23:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to merge or move this somewhere more general, but I'm not sure where.

The term may or may not pass GNG, but in the bigger picture it's relatively new jargon in a particular dialect for a special case of a wider phenomenon, that of non-resident and foreign ownership of real estate for investment purposes. This wider phenomenon, in turn, seems to be a pretty important, widely-discussed, and encyclopedia-worthy issue: New Zealand recently banned it [23], it's an issue in London with Sadiq Khan threatening to do the same [24][25], and there's a bunch of relevant law, enough to write a review about it all the way back in 1978 and a whole book in 2013. We don't seem to have this content anywhere on WP at the moment; vacation property might conceivably be stretched to include it, but that redirects to the manifestly unsuitable holiday cottage.

Overall, I think the best solution would be a move to Non-resident ownership of real estate, accompanied by an expansion to include the material on other things that fit in this category (e.g. foreign investment in agricultural land) that seem to be regularly discussed alongside "pied-à-terre"-related material in the highest-quality sources. FourViolas (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough, here comes FourViolas with his peacemaking and nonviolence and compromise and respecting all creatures great and small and so on. What kind a world would this be if everyone was like this? E Eng 01:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FourViolas: I generally support this - I don't really mind where this sits as long as it's kept. The only problem I have is the definition of non-resident and foreign ownership of real estate for investment purposes is much broader than the definition of a pied-à-terre, which is a particular definition of a type of second home (which this journal article discusses: [26]). SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, my category is more than a slight generalization. I considered second home as a merge target, but that's currently a redirect to pied-à-terre, holiday cottage, and an album of dubious notability. Maybe a better alternative would be to gather together information on second residences urban, rural, and in-between in a single article (holiday cottage already has lots of material not really relevant to cottages meant for holidaying), and include legal aspects in a section there or in a new and more general article. FourViolas (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a ripe area for cleanup (but not deletion) - holiday cottage is a very British term, for instance, and was a move proposal without any input back in 2013. As an aside, I cleaned up the Second home disambiguation page, and added a link there to Dacha. SportingFlyer talk 01:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I came here from a note at EEng's talk page. It seems to me that there is an underlying architectural concept here, so it should be possible to revise the content so that it is about the concept, its history, and commentary about it, instead of about the definition of the word. A superficial look at the Google Books and Google Scholar links above seems to indicate that there has been a lot of commentary about the idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge in Canada we have the concept of a second home, which may or may not be a vacation home or "cottage". This is slightly different. It lines up with the "single occupant unit" micro condos being built in the expensive Vancouver market. There is a topic here but it needs expansion. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 17 October 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. Opinion is divided, but the "keep" arguments are notably weaker, arguing only that the organization or people associated with it are "notorious". That may be so, but our guidelines such as WP:GNG require reliable sources to establish any such notoriety, and the "keep" side doesn't provide them. I will create a redirect to Donald Sanborn#Most Holy Trinity Seminary, as proposed at the end, in my individual capacity as an editor. I don't see much that is sourced and could be merged. Sandstein 10:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most Holy Trinity Seminary

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

I am dubious about the notability of this institution. Lack of high quality sources. (Note, that there are other unrelated institutions with a similar name, e.g. the Missionary Servants of the Most Holy Trinity's Seminary in Monroe, Virginia; so, when searching for references, you have to be careful that they are about this institution and not one of those others.) SJK (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I also have my doubts about notability, but it does exist and is training clergy for a Catholic splinter group, one that rejects Vatican II. I could see no indication of the number of students, only that there are five staff, who (I suspect) have other jobs too. If kept, rename to Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Brooksville, Florida or such like to disambiguate from the other one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: "but it does exist" – isn't that simply WP:ITEXISTS? As far as I can tell, this is a tiny institution run by a tiny sect of ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholics which have split away from the mainstream Roman Catholic church. (There are other, far more larger and notable splinter sects than this particular one, such as SSPX and SSPV – this particular one doesn't even seem to have a name as such, but its leaders used to belong to SSPV and then had some falling out with them and left.) I can't find any discussions of this seminary in reliable sources. (At least one of their staff – Anthony Cekada – is arguably notable, since some of his writings have been influential among Catholic traditionalists, but the reliable sources which discuss that do so without discussing this institution.) All the refs in the article are to non-reliable and non-independent sources. If reliable sources haven't paid any attention to this institution/group, then it doesn't meet the notability requirements for an article. SJK (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sometimes it is useful to have articles on such small institutions so that WP can show how insignificant they are. An alternative might be to merge and redirect to the article on this particular Catholic splinter denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; your proposal seems to be that an institution which is so obscure that reliable sources entirely ignore it deserves an article so people can learn how insignificant it really is, but that proposal seems to be against the spirit (and letter) of GNG rather than in conformance with it. (I might decide to open a "seminary" in my garage – even if I create a website for it, does it deserve a Wikipedia article just to demonstrate how insignificant the seminary in my garage is?). An article with no high quality references – should the reader infer the topic is so marginal that high quality references don't exist for it, or that high quality references exist but no Wikipedia editor has yet found them? Since the reader can't tell which of the two is the case (without researching the topic themselves), such an article can't really serve your proposed purpose of demonstrating the insignificance of its subject. SJK (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rector, Donald Sanborn, and Father Anthony Cekada, are notorious. 67.79.171.130 (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTINHERIT, even if its rector and one of its professors are notable, that doesn't automatically make the institution notable. Furthermore, it isn't demonstrated that either Sanborn or Cekada are themselves notable. Labelling them as "notorious" doesn't suffice for notability – notorious to whom? I for one had never heard of Sanborn until I stumbled upon his article on Wikipedia, although I had heard of Cekada before. (But, the vast majority of people, who know nothing about traditional Catholicism, would never have heard of Cekada either.) Notability needs to be demonstrated by reliable sources. I found some reliable sources for Cekada, which maybe is enough for notability, but it is borderline. But I simply can't find anything substantial on Sanborn, which makes me think he isn't notable and his article should be deleted. So, in fact, just now, I nominated his article for deletion as well – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Sanborn. SJK (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like I said somewhere else, they are definitely notorious in the traditionalist Catholic movement, they worked with Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, and were part of the nine American priests who were expelled from the SSPX, who would come to form the Society of Saint Pius V.DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DizzinessOfFreedom: In order to demonstrate "notoriety", we need references to reliable independent secondary sources. No matter how notorious the individuals who run this institution may be in some circles, if the institution is not discussed extensively by multiple reliable independent secondary sources, it is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Please see WP:ORGSIG. SJK (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The seminary is not terribly notable, but enough for WP to take note of it. Far many more institutions with much less credit have a larger presence here. The fact that some of its members and staff have gained recognition (or notoriety) should be considered since their reputations are linked to the seminary's movement. Den... (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG, Kilopylae, Power~enwiki, Ad Orientem, and TonyBallioni: you all contributed to the discussion at related AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Sanborn (this is the seminary–most likely very small–of which Sanborn is the leader), but have not commented here yet. Maybe you might have something to contribute here? SJK (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. To avoid the possibility of unconscious bias, I have always supported the broadest possible interpretation of the notability standards for religious organizations. Ny only problem is that there seems no information about whether it is large enough to actually be considered established; I am judging it has a real existence on the basis of the photographs on their site in the absence of numerical data, but I do not feel perfectly secure about it. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep My view is like DGG I support a broad interpretation for religious organizations and I will also echo what another voter said above in that this seminary is notable due to the nature of it. I found a few sources here and there which combined with the other stuff make this a keep.JC7V-constructive zone 15:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I have a counter proposal, what if we merged info from this article into the article on Anthony Cekada??? He is associated with the seminary and it might be a decent compromise? JC7V-constructive zone 18:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After going over others comments I believe it should be deleted. I tried to find references from independent sources for this article and I could only find 2 references from reliable sources (Times and Hernando Sun) which are barely passing mentions and show it fails WP:GNG and similar categories. The merge thing I guess wouldn't work either. So I delete is probably the right move. JC7V-constructive zone 19:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating that I would also be open to the merge and redirect proposal that was put forth by EM Gregory. I already suggested a merge before but his/her suggestion is better than the merge suggestion i put forth. I still believe it's a delete but his/her idea seems a good ATD. JC7V-talk 17:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is scant reliable source coverage for either article subject. I am not sure if we have enough RS coverage to source a three sentence stub on both of them together. The only way either of these can be kept is if we just chuck GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NORG (see also WP:NSCHOOL). Insufficient (virtually none) coverage from reliable secondary sources. Cited sources are affiliated and/or fail WP:RS. As written the article grossly fails WP:NPOV and is a blatant WP:COATRACK WP:ADVERT for the beliefs of a fringe schismatic sect. It also falsely claims that they are Roman Catholics. If this is kept w/o improvement in sourcing I will likely stub it to a single sentence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Falsely claims that they are Roman Catholics? You surely have no idea what you are talking about. For one to be a Catholic one must hold what the Church has always taught, to believe in what it defined as "De Fide". Now Bergoglio is denying what the Church had defined as "De Fide", your personal opinion does not count for anything.67.79.171.130 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ad Orientem. Essentially no coverage from reliable sources (the only independent mention I've seen so far is a glancing mention in relation to a local planning board meeting), which is not surprising for such a tiny institution (their own webpage only lists 5 professors). Per WP:ORGSIG, schools have no inherent notability, and this particular one doesn't meet any standard of notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Important article for Traditionalist Catholicism. Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada were important members of the Society of Saint Pius X,^[1], and leading members of the Society of Saint Pius V.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Also, Fr. Cekada is a notorious author.^[6]^[7]^[8] Now the seminary is notable for the nature of it. I do not see how can this article be considered unneutral since it is only displaying the views of the seminary and does not advocate in any way for the views proposed. DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the attempt to delete this article is not an extension of the Church’s internal conflicts, could the opposing camp be peeking into the subject through an orifice? It seems to me that they seek to validate their anti position with a strict reading of the guidelines at the expense of the broader view of the seminary’s significance. When deleting an article with a current topic, I check for these points: 1) Is it self-promotion or propaganda? 2) Is it irrelevant to the broader issue (i.e., Latin Catholic Church)? 3) Is it ignored in relevant publications? Here is why I think this article passes the test.

Given the language, content and tone we could safely set aside self-promotion, but is it really relevant to the current religious life? Yes, it is relevant because it represents one of the opposing ultra conservative minorities within the largest Christian denomination (i.e., Sedevacantists) at a time when its prevailing liberal ideology is taking a beating from all sides. Even when the institutional powers seek to silent marginal voices, extremes always define each other. To understand the Church’s current ills, for example, we need to understand Vatican II and those fiercely opposing it—even if they seem as if we should live in the past.

But what about coverage? Let’s first define the appropriate outlets for a marginalized and almost dirt-poor Catholic seminary. They are certainly NOT in the mainstream media, which generate our favourite sources of publication. The NYTimes, for example, will pass them over even when its faculty preaches blistering anti-establishment sermons. The matter is different, however, if any is accused of pedophilia. So, as with peripheral movements in all major religions, we need to look at fringe channels of communication: narrowly specialized presses, scholarly journals with limited circulation, self-published books and social networks, the same that have allowed minority groups in general to survive.

In addition to what has already been provided above:

In books from religious presses: here and here. In religious scholarly publications: here, here, here, and here. In self-published books: here and here. In social media: here, here, here, and many more.

There are many more references from WP:RS to some of the faculty in the seminary (like here, here and here). An institution becomes closely linked to its faculty, in both, academia and religious worlds.

