Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 January	19 January >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeísa Chiminazzo[edit]

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

The mountain I’m willing to die on. The very most I could find in my Before was a one sentence quote in NYT about Brazilians buying apartments in Miami or New York City, nothing has been found about her career at all. And before you say it, we need reliable sources for statements about her career, because directories are only back-ups. And another thing... even in Portuguese the only sources about her were “she got married.” Nothing related to career. Trillfendi (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be drafted first by the creator. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because subject fails WP:NMODEL. It's telling that so much of the article is taken up with items about her personal life. -The Gnome (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Moody[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. The article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources that are directly affiliated with the LDS Church. There's this secondary source, but it does not provide significant coverage, having only two sentences about the subject, with the rest being quotations. WP:BEFORE searches are providing no better. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom above. Sources are mostly primary and external links doesn't help. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Skirts89 (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per multiple suggestions, I will also salt this for "a while". -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Series by Shane Dawson[edit]

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

Non notable series, article was recreated again after getting A7 speedy deleted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Shane Dawson Conspiracy Series. The article's creator avoids AFC process and reverts any CSD R2 tries (since the draft still exists it is a valid thing to do). Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is not WP:ROUTINE. Simply a WP:TOOSOON case here since there is no coverage outside of "trailer released, premiere date announced" etc. like the 2 references in the article. I recommend salting for some period if needed to prevent from quick recreation. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging the voter on the last AfD and the admin who deleted the first time Gonnym and RHaworth. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet again - Very disruptive to recreate this again. The article can't even get its information correct, with stating that the first episode aired on "January 10, 2019" yet "is going to premiere on January 30". Even if it did premiere, it does not automatically get an article. It should show notability first as this is only a YouTube video. --Gonnym (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think creation of this should be blocked for a period since people keep trying to create it yet Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Trillfendi (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's creator now tried to REMOVE the AfD template per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_Series_by_Shane_Dawson&oldid=879104050 and even put in the Talk page as if the AfD was closed as Keep per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conspiracy_Series_by_Shane_Dawson&oldid=879104188. The editor is becoming very disruptive with his behavior. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. —teb728 t c 03:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Using WP for promotional activity; no evidence of notability. This needs salting. Britishfinance (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:TOOSOON, salting for a while may be a good idea as well. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I agree with the suggestion to salt. -The Gnome (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBeebies shows[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not COMPLETELY unsourced because it links to the Cbeebies website's list of shows, though the citations are not given in-line and it does not indicate where on that page each program can be found (if they can be found) so not verifiable. This is basically a category page and would probably be acceptable if reformatted as such. FOARP (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You have an entire list of shows that have articles linking to them and have sources in them. Known network with plenty of programming. I'm usually for these types of deletions, but mainly for channels that mainly carry reruns and originate negligible new content. This airs plenty of new content. WP:SOFIXIT. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. TV channel broadcast lists should be limited to original programming. Otherwise listing every single acquired programme that has appeared both currently and in the past, without adequate sourcing to verify this, is original research. Ajf773 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mrschimpf - a notable network with its own programming, many of them with their own articles. The absence of sources does not mean sources don't exist. The topic is notable. The article needs fixing, sure, but that does not mean deletion. Per NOTTVGUIDE: "...historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." A list of programs on a major international channel is acceptable to me. Nothing in NOTTVGUIDE (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) states program lists must be original shows only anyway. -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to keep the article, can we work together to remove unsourced and unneeded clutter? How are we supposed to identify that those dates are accurate? BBC Genome does not have every single schedule in existence. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- TVGUIDE seems to not be applicable here. This is a bounded list of programming on a network -- the majority of which is notable -- as opposed to a schedule. matt91486 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a completely valid list article and easily sourceable. These are mostly original programming produced for the network, and many are notable. There may be some need for cleanup. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though someone may want to remove the non-original programming as per above. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an informative and useful list that has encyclopaedic value, just what lists are supposed to be. -The Gnome (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Caruana[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG; fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and no sources. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above--simply playing in the ECHL is not enough for NHOCKEY Enwebb (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Falls short of NHOCKEY and GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo secondary sources to establish GNG, doesn't meet the inclusionary standards of NHOCKEY. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. -The Gnome (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Surgical Case Reports[edit]