Size is important too. When I advocate to keep this article, I am not suggesting we should expand it. Its present small size matches its significance. Den... (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I added some mainstream coverage of this seminary to Donald Sanborn, that can be used to expand this page. It's real, and has attracted press coverage for decades, in original location and following the move to Florida. Note that according to Florida nesspapers it is actually located in Spring Lake, Florida, an unincorporated area near the incorporated town of Brooksville, Florida. According to one story I added to the Sanborn article, the Seminary bought and renovated a large Spanish Colonial Revival architecture house, with grounds. As s fit for a schismatic Chrurh that wants to turn the clock back to 1492.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here, for those who can access Proquest, is a 1984 Hartford Courant article Court Ruling Sought In Seminary Dispute; ANDREW WALSH Courant Staff Writer. The Hartford Courant (1923-1992); Hartford, Conn. [Hartford, Conn23 May 1984: B2a.], with the backstory. The Lefabvre seminary (Society of St. Pius X that Cekada and Sanborn ran as the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Armada, Michigan had moved to Ridgefield, Connecticut. (To a Tudor architecture mansion (reverencing the wonderful reign of Bloody Mary, no doubt.) Cekada and Sanborn were breaking with Lefabvre and claiming the right to take the seminary with them. I don't know how the lawsuit turned out, but Sanborn then created this seminary in Florida.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: It ended with a settlement in which each side kept some of the properties. The SSPX got to keep the seminary in Connecticut. Here is Cekada's first-hand account. Of course, that is biased in favour of his side, a self-published source, etc., so I doubt whether it could actually be used here. But for the bare facts of the outcome of the case, I am confident it is accurate. SJK (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective MERGE and Redirect to Donald Sanborn. Like Nom and other editors above, I cannot find enough to justify a stand-alone article. I did an upgrade of Donald Sanborn page. With access to archives, sourcing his career is easy, much more exists than I have added, he really was a ting in the 70s and 80s, when the Lefabvre schism was a thing. But when he became a schismatic seceding from a schism - well, he stopped drawing attention. And this Seminary has drawn very little. Merge and redirect to Donald Sanborn. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Thank you for your good work on finding sources for the Sanborn article. Given there are at least a few local media mentions of his seminary, I think that is sufficient for at least some mention in his article. So I agree with your proposal to merge/redirect this article to that one. SJK (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
note that above -talk writes: "stating that I would also be open to the merge and redirect proposal that was put forth by EM Gregory" [27].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/saying-good-bye-our-alma-mater
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FxqJmTfFDk
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NekFfwU-LWs&t=79s
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv1SAtqZnyo&t=939s
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpt_pZoDuhU&t=33s
^ https://muse.jhu.edu/article/685456/summary
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=8OL9tyvN5YcC&pg=PA114
^ https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2265-why-traditionalists-are-not-afraid-of-sedevacantism

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zensar Technologies

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Links are bad or lead to nonfunctioning sites held by this company. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all promotional puffery and uncited or self-cited info. . .Mean as custard (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find more sources about this, for example Forbes. Andrew D. (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons those voting keep above. Zensar gave me over 1,000,000 google hits; and while a lot of the early ones are Press release, Primary, Jobs etc, others are better. So yet again I question was WP:BEFORE dilligent? Templating the uncited content, some of which seems at a glance to be fairly audacious, followed by removal of uncited or dubious content is surely a less disruptive way to go.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup and remove the advert-like tone of the article. Per other votes and the AfD is not cleanup essay. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 07:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.It has a lot of valid sources available and has been published in news articles and is evident in ForbesVinodbasker (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete - Per BeenAroundAwhile, first ref is company annual report and the other ten are acquisition announcements. David notMD (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew nothing about Zensar. I was interested to read that they acquired Cynosure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.172.14 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup / remove promo tone per Mean as custard and SshibumXZ. Sakaimover (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ (Struck - see below) to RPG Group. The sources (both here and elsewhere) are a mix of WP:ROUTINE, (some rephrased) press releases or failures to satisfy Sig Cov or independent. Since Sandstein relisted, it clearly has been noted that the Keep statements are not !votes. Please find and LINK some suitable sources here if you want to demonstrate notability, as WP:NCORP is currently not met. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: please explain to everyone who has participated in this discussion and voted, how their clear votes are “not votes”? Thank you. Sakaimover (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakaimover: - to give three examples, Mean As Custard's "Keep, but remove all promotional puffery and uncited or self-cited info" - gives no response to nomination. 50.204's "Keep I knew nothing about Zensar. I was interested to read that they acquired Cynosure" - doesn't give any response or justification either way. Your own "and cleanup / remove promo tone per Mean as custard and SshibumXZ" - neither your point nor theirs respond to the nomination accurately. A lack of reliable sourcing (whether here or elsewhere) means notability is not satisfied. Thus, attempting to demonstrate it is, is key to the AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How the nom. can even do a WP:BEFORE and state categotically NO (not one) RS when the number of google hits exceed 1,000,000 seems incredulous. That said and incredibly high percent are press release. Some that might count are : 1 2 3 4. But overall a company of Zensar's size reasonably earn's an article. i have confidence the nom is the end disruptive.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of google hits is a terrible way of assessing whether there is suitable sourcing. And WP:BEFORE doesn't require checking every piece of information in the world (no unearthing library of Alexandria etc), but a reasonably detailed consideration. This isn't a response to the sources (I'll check them tomorrow morning), but I felt the underlying statement still needed to be responded to first. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it can be a very good indicator that one has failed to locate sources that are likely to be there. The nom. in this case should have seen something like google hits 1,030,000; google books 1,380; news 8,700 and 296 scholar ... capitalisation and annual revenue over USD 480 million ...quoted on BSE ... to which the nom presents us with Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Links are bad or lead to nonfunctioning sites held by this company. I am expect his good faith in doing a reasonable analysis to those sources. Now if I was nominating this I really ought to have a have some stocks with a load of schoolchildren ready with buckets of WP:TROUT on standby ... because if even 0.001% of those hits are RS ..... And I need to do a WP:BEFORE appropriate for a company of this size .... not look at the first 100 hits and give up. While most hits do relate to the Zensar entity and not something else, there is an incredibly high proportion of press release and job related clutter. But pragmatically this one is too big to go. See also 5. Relister should have saved disruption and kept NC in my opinion as its the only plausible result and ultimately a waste of effort.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't talk as to source 4, as I don't have access, sources 1,2,5 didn't seem to provide enough detail on what the company actually does to be relevant Sig Cov. Source 3 looks very interesting indeed - do you have the link to get to the overall details etc so I can see reliable/independent etc? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think some peoples would argue sources 1 and 5 have enough WP:SIGCOV, and the first ref I put in the article today was pretty decent. I first thought source 3 might have been ISBN: 9789351508632 or 6 - one of the Havard case studies ... but its isnt and is 3h - the handle permalink .. if I read it right the researcher seems to be Bhide - Savitribai Phule Pune University in an entity titled Study of change in composition and direction of exports by information technology companies in and around Pune. As for source 4 the Pune COI dudes can dip into their pockets if necessary if I may be so bold as to suggest it! Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have already recommended Delete. An article about Zensar may be appropriate, but THIS article, lacks suitable references. All I see is a list of news releases about acquisitions and a list of company divisions. If a company of this size has been written about, that needs to be added or I stand by my recommendation. David notMD (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the necessary of the writings of the company as you wished. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing notability including two book references. I've cleaned up the article also. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing If ISBN: 9789351508632 is one of the books you are referring to it is in many ways non independent as it was co-authored by the then CEO Ganesh Natarajan, a key figure you wiped off the article in your clean up. We appear to be in a non-consensual disruptive content dispute out of the pressures of this AfD which perhaps goes to show how much disruption these AfD which hinge on the tiniest vagarancies on WP:GNG become. The whole process seems like a stupidity! How much effort does it take to do a nomination and how much effort does it take to overcome it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to report HighKing and myself seem to be working co-operatively and HighKing has improved the early history in what I view as a very satsifactory direction. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One point to note is we are now using the alternate isbn for 978-93-5150-862-5 for Start-Up to Global Success: The Zensar Story rather than 9789351508632. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close as keep in light of clear consensus. Sakaimover (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakaimover: - AfD discussions are only SNOWed Keep in very limited circumstances, functionally requiring unanimity. Give both a number of non-Keep !votes, and that a number of those who have said Keep didn't actually provide suitable justifications that level if fairly far off. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... its not a valid speedy keep. The article now addresses all issues raised above. By all reasonable measures Zensar is run as an independent member of the RPG group, it was not associated with that group at times in the past, and it may not be associated with that group at a point in the future. Therefore I suggest a redirect/merge to the RPG group is unreasonable at this point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I'm still not sure about the state of the sourcing, but with one good source and a couple that I can't make my mind up over, I feel insufficiently confident to cast a clean !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:52, 18 October 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 13:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiangmai Dream F.C.

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

Has not played a single game fails WP:GNG. Subject specific guideline WP:FOOTYN not met. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be a radio recording from FM97, a major Bangkok-based station, featuring an interview with its head coach, covering the team. Also coverage in Chiang Mai News (a local news site and former newspaper) and ThaiLive.net (a minor football website). --Paul_012 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet GNG. Interviews and minor coverage in local news is not enough for GNG. NOTE: FOOTYN is NOT a "Subject specific guideline", its a wikiproject football essay. Domdeparis, please clarify this as it is misleading in the extreme to say that it is.— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're right I should have said "Project-specific notability guidance" and part of the Category:WikiProject notability advice. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 12 October 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. Tone 04:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sigova

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

I'm not sure how to evaluate this. There seems to be only one recording, and only debuts at major venues. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is not noted (not yet) and clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Besides, an article with only 1 line? Far lower than "usual" Stub requirement. --Jay (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the sources provided aren't enough to cover notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.183.114 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has beed extended and hopefully it now covers issues listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L984a (talk • contribs) 07:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It still did not change the fact that she is not noted, and clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO.--Jay (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator comment – Arguments for notability criteria:
- Item (1) of WP:MUSICBIO is fulfilled by presenting numerous newspaper articles, including major Swedish newspaper.
- Item (6) of WP:MUSICBIO is fulfilled by presenting that Julia Sigova performed with major classical musicians Håkan Hardenberger, Mats Rondin, Marc Soustrot, Matthew Rowe.
- Item (7) of WP:MUSICBIO is fulfilled by presenting that Julia Sigova was chosen as the Best Female Artist in Sweden by Fredrika Bremer Association.
- Performing as soloist on such stages as La Biennale in Venice and St Martin-in-the-Fields arguably should by itself qualify for notability, however I cannot find which item in WP:MUSICBIO covers this.

The minimum requirement for WP:MUSICBIO is one fulfilled item, whereas I see at least three.

— L984a (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no where near passing the notability guidelines for musician and general WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG --Jay (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - please provide objective and substantial counterarguments for each of the items listed in Arguments for notability criteria - L984a (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator comment – Conclusion

Thanks to all the critical input from reviewers I extended the article and presented arguments confirming Julia Sigovas notability. During the following 5 days of review not a single issue was raised regarding the reworked text or the notability arguments. With this I suggest that all issues with the article are resolved and kindly ask you to keep it.

Thank you!

L984a (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Per WP:MUSICBIO, good refs, fulfills requirements within guidelines mentioned, article subject notable within her field.BabbaQ (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG/WP:BASIC per Swedish newspapers. wumbolo ^^^ 21:21, 20 October 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. Sourcing hasn't been shown to be available, and the keep opinions rely on a presumption of notability rather than evidence of notability —SpacemanSpiff 02:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinu George

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

The televangelist does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinu George is the Senior head of 251 churches worldwide, have significant coverage in independent while searches. And wikipedia allows Religious Biography pages. So this article should be in Wikipedia.