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

PRODded by mistake (was deleted after a PROD in 2011 but re-created). PROD reason was "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective database: not in Scopus, MEDLINE, or any Clarivate Analytics database (except the not very selective Emerging Sources Citation Index). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Case_report#Publishing. It appears that there are hundreds of such journals with similar names and so it would be sensible to merge our content about them into one place to help provide readers with good context, using sources such as How to choose the best journal for your case report. Andrew D. (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see the value in a redirect either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found nothing anywhere on the web (with one exception, this database) that is independent of its publishers, and its impact factor is not listed in this list of journals. As such, it does not appear to satisfy WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. ComplexRational (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per WP:SNOW. There's consensus that AfD isn't the right venue to sort this out and even the nominator now agrees that WP:RFC is more appropriate. Schwede 66 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve[edit]

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

Please note that this page will be used for WP:MULTIAFD for all articles in Category:Lists of international cricket five-wicket hauls by ground and Category:Lists of international cricket centuries by ground. For a while, I had no problems with this type of articles. I even cricket four of them (with one is a F list). However, I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium and it really caught my eyes. It was deleted basically because it is WP:NOTSTATS. Now that I think about it, there is no "List of international goals/home runs by grounds" in football/baseball, or any other sports. It is safe to say that goals have the same worth as five wicket hauls and centuries. Please understand that I am not trying to WP:POINT, I just realized that these articles should not exist here. Thanks, and feel to expand your arguments both for or against deletion. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons provided above:[reply]

100+ similar pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord's ones should probably be separated out; due to the significance of getting one's name on the honours boards, the lists would meet WP:LISTN and that should IMO be the criteria we would weigh these lists against. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: it could be merged with the Lord's honours board page. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these look like original research as well (have not check them all yet), if a list did make notability based on secondary sources then it could be kept, though merging Lords feels more tidy. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Delete and where appropriate copy across to the article about the ground they pertain to, maybe as a collapsible box for neatness. StickyWicket (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. A simple ESPNCricinfo records search can provide the best bowling figures for every match at a given ground: [1] and [2]. Duplicating content here is heavily reliant on manual editing. Ajf773 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773 can you explain why it would not be helpful to keep them? Other cricket lists can also be found easily on Cricinfo. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above contains ten features lists:

of which List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval has also appeared on the main page. All of these lists can rise to this level. May I suggest though that a minimum number of centuries and five-wicket hauls be achieved before a standalone list is created. Much like for the individual players list for centuries (25) and five-wicket hauls (15). – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ianblair23, it would break my heart to be part of deleting all this hard work, the issue is not formatting but content can you offer an argument for why it should be kept from WP:NOTSTATS or other. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Dushan Jugum, I have been part of many AFDs where WP:NOTSTATS has been used for deletion and I supported many of them. I would argue that these lists are different. These are a listing of the highest accolades a player can achieve in the great game of cricket, an international cricket century or five-wicket haul. Most grounds have honour boards listing these achievements. These are certainly notable in my opinion. I still feel the best approach is to have stand alone lists for the grounds where a certain number of centuries and fifers have been reached included with appropriate prose. The rest be can merged into the article on the ground itself just like what we do with players who haven't reached the threshold for a stand alone centuries and five-wicket hauls lists. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianblair23: Partially agree with you. Some of them like of the Lord's can be kept with merge or modification. But even if it had like 50 fifers (like Shere Bangla, which I created and is F list), it's not always significant to have its own stand alone. Like other sports, list of achievements by players should exist, and by ground should only exist if the venue itself is significant. ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is important information. Unfortunately it is repeated throughout Wikipedia eg List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Mitchell Johnson etc. We do not need 5 wicket hauls by person, country and stadium (sortable table?). The solution, however, is not a blanket deletion, therefore, keep with selective mergers. In the examples I checked the information is given enough context and notability to pass WP:NOTSTATS. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