Probably keep -- If he really is head of 251 churches, he has a status similar to a bishop and certainly should be kept. As I do not watch Indian TV I cannot judge his prominence as a tele-evangelist. This is a poorly presented article and needs verification, but the lack of that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Did you find any independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage? I looked, and none appears to exist. Notability is based upon said coverage, rather than the subject's position in a religious group. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do not read or speak the Malayam language, which I suspect would be necessary if I were to find sources. English is the official language of India, but far from the only one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a significant Pentecostal leader. Unless someone can demostate there are no good Malayam sources we should keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – AfD discussions typically work in the opposite manner, in which sources should be provided to qualify article retention. Several web searches, including custom searches, have provided no significant coverage about the subject at all. In other words, Malayam sources need to be provided here for the article to be retained, rather than proof of a lack of them for the article to be deleted, unless of course this discussion is closed per a simple !vote count, rather than actual guidelines. Religious leaders do not get a free pass for an article without said coverage, because there is no guideline or policy that allows such presumed notability for religious subjects. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent English sources, and doubt there are Malayalam ones. I can't even find the "251 churches" claim in his own sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:52, 16 October 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. This is very much a replay of the first AfD, with much the same arguments, and some of the same players. There's plenty of sources, but the contention is that the sources are either not independent (due to common ownership by the Times Group), or don't show the depth of coverage required by WP:NCORP. It seems unlikely that relisting this again would resolve that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaana.com

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

Fails WP:NCORP.That, this was launched by Times Group, it automatically discounts any coverage of the website in the newspapers/media-sources (Times of India, Economic Times et al) owned by them as non-independent.

Barring that no significant non-trivial coverage is located.Some mere mentions as a noted player in the specific-domain.

It made some news, when it was hacked by a Pakistan-based-entity but that hardly suffices any notability for the company. ∯WBG^converse 14:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is too promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @TH1980: I am afraid that may not be a valid reason for deletion, see: WP:Alternatives to deletion; article deletion—if I infer the aforementioned policy correctly—should generally be considered a last resort, an article should not be deleted if it can be salvaged through adding references, copyediting, cleanup et al. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 03:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — So, I did a bit of research and was amazed to find that there are not a lot of RSes covering Gaana, considering the relative grandeur of their advertising. But, I did find some coverage in non-The Times Group reliable sources. See—

Bhattacharya, Ananya. "Amazon, Spotify, and Tencent, now have a keen ear for Indian digital music — Quartz India". Quartz. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
"Apps to bust stress & rekindle enthusiasm". The Hans India. Asian News International. 2018-08-02. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
Varma, Shobhit (2018-05-01). "Apple Music vs Google Play Music vs Amazon Music vs Gaana and Others: Which Is the Best Music Streaming Service in India?". NDTV Gadgets. Retrieved 2018-09-29.;
Peermohamed, Alnoor (2018-02-23). "Times Internet infuses Rs 2.48 bn into Gaana to battle Amazon Prime Music". Business Standard. Bengaluru. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
S. H., Salman (2017-11-27). "Saavn, Gaana tie up with independent artists to produce, market original music". Livemint. Bengaluru. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
John, Cyrus (2018-03-12). "Amazon Music, Google Play Music or Gaana? The 'Paisa Wasool' App". The Quint. Retrieved 2018-08-29.
Sangwani, Gaurav (2018-02-28). "Gaana.com raises $115 million from Tencent Holdings and Times Internet". The Financial Express. Retrieved 2018-09-29.

Considering all this, I would prefer for this article to not be deleted. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 03:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SshibumXZ, I was actually borderline, as to my nomination.Post strengthening of our NCORP guidelines, we seek significant coverage in an intellectually independent source and typical coverage of funding/startup-fund-raisers don't count for any notability.In light of the above points and your sourcing, it seems to barely scrape through our notability guidelines.

I'm wishing to see a single source that satisfies the condition of intellectual independence as well as significant coverage.Let's see:-) ∯WBG^converse 08:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, yeah, admittedly news about funding don't establish notability, but, to rectify that, there are other stories from reliable sources that I have listed. I don't know what your definition of 'intellectually independent' is, but, sourcing from non-The Times Group reliable sources should suffice, in my view. I do agree that Gaana just barely qualifies WP:NCORP. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG is one of the three leading digital music players in India and per SshibumXZ .The Hindustan Times calls it Gaana, one of the leading India music streaming services as per this. The Financial Express states that "The digital music landscape is currently dominated by three players — Times Internet’s Gaana.com, Bharti Airtel’s Wynk and a lesser-known Saavn run by an NRI Vinod Bhatia — but it’s the fight for leadership between the the first two which is set to take the industry by storm." as per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A top Indian streaming site from Category:Streaming music services Which is counted as one of the "major" players in the world[28] Clearly passing notability. Also agree with Pharaoh of the Wizards above --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst POWizards is good enough, this is not a RS by any margin.Better efforts, please. ∯WBG^converse 10:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 11 October 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. Only significant comment since the relist was to refute the reliability of the sources provided prior to the relist —SpacemanSpiff 02:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BoxTV.com

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

Fails WP:NCORP and/or WP:NWEB.That, this was launched by Times Group, it automatically discounts any coverage of the website in the newspapers/media-sources (Times of India, Economic Times et al) owned by them as non-independent.

Barring that no significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is located.Typical mergers, funding et al. ∯WBG^converse 15:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; just an advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw a tech crunch ref in there [29] which as far as I know isn't primary. Szzuk (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A merge would be best, but The Times Group isn't a good target. Article is promotional; I suspect there may be coverage in non-English sources independent of the group. I'm a bit uncomfortable voting keep based on the sourcing, but don't see a delete here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all products/subsidiaries of notable organizations meet the notability standards of the guidelines. Here the lack of reliable independent sources means that it fails WP:CORPDEPTH as well as the WP:GNG. Some Indian topics do have more coverage in Hindi, Malayalam or Telugu sources, but that is much less likely to be true of media topics. I just don't buy into power~enwiki's argument. --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I'm sympathetic here with a weak case of notability is that normally I would check the Times of India in this situation, and I can't here. A link to a Hindi/Tamil/etc. search for this product that shows no significant independent coverage would assuage my concerns; I can't manage to get results in those languages with a "boxtv" search. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clears CORP good coverage in reliable newspapers
Times Internet's BoxTV.com reaches 50 million views
Sony LIV ties up with BoxTV for content sharing
BoxTV Adds Bhojpuri Content To Its Catalogue
BoxTV Aims To Be The ‘Netflix Of India’ And A Bollywood Discovery Platform For Overseas Audiences among others.122.164.113.164 (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just four examples of rehashed news releases, containing extensive quotes from BoxTV execs, and "we are going to do this" material. --Bejnar (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Useful things to discuss over the next week would be evaluation of the sources presented by 122.164.113.164, and finding a suitable merge target (should this end up going that way).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further *BoxTV integrates mobile payments; Introduces new subscription packs

Times Internet's online video service BoxTV opens to a rush in India, UK and US

BoxTV now showcases content from National Geographic 171.78.182.16 (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All non-independent rehashes of news releases. All of these were published by the media group that owns BoxTV. Don't you understand the requirement for independent coverage? See WP:NCORP. --Bejnar (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Christian martyrs. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martyrs for the sacraments of the Catholic Church

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

This appears to be WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. I don't see any sign that this grouping is used by the Catholic Church or anyone else; both "martyrs of the sacraments" and "martyrs for the sacraments" have no Google hits as exact phrases. It may be possible to retarget this to be about martyrs of the Eucharist specifically. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete. I agree with nominator, no sources are found on the topic.~~ Was this supposed to be at another page title, User:Oct13? Sam Sailor 07:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC) (Amended. Sam Sailor 22:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]
- The suggested merge to List of Christian martyrs by several other editors looks reasonable. Sam Sailor 22:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Catholic martyrs, and merge with releant content from List of Christian martyrs. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Christian martyrs. Having a split for a special class of martyr is not useful, particularly as some martyrs will have suffered from other Christians for (for example) denying Transubstantiation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Christian martyrs, as a valid option instead of deletion, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or else Merge. Current article contents is an OR/SYNTH. SJK (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Christian martyrs - there doesn't seem sufficient sourcing to warrant this as an independent article. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 11 October 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. Ultimately, the lack of convincing evidence to support the "keep" arguments tips the scales into "delete" territory here. Two of the 'keep' !votes don't actually make any attempt to demonstrate that the article does indeed satisfy WP:NONPROFIT, while another explores IAR reasons we may be able to justify keeping, which are reasonable but not particularly decisive. The only substantial "keep" argument makes a case that the coverage by RT and the Washington Diplomat satisfies the GNG. David makes a reasonable argument for considering RT as a legitimate source, at least in terms of establishing notability, and the Washington Diplomat actually appears to be a respectable and reliable newspaper. However, as RoySmith pointed out, the WD article is actually covering an event hosted by CEPA, not the organization itself, so unfortunately I don't see that as constituting "significant coverage" of the article's subject. RT does appear to offer 'significant coverage', but it's in the form of a critical opinion piece. I don't disagree with David's assessment that the RT piece, in spite being in a gray area in terms of being a reliable source, is a reasonable enough source to factor in when looking for coverage to establish notability. However, even if we give RT full credit as a reliable source here, I don't think one opinion piece, bulwarked by one article that covers what is essentially a related but different subject are enough to establish notability. The Gnome puts it well; this organization certainly does appear to be "significant", but it simply does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. There is, of course, certainly no prejudice against recreation if things change or if more sources are subsequently uncovered, and there is no prejudice against userfication, draftification, or merging into another article until that happens. Swarm talk 23:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for European Policy Analysis

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

Article from an SPA is sourced entirely to organization's own website or to non-RS like RT. A basic BEFORE finds a great number of references such as "according to a report issued by [org]" or "so-and-so was previously employed by [org]" but no coverage of the organization itself. Therefore, does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The organization's founder is the current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, however, per WP:INHERITED this does not grant his group notability. Overall, fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 10:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, leaning IAR keep: Perhaps WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 should be considered as extending/applying to thinktanks ("...research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"), but it's not at all clear that that would be met by CEPA[30]. Another possibility would be if there were evidence of significant coverage of some of their activities including the CEPA Forum. A third possibility would be if there were sufficient offline coverage. On the one hand, it doesn't appear to meet ORGDEPTH / GNG. On the other hand, I know that HARMLESS and a (weak) USEFUL are WP:ATA, but... HARMLESS and USEFUL as this article links several bluelinked people; doesn't redirect anywhere cleanly; and can centralise material that would otherwise be reasonable to have at those members' articles, and that wouldn't nicely crosslink between those members. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NONPROFIT. Think tanks and the like rarely get any coverage for the organisation as such, only for the stuff they produce. Rathfelder (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NONPROFIT criteria are identical to the criteria for for-profit companies. There is no inherent notability. Chetsford (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NONPROFIT and organization is notable, has several notable staff and alumni.--Franz Brod (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted, the WP:NONPROFIT criteria are identical to the criteria for for-profit companies. There is no inherent notability. That there are "several notable staff and alumni" is irrelevant as per WP:INHERITED. Chetsford (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are claims above that this meets WP:NONPROFIT, but that requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization, which I'm not seeing. Most of the sources in the article are to CEPA's own website. Of the four that aren't, two 404. The rt.com piece is an op-ed. The Diplomatic Pouch piece is about a forum run by CEPA, not the organization itself. It's also unclear if The Diplomatic Pouch is a WP:RS; they describe themselves as, an email newsletter distributed to opt-in subscribers and produced by The Washington Diplomat, an independent monthly newspaper. The Pouch covers the diplomatic community, international affairs, politics, arts and culture, and social life in Washington, D.C. Although a complement to The Washington Diplomat newspaper, all content is original and exclusively written for the Pouch. I have no idea what editorial oversight they have, and our The Washington Diplomat article doesn't say much either. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a significant institution in terms of personnel, scope, and funding, yet it does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Online searching scares up mostly Wikipedia mirrors, references to publications by the institution (e.g. here or here), and self-references, but no significant coverage in independent sources. We could mercifully diagnose WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has sufficient notability with: Washington Diplomat interview,[31] and RT opinion. I understand that we consider RT to be biased, because it is pro-Russian rather than pro-American, and that we have concerns about fact-checking, accuracy and completeness based on critics who assert that it is insufficiently independent of the Kremlin and that it is "a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy." Of course, scholars like Noam Chomsky have made a similar critique of American media such as New York Times. [32](See also [33], Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Pro-power_and_pro-government_bias.) I am not suggesting that RT is as reliable as the NYT, or that the OpEd about CEPA is "reliable." However, the fact that CEPA is covered in RT, in my opinion, lends to its notability.

That said, with the few sources available, the article should be cut down to a short paragraph or possibly to two sentences. Another option is to merge with a person strongly associated with CEPA who has an article, but I would rather go with rather keep, because I am not sure it is fair to essentially credit all of CEPA's work with any individual. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:09, 23 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KJSCE Symphony

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

Highly promotional article, part of a walled garden related to the school. Sourcing is organizational; organization does not pass GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as long as the article could be better sourced and rewritten to match Wikipedia's guidelines.TH1980 (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess Drmies knows that quite well.The AfD process can be quite abolished, if all the articles can be better sourced and rewritten to match Wikipedia's guidelines.∯WBG^converse 07:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - TH1980, that goes for every article. It could be rewritten, etc. If there are no sources, if you have no sources, then "keep" is not based on solid evidence, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I surely agree with TH1980 and would add another criterion of (as long as) sources are written on the topic because it appears that none are yet-existent.And, ain't this G11-able?!∯WBG^converse 07:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article is this big, and reasonably decently written, and it has a couple sources or things that look like it, most admins would say "take it to AfD". I think I would have, in this case. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prachinburi City F.C.

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

Fails WP:GNG never played a game comes nowhere near meeting topic specific guidelines WP:FOOTYN Dom from Paris (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be a radio recording from FM97, a major Bangkok-based station. The entire 14 minutes is an interview with the team manager. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet GNG. NOTE: FOOTYN is NOT a guideline, Domdeparis, please clarify this as it is misleading in the extreme to say that it is a 'topic specific guideline'. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're right I should have said "Project-specific notability guidance" and part of the Category:WikiProject notability advice. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 12 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Godson

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

Fails WP:G5 (article author is blocked sock of editor topic banned from editing political biographies) as there are no other contributions, except technical and tiny fixes. wumbolo ^^^ 15:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:NAUTHOR requirement #1 ("The person...is widely cited by peers or successors") based on this Google Scholar search. His book "Dirty Tricks" is cited by 91. Many of his other writings and writing with co-authors are heavily cited as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: I didn't say that the subject isn't notable. It should be deleted as it fails WP:G5. wumbolo ^^^ 09:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine to punish the editor for violating our rules, but I see no need to delete the article unless there are clear problems with it. If there are serious enough problems that you want to take it off-line, could it be sent to WP:AfC? Actually, sending it to AfC looks like sending it to the graveyard... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR easily. I don't think it makes good sense to delete an article on someone notable just because it was created by a blocked user. Papaursa (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Papaursa: what you think is irrelevant when a Wikipedia policy disagrees with you. wumbolo ^^^ 17:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I could copy the exact article that's there and post it as my creation and it would be perfectly acceptable. The article was written in early June 2017 and the author was just blocked this month. So the article was valid and then suddenly wasn't--even though nothing about it had changed. What about "notability is not temporary"? For the first time I'm going with WP:IAR. If this article is deleted I request the closing admin to post it as a draft under me. Papaursa (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: the article was invalid the moment it was created, because the sock had been topic-banned for years. wumbolo ^^^ 18:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't checked the SPI discussion, but it appears you're right that the sockmaster had been topic banned. I understand that my personal opinion is secondary to WP policies, but keeping an article on someone notable seems to be in keeping with WP's stated goal of being an online encyclopedia. It seems you agree that he's notable. Papaursa (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Nom is correct about WP:G5, and, at a glance, this dore apper ot have been aproblematic, POV sock. However, Godson is a notable foreigh policy guy and WP:G5 also stipulates: "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others." So I added substantive edite: a list of books sourced to scholarly book reviews. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 20 October 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 Late Registration. Combining this AfD with the recently closed one, a redirect is appropriate here. Will protect after closing. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Music

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

Here we are again. This was closed as redirect 6 weeks ago, now the editor who made that one necessary is edit-warring to reinstate a substantially identical version. They claim the article "was different way back in August". I am honestly not seeing the tiniest bit of change in demonstrated notability from 6 weeks or 12 years ago. Suggest reinstating redirect and then giving the bloody thing a rest... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this now a case of WP:G4? Redirect and Salt? Govvy (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would be my inclination too, but they claim that the thing is now Of Demonstrated Notability with its new coat of paint, and AGF etc... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect) and salt. Seriously. What a waste of editors' time. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Late Registration then Salt to prevent recreation without discussion on talk page or going through WP:AFC. When comparing the last version before it was merged (Revision as of 11:36, August 25, 2018) to its current version (Revision as of 08:16, October 11, 2018) [34] I don't see much difference that establishes notability that would satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Restoring the redirect and fully protecting the redirect to prevent recreation maybe required. If any editors want to re-create the article while the redirect is fully protected they can go to the talk page or submit a draft via Articles for Creation process. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 13:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I can just about see a single source in a search, not enough to suggest notability. Given the history of the article being recreated despite repeated discussion, salting is necessary. Hzh (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. And The Morning (song) at No.119 also In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And The Glory (song) In ictu oculi (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected redirect - redirect remains appropriate but should be protected to prevent editing until someone can produce evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As above. This editor clearly does not understand what makes a song independently notable. And also as said above, what a waste of time and energy.TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 18 October 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) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Luiz Scalon

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing changed since previous nomination: he still fails WP:NFOOTY and GNG. No appearances for that Indian club. The only appearance for Chapecoense was in Primeira Liga (Brazil), which isn't a fully pro-league -- BlameRuiner (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues; meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Lots of cup competitions aren't 'fully-pro' - for example the FA Cup. Are you saying that a player playing for one Premier League club against another in the FA Cup isn't notable? Nonsense. Giant Snowman 11:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTY with the appearance in the Primeira Liga. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as stated above, the subject meets the requirements of WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niall O'Reilly

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY. Media coverage is purely routine. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture and does not have significant independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY, all coverage is WP:ROUTINE. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominators assessment. Finnegas (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 04:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos L. Pedraja

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

Non-notable subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to minor passing mentions and name checks. Primary sources found in source searches do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WThere is no reason for WP to publish an article of someone who has no notability outside of the LSD Church. No independent source. Nothing extraordinary. Not even a publication or news that may have made a dent in the secular, ecumenical, interfaith or even interdenominational circles. Keeping this entry would simply means that WP has been hijacked by a religious organization to serve as a vehicle of propaganda. Den... (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history is not a primary, but a secondary source. This whole nomination is built around discrediting contributions by some people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. Primary sources such as these do not serve to establish notability. This nomination is built around having a discussion regarding the subject's suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia, nothing else. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per NA1000's assessment of the source's lack of independence. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, there is no good evidence for meeting WP:GNG. Producing independent sources would offer a much more compelling argument than accusing the nominator of acting in bad faith. Willing to reconsider if such sources appear. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 20 October 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).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Atlantis

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

Not notable. No commentary in reliable sources. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 20:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the first YouTube Kids production on YouTube Red it has a claim of significance and should have coverage. Kidscreen is a reliable source I think? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more sources, which should make it notable for WP:GNG with no problems. Also cleaned up the article a bit. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teaneck Kebab House

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:ORG. Sources are primarily restaurant reviews in local newspapers. Also, appears to not even exist anymore. Rusf10 (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the tag at the top of this article says, part of this article are typed as if part of an advertisement. Vorbee (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Just because something doesn't exist anymore isn't a reason to delete, Alexander the Great doesn't exist anymore and we have an article for him! Also a review from the New York Times and The Record, there is just about enough for GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between a king and a restaurant that was only around for a few years.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that Alexander died very young don't you? SpinningSpark 17:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty weak analogy. Alexander the Great has been dead for more than two thousand years and people are still writing numerous books and articles about him. This restaurant was gone and completely forgotten in less that a few years. Except for a Yelp posting, no one has noted or regretted its passing. Glendoremus (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All referenced sources are local editions. New York Times may seem impressive at first but restaurant review only appears in their local, New Jersey edition. Ditto for the others. These restaurant reviews are routine, dime-a-dozen write-ups. Does not meet notability standards for organizations. Glendoremus (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run of the mill restaurant that has been the subject of routine reviews. Carrite (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine coverage expected for such a venue. Besides, its no Abra-Kebabra. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable, and Wikipedia has far less notable restaurants with articles. A Lucky Escape, for the Chef and Diners was not deleted by the NYT. As its existence in the Times was due to its connection with its being one of very few Afghan restaurants, its notability did not mysteriously evaporate with its closing, just as we do not generally delete articles about books which are now "out of print." That is, until Wikipedia states "notability is transitory". This discussion belongs then to that definition page - Notability is not temporary, not to a separate AfD. Collect (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"OTHERSTUFF EXISTS" is not a valid rationale to keep. This is basically an ordinary restaurant that got a review in the NYT. BFD. The previous 13-9 Keep vote was hardly decisive... Carrite (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then propose a change to WP:Notability The NYT does not give feature articles on all 100,000 restaurants in its readership area, by the way. It is not the Podunk News covering "Aunt Milly's Fried Chicken". Collect (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its in the NYT 'In the region' section which is local/regional news. Which is where you would expect a review of a local restaurant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teaneck, New Jersey is not in New York City. It is therefore not a "local restaurant" and the NYT does not give much coverage to the 50,000 restaurants in its area (Over 26,000 in the city proper). To be listed out of 50,000 restaurants is a great deal different that being one of fifty or a hundred restaurants in many newspaper areas. As I have noted, rewrite WP:Notability. Collect (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, actually go and look at the website the ref is for will you. At the time it was published online it was in the NY Region section which covered local news including NJ. The online NY Region section covers local news from Long Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Westchester (as well as the city). The page ref is for the dining section in the NJ print edition. It wasnt notable the last time, its not notable now, and stop badgering people to go change the notability guideline, once is fucking enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "New York Region" covers about 50,000 restaurants - which seems a pretty l;arge number. Not the 100 or less in most "regions" for minor papers. Again - this should be at WP:Notability. Collect (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having grown up in the region (a couple of towns over from Teaneck), allow me to inject some local knowlege about how the NY Times regional editions work. In addition to the "City Edition", the NYT publishes a number of regional editions for the various suburban areas. There's one for Long Island, one for Westchester, one for Northern New Jersey, etc. These regional editions include the same core news section as the city edition, but also have a regional section, which concentrates on local issues, local sports, local restaurant reviews, etc. I'm going to remain neutral on the question of whether this particular restaurant is notable, but clearly getting a review in the NJ section is "regional coverage", of a "local restaurant". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet notability standards. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It did meet those standards in the past with a reasonable consensus (13 to 9 is a reasonable consensus at AfD). Rewrite WP:Notability to change the rules. Collect (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:ORG has been substantially re-written/expanded since this restaurant was first up for AfD in 2010. It seems perfectly reasonable to test the article against the updated guidelines. Hopefully, we'll be able to achieve another reasonable 60/40 consensus.Glendoremus (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The change in that guideline appears to be whether a restaurant "inherits" notability from its owner - the "restaurant example in WP:ORG is not at all relevant here. If we wish to change Notability - the change should be made on that page, not by this backdoor. Collect (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Closed. Written like an advert. Szzuk (talk) 17:41, 20 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allan F. Packer

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations and sermons from the subject (which are primary sources), fleeting passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the independent reliable source coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject gets some passing mentions and routine coverage of ceremonial functions, and also gets mentioned in passing (or with short quotes) in articles that are actually about his more-famous father. But it does not add up to WP:SIGCOV of this subject in particular, the sources in the article are not independent per WP:IIS and therefore do not count toward notability, and notability is not inherited (at least on Wikipedia). The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a promotional article with few refs that appear to be independent of the subject, google showing only local news reports. Szzuk (talk) 17:48, 20 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael E. Pino

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to short passing mentions, name checks and quotations. The primary sources and press release in the article, as well as those found in searches, do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent reliable source coverage to establish notability under WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot pass the simple notability test in WP. Den... (talk) 21:10, 11 October 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 Jin Mao Tower#Events. Redirecting despite low participation, since the redirect would solve the nom's BLP1E concerns. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Han Qizhi

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

This article is a clear example of WP:BLP1E. Natureium (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ under WP:BLP1E. — Newslinger talk 04:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jin Mao Tower#Events, which contains all of the pertinent information. — Newslinger talk 14:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Newslinger above. Doesn't look like the individual in question is notable for anything other than the single event that got him in the news. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kanye West. Tone 04:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip Files

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

I am completing this nomination on behalf of an IP user; I have no opinion on the matter.