@Dushan Jugum: That would work, like merging all of them to their respective countries' grounds. ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I picked ONE list at random: List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Shaheed Chandu Stadium. Why would the nom create it on the 17th Jan, to then nominate it for deletion one day later, with it being created 8 minutes before posting this at the Cricket Project?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is within the bounds of their deletion nomination comment. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

This is indeed quite strange behaviour and this whole AFD seems POINTY to me but I think this is good opportunity to set some threshold for these types of lists. In the case above where only three international fifers have been taken at the ground well that could be easily merged into the Shaheed Chandu Stadium article. Perhaps we could use the same threshold as we do for players list – 25 for centuries and 15 for fifers. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about 25 for each, for simplicity? That's a reasonable compromise, although personally I worry about the level of NOTSTATS and OR in these - in particular I am unconvinced that we need to have the names of the people dismissed - we can just link to the scorecard can't we? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ianblair23 and Lugnuts I thought I already clarified I am not trying to be pointy. I changed my opinion and looked things from a different perspective, which is perfectly alright. ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not safe to blithely assert that a century or five wickets in an event potentially lasting a day or more is equivalent to a goal in a 90 minute football match. Someone will need to present some statistics to demonstrate that equivalence.
I'd suggest that bundling the "by ground" lists into "by country" lists, like List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Australian cricket grounds, is the way to go. Where the lists are very short, five or ten entries say, they can also appear on the article for the ground, but if they are longer they could be spun out into a separate (sub-)article. A similar analysis applies to other lists, eg by player: incorporate into the main article where you can, but separate out where it becomes oppressive and unwieldy. 213.205.240.201 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So far, there are five ways suggested by the participants.
1. Delete all. (They do not follow WP:NOTSTATS, WP:GNG, WP:NOR, and are not simply significant compared to the achievements by players, and also other sports are taken into account)
2. Merge all to their respective achievements by country only. (Which I mostly prefer for now)
3. Keep only the notable ones. (Like the Lord's, because of it's honour board. I can fine with this case, but their significance should be explained and a lot of modifications required regarding article titles, potential merging etc.)
4. Keep only the ones which have a certain number of achievements. (It will be difficult to come up with a minimum level and I do not believe it will make sense. Because achievements in Lord's and and say a normal stadium in India/New Zealand etc. are vastly different regarding historical significance, quality of matches, other variables etc.)
5. Keep all (They are all significant and some of them are featured)