Contains unreliable sources, does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Refer to comments made on User talk page

Dorsetonian (talk) on behalf of 64.26.97.61, 14:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge with article on Kanye West. Vorbee (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ayşe Hatun (wife of Selim I). Consensus to merge these two articles on the same subject here is straightforward and uncontentious. It has been suggested that the secondary article should be merged into this article, as it is the newer article that duplicated an existing topic (though, it should be noted that this is not necessarily required). However, it has also been suggested that the newer article, having a more specific title, should be the merge target. And still, it has been suggested that neither title is appropriate, which implies that after the two articles are merged, the article should be renamed and both old titles should redirect to a new one. There is no consensus on the details here, and I see this as a low-level maintenance task, as opposed to a contentious dispute. The details can be worked out using common sense, bold decision making, and, if necessary, local followup discussion. The general consensus from this discussion is simply that the two articles should be merged and the best possible article title decided upon. Swarm talk 00:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Begum

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

As User:Hafidh Wahyu P has mentioned on my talk page, this person seems to be the same figure as Ayşe Hatun (wife of Selim I). In fact both were named as wives of Selim I until an IP user changed the info on this page. I wanted to see what other users think and whether this page should be deleted or redirected to the other page, of course if they are for sure the same person. Keivan.f^Talk 23:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge from Ayşe Hatun (wife of Selim I) + remane this one to something with "Ayşe Hatun" and a MOS compliant disambig. Merge to Ayşe Hatun (wife of Selim I). Obviously the same person by bio details (e.g. marriages to the same people in 1504 and 1511). The first name is obviously the same. Hatun is the Turkic form, and Begum is either a transliteration of Tatar through a 3rd language to English or alternatively the Begum title. I'm not sure the subject is notable - but given it exists in 7 other wiki projects and some sources I do see (I'll note that the cited sources do not appear to be available online), I'm neutral to weakish keep on the merged article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per comment below - changed to reverse merge. This one pre-dated the other. And it also moved around quite a bit. It seems the other article (which is in a more correct title it seems) - was a hijacked redirect per this diff - 01:16, 2 November 2014. However - they've being running in parallel since 2014 (initial creation in 2013). Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There should certainly be a merge, but I would point out that the article under discussion is the older of the two and that neither article title conforms to Wikipedia:Article titles. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am no expert here, but Begum is roughly equivalent to Princess or Lady. I would therefore have expected the merge target to be the more specific name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 11 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woman with Gloria Steinem

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

I found only one review, and the speedy deletion decline rationale that this is a significant network featuring a notable actress (and she's not an actress) is not convincing because we can always merge such a stub to the article about the show host. wumbolo ^^^ 14:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage in The New York Times [35] and Vogue [36]. A multiepisode, internationally broadcast series, nominated for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Series.[37][38][39][40][41] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between the various sources, reviews et al. Notability seems to be established. I don't think there is any particular need to merge it, in any case, as it isn't necessary for article retention any merge discussion should take place via the normal channels. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:00, 17 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Witches

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced since 2009, not exactly a garage band here but no detailed, in-depth coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band have released a dozen studio albums, with 3 released on Massacre Records, 1 on Sanctuary Records, 3 on Noise Records, and one on Century Media. This gives a pretty clear pass of criterion 5 of WP:NMUSIC. As with a lot of metal bands, there isn't a lot of coverage online as it tends to be in print magazines, but there are four album reviews at Allmusic ([42], [43], [44], [45]), one on the German edition of Metal Hammer ([46]), and they've had at least two albums on CMJ charts. There's also some brief coverage in Garry Sharpe-Young's metal books ([47], [48]). --Michig (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs to be better supported with more citations, but in addition to what the last voter said, this band has enough basic coverage for a short article at least. Their albums are regularly reviewed by the usual suspects, and here are some more brief but passable sources with general news and background: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:27, 15 October 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 Soul Intent (group). Tone 05:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bassmint Productions

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

Simple and clear-cut case of Not Notable. Coverage appears to consist of one "historical" note on a blog. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Bassmint Productions seems to be Soul Intent old's name, I think a merger is more appropriate. Some informations about the birth of the band are not included in the current Soul Intent article.

About notability, as this is the first group founded by rapper Eminem, it seems to me that it is at least a subject for discussion. Here are some references saying that Bassmint Productions is Soul Intent's old name:

https://www.discogs.com/fr/artist/3628644-Bassmint-Productions
https://genius.com/discussions/109882-Bassmint-productions-a-necessary-topic-for-eminem-fans
http://cultureofnone.com/2008/06/17/bassmint-productions-demos-featuring-eminem/

Fleet ch (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: note that the result of this AfD/merger proposal will probably have a knock-on effect on "Still in the Bassmint" and Soul Intent (EP), neither of which look notable enough to have their own article, but the redirect targets will depend on the outcome of this discussion. Richard3120 (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Soul Intent (group). This is just their previous name and is an obvious target. There is a second merge vote for this target above, it just isn't bolded. Szzuk (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soul Intent (group). Nothing to merge, as the Soul Intent article already contains plenty of information about Bassmint Productions. wumbolo ^^^ 21:44, 20 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Beier

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

Fails WP:NBIO, no sources besides a website belonging to the subject (which is unreliable). Potential WP:PROMO. Kirbanzo (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot have articles sourced only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article now stands, 406 characters (72 words) "readable prose size", it resembles a short version of http://www.musico.it/lute/about/ (subject's webpage). If somebody can and will source and flesh out the article, I may change my mind. Sam Sailor 07:01, 18 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dörte Döpfer

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability hasn't been established--1Veertje (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has some press, but too local to convince me of the wide impact needed for WP:PROF#C7, and one highly-cited publication in which she is 7th of 15 authors (with other publications having at most double-digit citations), not enough to convince me of #C1. WP:TOOSOON, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 11 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dyna arousal

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

"Dyna" is a Swedish WP:NEOLOGISM that hasn't taken hold in Swedish, and much less so (I think) in English. There is some valuable content in the article, but it belongs to Sexual arousal if it's not already there. The sections about the bodily response looks like it was added to justify an article about a Swedish word. WP:NOTDICalso applies. Sjö (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge w/ Sexual arousal - if not already there, it's probably worth it to at least preserve some of the content as a section. Kirbanzo (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a neologism in another language which hasn't even been picked up in said language yet. We reflect the world; we don't create it. I don't see what could be merged into Sexual arousal that would actually make it better. /Julle (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 11 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Munsif Daily

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, no sourcing, only external link to their own website. Waggie (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Journalism, Democracy and Civil Society in India, this is the highest circulation newspaper in Urdu in India. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew, thanks for your reply. Google Books isn't allowing me to see what that page contains, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries of what multiple reliable sources say on a topic. If there isn't coverage in multiple reliable sources, then there isn't content to summarize for an article. Waggie (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG. WP:NCORP is of indirect relevance at best so I did not check. Please nominate wisely! gidonb (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, Gidonb! As mentioned at the Sambad AfD, NCORP is of relevance as a corporation, but could you please clarify how you feel The Munsif Daily meets NMEDIA? Waggie (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE.∯WBG^converse 13:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waggie, single newspapers are typically more notable as newspapers than as corporations. Sometimes their publishers publish or broadcast many media channels. Hence WP:NCORP should be of the least concern. Widely distributed newspapers are typically notable, however. Exceptions to this rule are newspapers that mostly contain advertisements. Per Paper Boy: The Munsif Daily is published from Hyderabad, India, and is also the highest circulated Urdu newspaper in this area. The Audit Bureau of Circulation has certified that this newspaper has a circulation of around 60,009 copies per day. Per Two Circles In 2011 Hyderabad based newspaper ‘Munsif’, which is the largest circulated Urdu newspaper of the country[,] launched its news channel whereas Mumbai based Urdu Times will launch its print editions from Delhi and Lucknow shortly. As Andrew pointed out above, the newspaper is a returning topic in Journalism, Democracy and Civil Society in India, edited by Shakuntala Rao, Vipul Mudgal. This book was well accessible at my end! gidonb (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of newspapers in India.Nothing except the statistical fact that it's the highest circulation Urdu daily in India.∯WBG^converse 13:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric and Waggie, I think that The Munsif Daily can qualify WP:NMEDIA's ~~sixth~~ fifth criterion, in that it has the highest circulation among Urdu-language newspapers in India, as Urdu can be considered a niche market, I am not too sure about this, though. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 08:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC); edited 05:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC) and 09:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I have strong reservations against treating Urdu as a niche language in the country.∯WBG^converse 10:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, oh, no, Urdu definitely is a major language; I am just saying that Urdu-language newspapers aren't all that common and definitely don't have as wide a circulation as, say, Hindi-language newspapers. That is probably so because people in North India—even those who have a decent understanding of Urdu—tend to read either English or Hindi-medium newspapers. And, in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh (states having a significant Urdu-speaking minority, as a result of the reign of the Nizam of Hyderabad), one would think of Telugu as the dominant language, in mass media and otherwise. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 02:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC); edited 02:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

SshibumXZ, can you be more specific what you mean by, WP:NMEDIA's sixth criterion? The Newspapers, magazines and journals section has a list that only goes up to five. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: oops! I meant the fifthy criterion for notability mentioned in WP:NMEDIA (the news section of it, to be a bit more exact). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SshibumXZ (talk • contribs) 05:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC); edited 05:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC) and 02:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there not an Indian editor who can add sources and clean up the article? Looks like a big enough organisation that should be able to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Govvy (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both me and Sshibum are from India:-)∯WBG^converse 07:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC

Ouch!

-The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A newspaper having the largest vernacular circulation in India should have its page in an Encyclopedia. Per WP:NMEDIA#5, added with the fact that Urdu is a vernacular language in various states and not the national language, this should not be deleted. Lourdes 05:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per my earlier comments on this page; basically, in my opinion, The Munsif Daily should qualify the fifth criterion of WP:NNEWSPAPER (newspaper sub-section of WP:NMEDIA). Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on account of subject meeting criterion WP:MEDIA #5 for newspapers, which is enough on its own and without the need for further proof of notability. The newspaper is a significant publication in [an] ethnic and...non-trivial niche market. -The Gnome (talk) 07:00, 22 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pudhari

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only one source outside of their own website. Waggie (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG as there is coverage in sources like Freedom movement in princely states of Maharashtra and Kolhapur: a study in urban geography. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to these references? What coverage do they offer? Thank you! Waggie (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is getting ridiculous! Andrew D. spells out two sources and instead of checking them out (which you should have done before) and withdrawing your baseless nomination, you ask him to also link the sources and spell out what is in them. gidonb (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper is cited as a source in Freedom movement in princely states of Maharashtra but not in Kolhapur: a study in urban geography. -The Gnome (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. Sources include Printweek, Hindustan Times, book1, book2, Scroll.in, etc. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gidonb, thanks for linking to those sources. The first is interesting, and does offer some useful coverage that can be summarized for an article but not enough by itself to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMEDIA, the second only mentions Pudhari in passing with a quote from the editor (not WP:SIGCOV), the first book reference mentions Pudhari in passing when talking about Judhari, the second book reference only mentions Pudhari once in passing, and the fourth reference only mentions Pudhari's lack of acknowledgement of Varadkar’s sexuality. This does not meet the definition given in WP:SIGCOV. Thanks for your time. Waggie (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Printweek article is lengthy and entirely about Pudhari. The Hindustan Times has a paragraph about Pudhari history. Freedom movement in princely states of Maharashtra discusses Pudhari on pages 119 and 120. Indian Journalism on page 249, Scroll.in describes Pudhari as "the third-largest selling newspaper in the state and the leader in Western Maharashtra" and discusses its coverage, and this is just some the sources of course. Very significant coverage and a total failure of WP:BEFORE as the intro says "only one source outside of their own website". Not so. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the first (the Printweek article) is interesting and provides useful coverage. Not sure why you're up in arms about it. It, by itself, is not enough to establish notability. The others are as I said, passing mentions. The Hindustan Times mentions Pudhari briefly at the beginning and quotes the editor, but then goes on to discuss at length the amount of control the Pawar family has over the region. In fact, nearly half of that paragraph is quoting the editor, which is a primary source and not suitable for establishing notability. Freedom movement in princely states of Maharashtra mentions that Pudhari is one of two surviving newspapers on page 119, and on 120 briefly mentions it's origins and then goes on to discuss Jadhav. Indian journalism: origin, growth and development has a match for "Pudhari", but it's not visible on the screen when I attempt to review. The scroll.in source only mentions that they chose ignore Varadkar’s sexuality, and nothing else. I'm guessing we are interpreting WP:SIGCOV differently. I read "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" as meaning that it has to be more than just a sentence or two in a book with hundreds of pages, or just a passing mention in an article about something else. Thank you for your time and best wishes to you. Waggie (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with any of the six references in the article, just with claims including in the intro that there is "only one source outside of their own website". It is a well referenced article now. Users are strongly encouraged to look for sources before nominating an article. Referencing oneself always has the preference over letting others do the work. gidonb (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gidonb, thanks for your continued work on the article. This article was a promotional, unsourced mess (with maintenance tags plastered all over it) for years before this nomination, so your efforts are appreciated. I've already commented on the sources that have been presented both here and in the article, some of which I did see in my WP:BEFORE and discounted as not WP:SIGCOV. I"m sorry that we seem to be at loggerheads here. I feel that the sourcing offered now has brought it to the borderline level, but still not quite there. Perhaps it will be kept. If it is, I will not be upset - I'm not here to delete article subjects that the community feels are notable. Best wishes to you. Waggie (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, I want to encourage you to move away from the situation where you blindly nominate articles and then have others reference, while constantly providing gratitude, praise or criticism, based on some kind of expertise. Nominating notable newspapers for others to reference or to cleanup articles and this sort of "feedback" are not helpful. Referencing oneself is. Please, instead of more unnecessary feedback, try to do something constructive yourself. You can continue to argue under everyone's opinions, but it will not change anyone's opinions. Doing some work yourself does help. gidonb (talk) 21:19, 20 October 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) JC7V-talk 18:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Samaja

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only sources are official website and list of related newspapers. Waggie (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, being covered in sources such as Language Policy and Education in India and Gender Bias in Indian News Media. Andrew D. (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to these sources, please? Thanks! I'd be interested in seeing the coverage. Waggie (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, if you cannot locate sources whose titles are SPELLED OUT in a response, maybe you have no business mass nominating articles for deletion without reasonable cause. I'm sorry to need to say this but this massive attack on the newspapers of the Odia people, void from thorough WP:BEFORE and in blunt disregard of WP:NEXIST is nothing short of a disgrace. gidonb (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:NMEDIA. As noted also by Andrew above (with some examples), sufficient reliable sources are available through Google Books. gidonb (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-None of the above two seems to have some any minimal idea that sources ought be reliable and they ought to devote significant coverage to the subject.One of Andrew's source:--Gender Bias in Indian News Media is published a vanity press and written by a half-faculty of no repute.

Anyways, extensive coverage can be located at the following links:--

Mentions the paper to be the mouthpiece of the national movement in Orissa.
Orissa&pg=PT32#v=onepage&q=%22Samaja%22%20Orissa&f=false A publication that was censored by the colonial government and Orissa&f=false whose founder was held in high esteem.Orissa&pg=PT31#v=onepage&q=%22Samaja%22%20Orissa&f=false Played an important role in the later parts of independence-struggle.
Mentions it as the Voice of the masses.
Mentions the newspaper multiple times, to sketch the politics of freedom-struggle in Orissa.
Mentions it to be a famous Oriya daily newspaper.
Orissa%20newspaper&f=false Mentions it to be the most widely circulated daily newspaper of Orissa.

It might be noted that I have excluded all mentions across university-publications, because of their unreliability.∯WBG^converse 09:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by WBG. Clearly meets NMEDIA. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:42, 18 October 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. There is no consensus to delete, only deletion alternatives, which can be done outside of AfD. Two people explicitly say that the article clearly passes WP:GNG. If anyone wants me to reverse the close, I will do so as soon as possible. This is long overdue for a close – 4 days, in fact, and I feel that NC is the best option here. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Samaya

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only sources are primary. Waggie (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~. The newspaper, with a daily circulation of over 150,000 may prove to be notable enough but the current article (right from the first draft) is a copyvio of the newspaper's About Us page and thus needs to be speedy-deleted. No prejudice against recreation if article is rewritten and included citations indicate that WP:GNG has been met. Abecedare (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article as a stub, citing the basic facts to another source. Andrew D. (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew. I have scratched out my speedy delete recommendation; will comment on notability of subject once I have had the time to examine available sources in greater detail. Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-We have several sources already and there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger to a list such as List of newspapers in India. Andrew D. (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already? ∯WBG^converse 10:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of newspapers in India - Whilst I disagree with Waggie that all sources are primary, certainly the nomination is valid in the sense that NCORP and GNG are not met.A bunch of trivial mentions do not grant an independent article.∯WBG^converse 10:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article clearly passes the WP:GNG. It passes WP:NMEDIA as well. Ample WP:RS online, of which I just added a second one to the article. This nomination is part of a unfortunate series (see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sambad) that clearly fails WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that WP:GNG and WP:NME are satisfied. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sambad

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only sources are official website and list of related newspapers. Waggie (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG being covered in sources such as Gender bias in Indian News Media and Media and Society: Challenges and Opportunities. Andrew D. (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to these sources, please? Thanks! I'd be interested in seeing the coverage. Waggie (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, see this source.But, I'm not satisfied given the seemingly unknown author and the publishing house. ∯WBG^converse 09:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The author in that case appears to be a professor at Berhampur University which appears to be a respectable institution. Andrew D. (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, nope and that I have researched in some detail, the source is bullshit.

He is a mere guest-lecturer and had to entirely depend on vanity-publishers to print his books.

An academic, (who is personally known to me), informs that Laxmi publications is the Indian version of LAP and their website reinforces it. ∯WBG^converse 10:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The work on Gender bias in Indian News Media seems to have been published in multiple places, including academic journals It is not unusual for academic work to be redistributed in this way in order to give them it wider circulation, because journals often have limited circulation. Multiple academics seem to have worked on this including Dr. Sunil Kanta Behera who is described as a "Professor of Eminence" in the faculty. My impression is that the work is sufficiently reliable for our purpose and it is independent in nature, being an academic review of all of the press of the area. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this one.Best,∯WBG^converse 09:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This newspaper clearly passes WP:NMEDIA and the WP:GNG. WP:NCORP bears little relevance. Please nominate wisely! gidonb (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gidonb, thank you for your interest. WP:NCORP is relevant as it's one of the SNGs that would potentially apply here (as Sambad is a company). Certainly, WP:NMEDIA is relevant as well. Could you please clarify how you feel Sambad meets NMEDIA? Waggie (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb:Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE and instead, provide sources.∯WBG^converse 09:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waggie, for now I have added two references in the article. There are many more. Per WP:NEXIST the sources do not need to be in the article, it's sufficient if these exist. gidonb (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gidonb, thank you for incorporating those into the article. Winged Blades of Godric already noted one of those sources, and the second is only a listing. I'm inclined to count Gender Bias as a reliable source, but that would make only one reliable source with comprehensive discussion. Notability requires comprehensive coverage in multiple sources. I agree that sources only need exist, not necessarily be included in the article, but we do need to actually establish that multiple sources with comprehensive coverage do exist. Thanks again for your time and work on this. Best wishes! Waggie (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waggie, neither of these books is a listing. These are fine books with WP:SIGCOV for Sambad. It's not all there is either. Just added a third one. Are you sure you a did a thorough WP:BEFORE? The very existence of all these sources is squarely denied in the intro. You may wish to undo all these nominations because they potentially wreck articles on notable newspapers. gidonb (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four sources now and this is just the ~~tip~~top of the iceberg. Why not check before nominating? gidonb (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gidonb, I did check before nominating. I make a point of doing so carefully before every AfD I nominate. You need to understand that WP:BEFORE does not require AfD nominators to perform exhaustive searches for sources, only that they make a concerted effort, which I did. I'm not sure what you mean about "tip of the iceberg". Gender Bias and Media and Society look quite promising as sourcing, and I'm glad that we've found them. I wouldn't call the coverage in Indian Press Since 1955 WP:SIGCOV, but it's worthwhile as well. The Business India coverage looks like a highly promotional press release, not reliable. All in all, I'm willing to say that with Gender Bias, Media and Society, and Indian Press Since 1955, we can call it enough. I appreciate the research everyone put into this. If an uninvolved person wishes to close this as keep, I'd be satisfied with that. Waggie (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi waggie, if you honestly overlooked so much WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV, maybe withdraw all these bad nominations and improve your search skills before nominating articles again? gidonb (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb, I am here to improve the encyclopedia. When sources are found, and an article is kept and improved, I am very pleased. I have discussed the matter with you professionally and courteously, but you continue to attack my "search skills" and call my nominations "bad". These are not bad nominations, and have actually resulted in many articles being improved to the point of being kept, this is good. Many of these articles have lain fallow for many years with wildly promotional and unsourced content. My search skills are fine, thank you. AfD nominators are not expected to perform exhaustive searches for sources before nominating. I performed reasonable searches and reviewed pages and pages of results that were either not about the subject, or were written by the subject. That people are willing to dig deeper and find good sources is fantastic, and I thank them for their efforts, as I have thanked you. Best wishes to you. Waggie (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Odisha's and Odia's most widely read and circulated newspaper. --Titodutta (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC) #5 of Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers,_magazines_and_journals. I have not checked #4 in details still. --Titodutta (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Titodutta, a strong argument in favor of keeping, with a relatively decent source. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 17:33, 18 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dharitri (newspaper)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only source is official website and a list of related newspapers. Waggie (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the biggest newspaper in its state with a circulation of about 1.5M. It passes WP:GNG as there is coverage in sources such as Gender Bias in Indian News Media and Starvation and India’s Democracy. Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that the size of circulation is directly relevant to notability, but do you have a reliable source to support that? Frankly, I'd think for a paper with that large an audience, there'd be a great deal of independent coverage available. Also, could you link to these sources? I'd like to review them. Thank you! Waggie (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, according to WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST you should look for sources yourself and not just mass nominate publications in the hope that others will reference. This is not the purpose of AfDs! gidonb (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I did not explain very well in my rationale. I did nominate more than a few articles at the same time, but I went through each one, cleaned up the unsourced/promotional content (to allow a fair representation of the subject here at AfD, rather than the prior PROMO mess) and I did follow BEFORE and NEXIST before nominating and I did not find any sources that offer reliable, comprehensive coverage, but thank you for linking me to them anyway. I'm glad that good sourcing was offered for one of the noms, and in that case I took the sourcing and actually made a start in improving the article and withdrew the nomination. Waggie (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reference the articles yourself? These are huge newspapers and there are so many sources out there! Your system of finding nothing, knowing nothing, mass nominating, and requesting everyone to reference for you comes across as extremely lazy. Even when people spell out sources, they still need to link these for you. No insights whatsoever to India or media are offered. You write all the while politely but that is worth only so much. This series of nominations is a disgrace. gidonb (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N. Very important newspaper. Article should be expanded though. Should be a WP:SNOW keep. Article should never have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply any reliable sources that say Dharitri is a very important newspaper? I'm not able to turn up anything significant, but the language issue might be a barrier to that. Sharing the information that you used to reach your conclusion would be helpful. Peacock (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example: book1, journal1, book2, book3, book4, NDTV, Best Media Info, etc. gidonb (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user who created this article seems to have done so for promotional purposes – the username is Dharitrilive and has only edited this article with mostly unsourced edits. The username has been reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 04:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment promocontent removed and promo user blocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, was created 3 years before Dharitrilive showed up.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~-To debunk Davidson's and Gidonb's sources:--