Let me know if I missed something. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I am coming to this AfD from WP:INDIA and WP:CRICKET. I don't consider this as a violation of WP:NOSTAT, I consider these articles a logical and acceptable WP:SPINOFF based on Wikipedia:Content_forking#Acceptable_types_of_forking The stadium article should contain a paragraph summarizing these lists and should have a link to these articles about 5 wicket hauls. The readers of the stadium article would most likely also be interested in reading these records. I also note that many of them are FLs. Someone said keep only notable ones, the problem here would be how will me make a reasonable criteria of what is notable and what is not, if the stadium is notable and has its own article, then the stadium article must also contain a paragraph or line about the 5 wicket hauls in that stadium. And I don't support a merging all of them and making a highly bloated Country page is not the right way. It would be gigantic and would again need splitting, so we will continue in circles. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I think there are a very few of them notable enough. WP:SPINOFF will be very difficult and inconsistent. There is not any five wicket haul article for Old Trafford Cricket Ground, even it has played a lot more matches than other grounds with the list. In terms of merging, it would not be a problem with collapsible boxes. As I've stated earlier, we have to look at other sports' wikiprojects in order to be consistent. Merging in fifers/centuries by country is the best option IMO. ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Also, if people really wants to see them, merging would not be a problem and will create ONE significant list per country for centuries and fifers each. I think people are interested to see goals scored in a football ground as well, but list of goals by individual players is good enough. Club/countries listing their own records is also enough, like List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics and List of Australia Test cricket records. Rather than listing, only summarizing the notable facts seems fair (example: M. A. Chidambaram Stadium#Notable events). Also, some of the grounds play other sports rather than only cricket, which might make the lists unfair. ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Unfortunately, I cannot assume this is a good faith nomination, especially because a number of these articles are quality articles or featured lists, and the nominator has contributed extensively to some of these pages, which is baffling. (Also baffling is the nominator's recent attempt to get all articles with one source administratively deleted or them suddenly "joining" other WikiProjects.) This is a WP:TRAINWRECK. Some of these pages may not be notable and may need to be merged, but it's insane to delete all of these at once because one other article on the topic was deleted several months ago. SportingFlyer T·C 00:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: will you guys please stop attacking me. Just focus on the discussion. ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: whenever I go for one article at a time, you guys claim the same that I am being "pointy" also, eh? What's the point of MULTIAFD? You guys are too afraid for something I don't know. Stop abusing the policies. One wise IP ones told me WP:GAMING while I was just pointing out the policies and guidelines, turns out it's the same case here, trying to justify by attacking one user. ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImmortalWizard: Did you read WP:MULTIAFD? It includes the text: An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled— nominate it separately. For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should Wikipedia include this type of article". Based off your recent post on my talk page here [3], it appears you saw one article which was properly deleted (though a merge result would have been better IMO) and assumed this was a general policy consensus for deleting all of these articles. The fact you mentioned the Lord's article could possibly get kept above (and didn't strike it) shows this isn't a proper use of WP:MULTIAFD, as you're trying to change policy with this nomination. Feature lists almost certainly should not be bundled, as they almost certainly stand on their own merit. It makes it impossible to vote in any way except for keep all on WP:TRAINWRECK grounds, even though there may be an article or few in the list that's better merged somewhere. You've also responded to every keep voter so far, so I'd like to politely remind you of our WP:BLUD policy. SportingFlyer T·C 02:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: apologies for working hastily. But the situation ended up like this. I tried other alternatives before this but simply alleged of being "pointy". This discussion I'd going really well so far and I am proud of that. As I've said, I would prefer merge to achievements by country by now. So if you want, I would allow you to remove the tags from the by country achievements from this nomination. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were called pointy here, so instead of trying to gain policy consensus on whether these should be included somewhere like the Wikiproject page, you decided to go ahead and nominate every single article in the category? And then you say "the situation ended up like this," as if it's someone else's fault? I'm also not removing anything, it's not my job to fix spurious nominations and these should all be kept pending further discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer I did seek for concensus on cricket wikiproject, but as I've said, I was too hasty. And no I don't blame anyone for ending up like this. If I were, I would only blame myself, now it's up to admins. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Seems to a vexatious nomination and it puzzles me why they are being nominated en masse. There is no lack of space on Wikipedia. Valuable encyclopedic articles that are better worked into a over a long period of time before they are nominated. scope_creep^Talk 01:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep sure every afd is vexatious. There is a reason for MULTIAFD. I don't mind if this nomination stays on for months, until a clear consensus, after all 100+ articles are at stake. And it's never mentioned that this nomination is because of lack of space. Also, I did argue on their values. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every Afd is not vexatious. Most are for obvious reasons. This isn't. scope_creep^Talk 02:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As per SportingFlyer WP:MULTIAFD is not to be used to delete a whole category of articles, which is what is being attempted here. Spike 'em (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Per SportingFlyer and Spike (and others). Apart from several featured lists that have been bundled into this one nomination, the whole thing is a big pointy trainwreck. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and consider elsewhere - this is just wasting everyone's time. There is no chance of an AfD decision to delete all these lists. After one of these articles was deleted, consensus should have been formed within the cricket project as to whether all/only some/no "fifers by ground" articles are suitable for WP before the entire category was hurled into a chaotic AfD with an apparent disregard for WP:ALLORNOTHING.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and start a proper discussion/RfC about it. This need a proper thought out discussion and consensus, not a seven day AfD debate for 100+ articles, some of which are FLs. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph2302 yeah can do that. But this can stay here for a month or two? ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, this AfD is not going to be kept open for "a month or two", that simply doesn't happen -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has become a 'snow keep' in my opinion, even the nominator does not want to delete. A new topic has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vimb[edit]