This is published by Lulu.com, a self-publishing vanity platform.

Fails WP:RS.

An election-related-archive states that an industrial unit donated 48k INR to Dharitri, a newspaper.Has been mentioned in a narrative to establish the financial trails in a particular election.

Last time, I checked, AFDs are not being used to debunk hoaxes.And, trivialest of trivial coverage (i.e. mere name mentions) don't matter any in establishing notability.

This mentions the paper in a list of papers published across the breadth of the country and mention it's founder, foundation year and circulation.

We need significant coverage about the paper.Directory-entries doesn't suffice.

This states some circulation figures and all that business stuff.

The source is non-reliable.No credible faces among the editors and is sort of a house-blog.States:--we have a strong team of dedicated professionals working in Editorial, 'Marketing, Sales and PR functions..........We have successfully reached out to almost all media, marketing and advertisement professionals. Spam.

This NDTV piece states:--Somanath Sahu, reporter of Dharitri, was prevented from attending a press conference at the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police in Bhubaneshwar and threatened with dire consequences for writing reports that went against the police.

Yet another trivial coverage and nothing resemblant to significant coverage about Dharitri. The entire article mentions several example of censorship of press-freedom.

Thus, a delete from me for failing to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP.I find this source allotting yet another trivial mention as a leading daily along with two other names] but sans any depth of coverage, that does not satisfy a standalone article. I will still run another crawl to locate potential sources. ∯WBG^converse 08:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA#5 (namely, "significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets").

Indian Readership Survey 2017 ranked the newspaper 4th largest read vernacular daily in the Indian state of Odisha.[54]
Indian Social Institute's Social Action places it amongst the top four again.[55]
The book Media and Society: Challenges and Opportunities not only significantly covers the full background of the newspaper (see Page 151 onwards, which shows how the Odisha Chief Minister Nandini Satpathy started this in the 1970s with her husband and a lot of other history),^[56] it also significantly covers the news publication in multiple pages how the publication is considered amongst the top four in Odisha (from rank 1 to 4) in various factors like national news coverage, international news coverage and so on so forth.
"...largest newspaper in Cuttack"[57]
More significant coverage in multiple books.[58][59][60][61]

Lourdes 19:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes.

Laxmi Publication is India's Lulu and it's the same book, by the same author, which has a publication by Lulu.
From when did in-house journals (which are not indexed at anywhere reliable) by departments of universities started being counted as RS?
Ref 3 is a collection of papers presented in an university-seminar and whilst reliable upto an extent, is more a case-study.I am ambiguous as to notability.
How does being the largest-selling newspaper, in the second most populous city of a state, leads to passage of GNG?
And, in your interpretation, NMEDIA guarantees a passage of notability, uptill which circulation-rank? Fifth? tenth? twentieth?
Sold 200-600 copies per day, over an entire district and Dharitri topped the lists, is not what I call significant coverage.
This is a solid source.Thanks!∯WBG^converse 19:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WBG, good you found one of the sources to be significant. If you don't find the title of largest-selling newspaper in India's second-largest eastern city to be equivalent to being a "significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" (aka NMEDIA#5), I would have to place a comeback query on you asking you, what is then your qualification of NMEDIA#5? The largest newspaper in the country? Well, you need to be more broad-minded, as advised by our notability guidelines. In my opinion, the additional sources I've provided also lead to the passage of GNG. Irrespective of that, the reason we have Subject Specific Guidelines is to ensure that we don't have a narrow-minded GNG approach (this is notwithstanding the fact that this newspaper even passes GNG per the book source coverage). If you wish to only adhere to GNG and nothing else, that is not how an encyclopedia like ours is expected to include articles. Lourdes 04:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, what leads you to the fact that Cuttack is India's second-largest eastern city? Unless you do think that Eastern India comprises of only Orissa!:-) NMEDIA#5 to me equates to allotting standalone articles for the top two newspapers in circulation, per state, in absence of any significant GNG-level-coverage in RS.I see that you've not touched upon the point of reliability of in-house university journals.On an aside, this SNG/GNG debate is longstanding and there is an equally valid interpretation (which is what is written at the SNGs, itself) that SNG does not supersede GNG and is a tool to quickly identify chances of securing GNG coverage.∯WBG^converse 06:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At any case, given a good source, which covers it well-enough, I've switched camps to keep.∯WBG^converse 06:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet... Cheers... Lourdes 10:07, 23 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames used in Australian rules football

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used in Australian rules football

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

WP:DIRECTORY and/or WP:INDISCRIMINATE both broadly applicable. WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:NOTESAL also relevant – this list has essentially no criteria to limit a player's inclusion within it, i.e. it is a list of all players, with their nicknames given next to their full names. Aspirex (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content and then delete, especially the references, to the player articles. If this was a list ordered by the nickname then there might be some point to it. As far as I can tell the majority of these entries already have the nick name listed on the player's infobox, but not all. I am not sure that anyone will ever want to find a player by nick name that cannot search for "<nick name> afl", which seems to work fine for me. As it is it seems it is largely LISTCRUFT and INDISCRIMINANT. Aoziwe (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nicknames came about to protect the commercial value of AFL approved autographed merchandise from those collected by fans at random opportunities, Bluey, Sticks, Wanna, Fish, will come and go with the players the most it needs is just a single word in the players info box. Its neither notable nor of any value beyond the occassional individual at which point the players articles is the best place to cover it. Gnan garra 10:14, 14 October 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) ∯WBG^converse 07:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imphal Free Press

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only source is official website. Waggie (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The newspaper seems to get reasonable coverage. It seems quite respectable - see the citations in the Encyclopaedia Of Manipur, for example. The worst case would be merger into a list such as list of newspapers in India, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher is a vanity-press and neither does the author seem to possess any minimal credentials.So, we can't care any less about what he writes and what he chooses to source his writings to.

You can use other sources that cite it, though. ∯WBG^converse 13:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to merge. The publication is clearly notable and very important! The sources say so explicitly. gidonb (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMEDIA, WP:GNG, and WP:NEXIST per ample sources in Google books and elsewhere. In the article now six such sources. All WP:RS sources are relevant per WP:NEXIST. WP:NCORP is of indirect relevance at best so I did not check. Please nominate wisely! gidonb (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of newspapers in India.A trivial discussion over here.Merely being cited to, by a few sources, doesn't contribute any notability.∯WBG^converse 13:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but AfDs operate by the relevant sources not by the irrelevant ones. gidonb (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Apologies for getting it wrong.Strange stuff.And, that was superb work.∯WBG^converse 07:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citations in the opening graf, if accurate, confer Notability on this newspaper. I am surprised that we don't have more third-party sources, but I am not sure if any journalism trade publications exist in India. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile, extremely precise quotes and I just added a third source that nails it even more. This is such an unfortunate nomination. gidonb (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-Per Gidonb's work.∯WBG^converse 07:53, 18 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Ramsey

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

Never played in a fully professional league and thereby fails WP:NFOOTY; it has not been demonstrated that she passes WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her move to Liverpool cos MUFC had no senior female football team was covered here: 1 2 3 4 5. There is enough to pass WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Coverage above is not significant. It's routine transfer news and related. Giant Snowman 11:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The claims that the transfer meets GNG are incorrect, both as consensus is transfer reporting is inherently routine and even if it was not, it would be a case of WP:BLP1E. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a little worried about WP:UNDUE here because the user who recently created this Sixtrap, has a number of recent similar contributions, Ebony Salmon, Millie Turner, and Martin Dixon-Green. I think we should be especially careful about WP:BLPRS given that these are young people (tho, Dixon-Martin has no age listed). Fred (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not pass WP:NFOOTY or in my opinion WP:GNG. Eagleash (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY, can be recreated if and when she meets those requirements. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:19, 11 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odds Are...