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

does not have notability, all of its references are from blog pages or its github page Editor-1 (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After some searching, found one non-selfpublished source. Doesn't appear to be notable. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many non-selfpublished sources does it need? It is a useful aid and compilation of information and further reading that is not very easy to find. Many similar software projects with small or stub articles and with a similar situation of non-selfpublished sources are not marked for deletion and may have even fewer references. I think this article should not be deleted. Narwaro (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narwaro is the creator of the contested article and its major contributor. -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:USEFUL is not a reason to keep, and the fact that other articles exist just suggests that those should be nominated for deleting in turn. With that said, you do have a point that niche topics like this might be sufficiently notable within their field for us to consider their inclusion within Wikipedia, similar to how we include all species, but that is not current policy and our duty here is to implement policy, and if we want to change it then there is a suitable area for that elsewhere. NoCOBOL (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the point that WP:USEFUL is not a reason to keep, I agree, but to me WP:Notability is given for the following reasons:
- "Significant coverage" is given, the topic is addressed directly and is mentioned non-trivially in the source discussed above (which I think would be a good addition as a reference), I think you will agree that this source is reliable and published;
- "Sources": While I agree that there are primary references included in the article, these are foremost used for versions and release dates, for which there cannot be any other source than the developer itself, which I think is also agreeable. While most people, including myself, do not consider blog posts reliable sources on their own (WP:RSSELF), I think these can be valid references owing to the fact that a number of them are stating the same points which to me is a strong indication that those are valid, objective points. In addition to that it is quite challenging in general to be covered or find coverage for software projects that are not backed by companies that can ignite coverage in published sources by campaigns or sponsoring.
- To many Wikipedia is a starting point for a given topic that gives an abstract and accumulates resources for further reading. This article does that in my opinion and therefore I think it should not be deleted. Narwaro (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process, I am interested in the points the nominator has to add to this discussion and whether they think this article cannot be improved to meet the necessary criteria. Narwaro (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Why we have the notability requirements there isn't the signficant coverage in reliable secondary sources needed to establish notability and source a full article. If such sources don't exist, the article cannot be improved to satisfy the inclusion criterea for Wikipedia. It may be that at some point in the future this topic is covered for example in books or reviewed in reliable secondary sources online, and then if WP:GNG is satsified this article can be recreated. --Pontificalibus 13:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I disagree. Per concensus there seems to be the mentioned secondary source and there are many "unreliable" sources stating the very same in unison. To mention WP:WHYN: With a reliable source there should be enough information available to write a full article, not just a single paragraph, which it is. I do not think this can be added to another article. If you disagree, please point to sections that you cannot verify. In reply to the last point: Please apply common sense here. It is highly unlikely for a piece of software like this to be mentioned in a book, like almost all similar cases. There simply are very, very few "reliable" (i.e. not selfpublished or similar) published books on software. To add to this, I often have no problem finding a dozen reliable, published sources for something like a village but an article like this may get 80 views per year. This article has about 100 views per day, which is more than the vast majority of articles as it seems. I think it is more appropriate here to recognise that there are inherently few reliable sources for this category of article and it would be better to evaluate all facts rather than blindly enforcing strict policies. I urge someone familiar with the matter of this article to comment on this last point. Narwaro (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing the notability criteria of Wikipedia. Irrelevant justifications are invoked above for non-deletion: In reality, it is not enough by itself that an article might be "useful"; self-published sources are null and void as evidence of notability; and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate listing of information, where users find everything under the sun. Without proper attribution, texts do not make it. Or eventually get deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evoma[edit]

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

No sources found to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Falls way short of WP:NCORP. There are a few references but are brief or unreliable sources.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP. Sources are non existent or dead. Article created by a very dedicated account. -The Gnome (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Muruthi[edit]

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

Is this guy really notable? Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and goes on about two protégés (who are not notable), how he played club cricket for 45 years (unremarkable in cricketing terms at amatuer level), how he played minor matches outside of the scope of WP:CRIN, an unreferenced quote saying how good he is, and then goes on how the guy has a day-job. Not at all stand-out. Fails WP:CRIN and by extension WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~ when this was nominated before, it was closed as Keep though no reason was given by the closer, so unclear exactly what the reasons were. The External Links that look like articles that may confer notability under WP:GNG are dead and I can't find them in Wayback Machine. Spike 'em (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've update 2 of the External Links based on the information provided below. I don't know how significant The Strait Times is, but there certainly seem to be multiple articles which mention Muruthi in detail, so he passes WP:GNG for me. Accordingly, I've changed this from Comment to Keep. Spike 'em (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time we put these crazy cricket bios in check. We need a much higher threshold for notability in cricket.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tend towards delete - if enough could be found to come close to meeting GNG then I'd be perfectly happy to retain this, but I think it's difficult to justify that level of coverage just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll admit I know nothing about cricket, but he doesn't seem to meet the standards set for notability. Playing any sport for 45 years is worth of tip of the cap, but doesn't make him notable. Don't see the coverage needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per coverage, and sources. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE and more specifically WP:CRIN. MarkH21 (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCRIC. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in order to provide time for presentation of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know if anyone who has commented here so far has done a WP:BEFORE search (if they have they haven't made it clear), but I found several articles, e.g. Straits Times: "Stacey Muruthi, who made his debut for the national team at the age of 16 and went on to play for the country for 32 years until 2001", "He's one of Singapore cricket's favourite sons. But in a few years' time, national cricketer Stacey Muruthi could be given another tag as one of the founding fathers of the future national senior team", Singapore Star: "Singapore’s captain Stacey Muruthi shared the limelight with Malaysia’s captain Suresh Menon to lift the Grimberg trophy.", so not just someone who played cricket for a long time, but someone who played for the Singapore national team for 32 years, some of that time as captain, which even for a relatively minor cricketing nation, together with the national newspaper sources, suggests he is notable enough for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These sources and coverage are WP:ROUTINE and the matches are outside the inclusion guidelines of WP:CRIN. Minor matches at amateur level aren't deemed notable. You might take part in the donkey derby for 32 years, but it doesn't make you notable. StickyWicket (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think they go beyond routine coverage, and he played in the country's national team, and you're comparing that with a donkey derby? --Michig (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, when those matches are minor and quite clearly fall out of the criteria of CRIN. Besides that, it's a useless article that tells us virtually nothing encyclopedic. StickyWicket (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is poor, this is something that can be dealt with through editing. --Michig (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why you say he fails WP:NCRIC. The article is not written to show notability against the WP:NCRIC guideline, but includes the information that he "was the national captain in 1976, 1979–1989 and 1994". The WP:NCRIC guidelines state that cricket people qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia if they have "appeared prior to 2005 as a player or umpire in an ICC Trophy final". ICC Trophy redirects to ICC World Cup Qualifier, where Teams' performances shows that Singapore played in 1979, 1982, and 1994, when this man was the Singapore national captain. So the games he has played in are most definitely covered by WP:NCRIC, and he meets WP:NCRIC. Apart from that, WP:GNG is not an extension of WP:NCRIC - subjects don't need to qualify for a WP:SNG before they can qualify for WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @RebeccaGreen:, you've misunderstood WP:CRIN. He never appeared in a final of the ICC Trophy (Singapore have never reached one). Prior to 2005 matches did not carry List A status and were classified as minor matches. The inclusion for cricketers having played in a final prior to 2005 was the match being the decider for who would qualify for the world cup. So the games he played in are most definitely not covered by WP:CRIN (I helped come with the criteria). You won't find any other players who appeared at any of those ICC Trophy competitions outside of the finals. This is why Category:Israeli cricketers, or Category:Gibraltarian cricketers are empty - because despite playing at most ICC Trophy's, the matches were not notable. Besides that the article is a lot of "oh he's this and he's that". StickyWicket (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keep due to meeting WP:GNG. The digitised Singapore newspapers show that he was covered in over 275 articles, in 16 of which his name was in the headline. He does not need to meet a specialised guideline before being assessed on WP:GNG. AfD is not about the quality of an article, but I disagree with your assessment of the article. All of the content relates to his cricket career. "A useless article that tells us virtually nothing encyclopedic" that just happens to tell us who the national captain of Singapore cricket for 12 years was? Even if your cricket guideline has determined that no games below final level prior to an arbitrary date are notable, he meets WP:GNG because of the significant coverage of him as a player and captain at national level in Singapore. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those who considered WP:GNG and thought he did not meet it might like to look at NewspaperSG [4]. Pinging Blue Square Thing and Sandals1. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read most of those articles - it won't let me unless I'm at a particular library. I'll note initially that some are adverts, sore summaries etc... Of the summaries I scanned through and the few articles I could read, some looked tangental at best and I couldn't see anything that really falls under SIGCOV - which is the same situation when I looked at other articles in The Straits Times - lots of passing references but nothing that I would consider to have been significant. The same is, I'm afraid, true of the three links above as far as I can tell. The more significant coverage might be there. I think it can be for cricketers who don't qualify in terms of the sorts of matches they've played (and, for what it's worth, I think there are plenty of examples where cricketers who have played matches at the sort of level we usually look at don't qualify under the GNG). But I can't find it. I've certainly seen biographies with more significant coverage deleted.