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

Fails WP:NFILM. I could find no reviews for this film that was not widely distrubuted in cinemas and released directly to VOD. The sources are too weak to show it passes GNG. Maybe redirect to Peter Markel's page. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have included 15 different references. That is already more than most Wikipedia pages have. This film was just released so it might be nice to give people some time to actually view it and write more reviews about it before trying to eliminate it. Reviews are not even a necessary requirement for a film page. There are countless film pages on Wikipedia without a single review or even reference, but this page has 15 references. --Nicholas0 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nicholas0 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment I checked out the sources added after the nomination and they are 3 blogs (Vashivisuals, flixchatter, filmchecker) 2 of routine coverage without any critical comment (Screen daily and Ramolawpc the second is a copy of the first), a trailer without comment (freestyle) a tweet from someone the director used to work with no comment about the film, and the 3 VOD pages some with user generated comments (cinequest and amazon). The blog reviews do not meet the criteria #1 IMHO. If only it were the number of sources that mattered things would be much easier and we wouldn't have to go through them when reviewing new pages. Also we have to remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an acceptable keep argument. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think Domdeparis has done a good job of analyzing the sources to show that they don't pass muster. @Nicholas0: On Wikipedia, quality of sources is key to notability, not quantity. Do you have any sources that pass the standards set by WP:NFILM? Just two or three will do. It's a lot of work to go through a bunch of crappy sources, and I find that deletion discussions become much simpler once narrowed down to the best sources. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 02:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fully agree with above. The sources have already been carefully analysed by Dom. At this stage, it is for the creator to point out sources that give in-depth coverage. SpinningSpark 17:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to director article Peter Markle as a categorized {{R from film}} as suggested by nominator. Title is a valid search term that would be created, had it been requested at Wikipedia:AFC/Redirects, there is no need for outright deletion. Can be rewritten if and when sources to support the notability guideline for films becomes available. Sam Sailor 06:44, 18 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haidy Ingeborg Wittmann

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

Fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Very little coverage. Never been properly sourced since it was created. scope_creep (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source, a dead link, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20170406225101/https://www.diariodemorelos.com/noticias/haidy-wittmann-expuso-su-trabajo-art%C3%ADstico-en-el-museo-de-la-ciudad does not support the text of the article. Fails WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST --Vexations (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(update after sources have been added)

[62] mentions her as one of the artists showing at an exhibition in a university library, who "have a great career and are very talented".
[63] is a dead link
[64] twitter is not a reliable source
[65] El Sol de Cuernavaca mentions her as one in a list of 18 artists, but has nothing to say about her otherwise.
[66] mentions that she taught a workshop in oil painting

None of this constitutes significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so it the article fails WP:GNG. Nor does it show that she has received significant critical attention, been part of a signifcant exhibition, or has been collected by notable museums, so the article also fails WP:NARTIST. Vexations (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability, either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. The article is somewhat promotional, and much of the material could only have been written by someone with a close connection to the artist. Curiocurio (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been some refs added. Can you please take a look. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles where little more than her name is mentioned, also a Twitter link. Again, no sign of notability. Curiocurio (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ARTIST. The newly added refs in Spanish are all local news from her hometown. Ben Ben ^(talk) 21:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To look at the references that have been added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per both WP:GNG and WP;Artist. clearly notable in my opinion. Article needs re-write, expansion, sources. The other Delete !Votes basically puts promo-work as a reason for deletion, this needs a re-write.BabbaQ (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't matter if I search for "Haidy Ingeborg Wittmann", "Haidy Wittmann", or "Ingeborg Wittmann", I do not find significant coverage, and there is nothing to suggest a pass under WP:NARTIST. Sam Sailor 05:50, 18 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft bluebook

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

Fails WP: NCORP. In particular, fails WP:AUD because all sources are niche aviation industry publications. My own searching failed to find any WP:RS that were not aviation industry specific. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, the nomination is misguided over NCORP. The article is not about a particular organisation, it is about a type of price guide from assorted publishers. NCORP does not apply. The book Aircraft Finance has a 3-page section entitled "Aircraft Bluebook Values" giving a comparison of bluebooks which shows that the article subject is notable. An issue of Flying magazine devotes a full page to the most widely-accepted bluebook. The magazine claim they are the "world's most widely read aviation magazine", so are clearly aiming at a wide audience (whether or not the claim is true) thus countering WP:AUD. SpinningSpark 17:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a book titled, Aircraft Finance and Flying Magazine qualify as industry-specific publications and thus, media of limited interest, which WP:AUD talks about. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to have read my rationale. WP:AUD is specifically about organizations and companies. It does not apply to an article about a type of book. You also WP:IDHT when I said I thought Flying was aimed at a general audience. It wouldn't matter if it wasn't; WP:AUD does not apply anyway. You're entitled to your opinion, but please respect those of others enough to actually read and digest them. SpinningSpark 20:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. Perhaps I didn't explain my response to it very well :-) I'm of the opinion that WP:AUD (even though it appears as part of the WP:NCORP page) applies, or at least should apply, more broadly than to WP:NCORP. In any case, let's not quibble about which WP:SHORTCUT I've cited. My core argument is that this isn't notable because it's only of interest to a very focused audience, i.e. the aviation industry. There's catalogs that list estimated prices for comic books, rare stamps, pokemon cards, used boats, used farm machinery, etc, etc, etc. Surely these are not all notable. So, what makes the idea of a compendium of used aircraft prices notable? Of course Flying Magazine is going to cover it. The fact that they do doesn't make it notable. That's the gist of what WP:AUD is trying to say, and my assertion is that this shouldn't be restricted to just the things covered by WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be your opinion that we should not have articles "only of interest to a very focused audience" but that certainly isn't policy. If it were, it would be found in WP:NOT. 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + ⋯, a featured article, is of interest mainly to mathematicians. To say nothing of articles like Meissel–Mertens constant. Distributed element filter, another featured article, is of interest only to electronic engineers, and a small sub-group of them at that. I could go on. Wikipedia has articles on many obscure subjects, but obscurity is not grounds for deletion. Nor is the specialisation of the sources. I could list numerous FAs and GAs using only very niche, specialised sources. The requirement is only that those sources are reliable and cover the topic in-depth. SpinningSpark 22:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I will think on this, but for the moment, I'm still thinking this should be deleted. Let's see what other's think. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very low-quality article, but on a notable topic (and that topic isn't an organization) - note this book. It might be reasonable to rename to Aircraft valuation, I'm not enough of an expert to have a strong recommendation on that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Furthermore, WP:AUD just does not apply to literature, nor to anything other than companies and organizations. See below for some source examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Vasigh, B.; Taleghani, R.; Jenkins, D. (2012). Aircraft Finance: Strategies for Managing Capital Costs in a Turbulent Industry. J Ross Press Series. J. Ross Pub. pp. 256–258. ISBN 978-1-60427-071-6. Retrieved October 18, 2018.
McClellan, J. Mac (April 1982). Flying Magazine. pp. 10–11. Retrieved October 18, 2018.
McClellan, J. Mac (April 1982). Flying Magazine. p. 60. Retrieved October 18, 2018.

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Grand Rapids FC. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Grand Rapids FC season

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

Proposing for deletion alongside this AfD for the same reasons listed at this AfD and this AfD. WP:GNG failure lacking significant coverage and a season that fails the presumption of notability from WP:NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I still think Grand Rapids seasons pass WP:GNG, but the hell do I know. SportingFlyer talk 09:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The club is a young club it terms of American soccer and WP:NSEASONS is pretty specific, I don't think individual season articles at this level is the way forward here, it's possible to combined these early years into one article to satisfy GNG but individually these season articles seem to fail GNG by lacking substantial sources. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY. Many of the listed references would work to give the club notability, but have no relation to the season; quite a few also do not mention the information that they are supposedly providing a reference for. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 14:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Rapids FC as NSEASONS states "It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." As others have stated, that's clearly the case here, so the solution is redirection, not deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Oakland County FC. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Oakland County FC season

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

Fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage, and fails the presumption of notability for WP:NSEASONS. Also proposing the deletion of redirect page 2016 Oakland County FC Season alongside this. Jay eyem (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NSEASONS. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oakland County FC as WP:NSEASONS states "It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." As others have said, this fails both NSEASONS and GNG, but the appropriate solution is a redirect, not deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:17, 18 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Mandel

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

fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO this article looks rather UPEish. The Sources are too weak to show notability on an author basis. 1: press release 2: Alumni page so affiliated 3: A quote from the subject without commentry 4: A social media site 5: a selection of his tweets in a list of 25 people 6: an WP:INTERVIEW so not useful to show notability 7: an article written by the subject about his wife giving birth in their car 8: a human interest piece about his wife giving birth in a car Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. EAWH (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC) I created the page because I thought being named editor of the Washington Examiner made this subject pass WP:AUTHOR as "an important figure." WP:INTERVIEW DOES NOT say that interviews cannot be used to show notability, but rather that the type of interview matters. I believe that being the subject of a full interview on NPR's Morning Edition because NPR thought this person's opinion would be of interest to their listeners, would help in showing notability. (I included the story about the childbirth in a car only because it was included in his wife's Wikipedia page) I have followed this person's writing with some interest, although I have never met him. I was certainly not paid to write this page. EAWH (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC) I have also added a link to a New York Times article to the page in which he is listed as one of three Right-Wing writers recommended to their readers. EAWH (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: EAWH (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

@EAWH: For an interview to be useful for notability it has to contain independent commentary about the person have been prepared and talk about them. This is absolutely not the case, if you read the transcript you will see that it is just a request for comment on another subject. The NPR interview is not about the subject but about Trump, the only mention of the subject in the interview is "GREEN: Seth Mandel is an op-ed columnist for the New York Post. And he joined us from our New York studios. Seth, thanks for the time.". This is most certainly not indepth coverage of the subject in an independent secondary source as is required for notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:INTERVIEW states, "interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability...Interviews show a wide range of attention being given to the subject and should be weighted accordingly. Elements of interviews include selecting the subject, contacting the subject, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a biography." This is an interview on Morning Edition, a national prime-time radio news program with millions of listeners. The interviewer is clearly familiar with Mandel's previous writings on the topic. As such, a full interview on this program devoted to asking Mandel about his views does contribute to establishing Mandel's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAWH (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if conceivably this interview could help towards notability it would have to be in-depth coverage of the person that is discussed in the interview to count towards notability of that person as per the guidelines and not this essay. My point is that the piece talks about Trump and not Mandel so it can't possibly be considered in-depth coverage of Mandel. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: We know your stance. No need to continually WP:BLUDGEON the page. You have made 8 of the 16 edits on this page, which includes bots. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His position seems to indicate notability. Atbannett (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just clarify that your !vote is based on his job and not the sources? Dom from Paris (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although some sources you could argue are only a mention due to who his wife is, I believe there is enough sourcing to fulfill WP:GNG. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: Would you mind saying which of the sources you consider are in-depth coverage in secondary sources? --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[67] is an article in Rutger's alumni news. It is localized but still independent and I see no reason why it would not be a WP:RS. [68] has him as more than a passing mention. [69] focuses on both him and his wife, with arguably more of a focus on him. Would be the ones in the article, which I feel is enough. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: He is a graduate of the university so I don't think it can be seen as independent, an alumni paper is by definition affiliated to its alumni. This source is in actual fact coursework for the journalism school and as it says on its "about us page" AlumKnights magazine is created as a part of the Rutgers University course Media Publishing and Design. Approximately 20 students take the course each year. To complete the course, each student writes several drafts of an article about the Journalism and Media Studies Department, and learns how to use Adobe InDesign, Adobe Photoshop and WordPress.. It is not what I would call a reliable independent secondary source as it only concentrates on subjects affiliated to itself. The paste article is not indepth he is listed as one of 25 conservatives who don't like Trump and tweet about it and the baby born in a car story is quite trivial. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mandel has had more than enough coverage to pass notability. Mandel's job changes, marriage, and more to the point, his writing gets covered in articles like: The Hill, CNN’s Stelter, New York Post’s Mandel clash over de Blasio; Vox "Mandel, in his Atlantic piece, argued that", and many similar. Notable journalist, conservative pundit, and editor. and Note that the question at AfD is not what's already on the page, but what coverage exists. Nom's assertion that so page is inadequate is not an argument WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/public-health-scientist-hopes-take-his-activism-congress

[2] ttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TQ1na-MAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

[3] ttps://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/a-web-campaign-for-cancer-prevention/

[4] ttps://books.google.fr/books?id=szPOcd_ai2QC&pg=PT37&dq=eric+ding+facebook+philanthropists&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=eric%20ding%20facebook%20philanthropists&f=false

[5] ttps://bostonchamber.com/media/events/TOYL/2018/TOYL-honorees-list_2017.pdf

[6] ttps://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-018-0691-3

[7] ttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TQ1na-MAAAAJ&hl=en

[8] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+good+h-index

[9] ttps://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/saying-good-bye-our-alma-mater

[10] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FxqJmTfFDk

[11] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NekFfwU-LWs&t=79s

[12] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv1SAtqZnyo&t=939s

[13] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpt_pZoDuhU&t=33s

[14] ttps://muse.jhu.edu/article/685456/summary

[15] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=8OL9tyvN5YcC&pg=PA114

[16] ttps://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2265-why-traditionalists-are-not-afraid-of-sedevacantism

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]