All of which is very frustrating, but I'm really not sure whether or not we have someone here that passes the GNG. If there's a way to write the article in such a way as to show that then that'd be great, but until then I think I still tend towards delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that he does not meet CRIN, but does pass GNG. A conversation for another time and place, but is there any reason why Div 6 of the World Cricket League since 2007 is presumed notable (this division features the 23rd - 28th best non-ODI teams), but the early ICC Trophies are not (featuring the top 16 such teams)? Spike 'em (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quote directly from WP:CRIN. Subject must have

1. appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level;

2. appeared prior to 2005 as a player in an ICC Trophy final,

3. appeared since 2005 in at least one match in any of the ICC World Cup Qualifier, Women's Cricket World Cup Qualifier, ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier and ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier competitions;

4.appeared as a player in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above; or

5. appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20, Global Qualifier, or Regional Final. -The Gnome (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, notability for sportspeople are often funny, Wikipedia:Notability (sports) in a nutshell states "An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition", some editors may say that any games/competitions that a nation's cricket team is involved in is "major" so that being the captain of that team is notable, other editors do not, but then it also states (in para 1) - "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or (my emphasis) the sport specific criteria set forth below." looking at no. 1 of WP:NCRIC - "1.Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level", so if Muruthi had played in a match at the top level within Singapore (requiring a substantial source of course) rather than captaining the national team he would be notable? of course this is all irrelevant if he meets WP:GNG (as the "keeper" say but the "deleters" deny), anyway, this is why i don't get involved in too many sportspeople afds as they can be quite confusing:) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The highest domestic level in modern cricket is seen as being first-class / List A cricket, which is a status now conferred upon competitions by the ICC. The league in Singapore has not attained this status. He has played in games for Singapore that if they happened today would qualify him, but the 2005 cutoff rules them out. Spike 'em (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike 'em:: One of the problems is that that's not what CRIN says. It's how most people tend to interpret it, but going purely on how it's actually written, someone playing in a national league of any kind could be argued to meet the criteria. It obviously needs rewriting, but, well, I've given up even trying to do that.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to Keep for this one. While they may fail WP:NCRIC, I think other factors need to be looked at, including their lengthy career and the fact they've captained the national side too. The article demonstrates this notability at the moment. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons Lugnuts gives. There are hundreds of non-notable cricketer bios which I agree should not be kept, but this isn't one of them. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. clpo13_(talk) 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Bhagat[edit]

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

WP:AB needing citations and additional content since 2013. Article was first nominated through WP:SPEEDY in 2013, nomination cancelled but there have only been minimal additions (i.e. linking, categories) since. Questionable if it meets WP:BIO as sources are limited. I have not found significant additional sources conveying notability. Links to this article within the encyclopedia are also limited mostly to citations of a single book that was cowritten (coauthor does not have page). Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Sdegennaro (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Searches brought up a brief, 2011 mention, "The US artists Alexis Bhagat and Lize Mogel collaborated in a project that involved traveling around malls and other public areas in Sharjah with a mobile kiosk ...", but nothing to support notability. Rather the opposite, by 2016, it appears that he was working for a local community arts association in Albany, "Grand Street Community Arts is looking to raise $27,000 in July, said Alexis Bhagat, executive director.". But there is a vanishing tiny amount of coverage of this aspiring artist in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that WP:NACADEMIC and WP:PROF are not met at this time. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Reinstein[edit]

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

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

With regret. I can't find evidence that this scientist meets WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For those interested in her publication record, per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes. According to SCOPUS she has published 6 papers, all apparently while in Brett Finlay's group. She is the first author on 4 of the 6. Those 4 are cited by 58, 41, 29, and 26 documents. She is a middle author on two papers, one cited in 89 documents and one in 26 documents. Per the average professor test, in my opinion this is well below the average number of papers and citations among microbiology academics. Ajpolino (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her discovery was on the cover of The Journal of Infectious Diseases, it quite a notable scientific achievement obviously. Scientists are notable by their achievements, they don't do interviews and get written up in popular news media. Wikipedia isn't just about popular culture, its educational as well. She meets WP:NACADEMIC. Dream Focus 17:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What name does she publish under? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Scopus shows no publications under her married name. All the citations I mentioned above are under her maiden name Ursula Heczko. If she published under some other name now, I may have missed it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found more than a dozen publications via Google Scholar authored and/or co-authored by the subject under her maiden name (Heczko), easily meeting WP:NACADEMIC. The subject meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which category of WP:NACADEMIC does she easily meet? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Response and Comment - The 1st category of WP:NACADEMIC. The subject worked in academia in a post-doctoral position at the University of British Columbia, where she discovered a prevention for the colonization of ~~e-coli~~ E. coli, a notable academic achievement which prompted the cover article in The Journal of Infectious Diseases - a major publication with a national reach (if not internationally). Coupled with the subject's other scientific research, much of which is cited in other scientific national publications, plus she has co-authored her research in scientific peer-reviewed journals, including the American Journal of Physiology here, the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. (Note: It is commonplace for those in academia and science to co-write articles with colleagues in their field and does not diminish their roles. Rather, it enhances their roles by having distinguished peers co-author with them.) Using her married and maiden names, I found two more sources and added them to the article. Based on the Wiki article in its current shape, my !vote remains Keep. The subject meets general notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, AuthorAuthor. You wrote that you "found more than a dozen publications via Google Scholar authored and/or co-authored by the subject under her maiden name," in which case she's "easily meeting WP:NACADEMIC." However, nowhere in WP:NACADEMIC is there a criterion whereby numerous publications suffice. Otherwise, we'd drown under articles about persons who have simply published academic papers! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Gnome. I mentioned the number of publications because at least one editor in this AfD commented that the number of publications authored by the subject appeared to be lacking. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. So, as it turns out, the number of publications authored by the subject is not lacking. This still does not enable the subject to "easily meet WP:NACADEMIC," as you claimed. That's the point. -The Gnome (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found only six publications authored by her on GS as part of a research group. Some decent citations (which is all that counts for notability) but not nearly enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in this very highly cited field: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Another comment - Sorry to pester. I don't have a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion either way, but I'd like to point out that I believe keeping this article on the grounds of WP:NPROF would be an unusually broad application of that guideline. The guideline is most commonly used to justify keeping or creating articles on professors whose work is highly cited (as a proxy for highly impactful). While Ursula Reinstein is an author on several papers, that work is not highly cited. Also she was not an independent researcher at the time, but was either a graduate student in Martin Reifinger's lab, or a Postdoctoral researcher in Brett Finlay's lab. To consider someone notable under WP:NPROF entirely for work done under the supervision of other scientists would be highly unusual. Or at least it's not something I've seen before. If we consider this level of academic impact to meet the first NPROF criterion, then we should consider clarifying this at WP:NPROF as nearly all professors at research universities and many postdocs will have a similar number/impact of publications. Also, having your work featured on the cover of a journal does not necessarily indicate unusually high impact (which is why we use citations as a proxy for impact instead). Last thing, @AuthorAuthor: you mention meeting WP:GNG; I couldn't find any independent sources that substantially cover Ursula Reinstein. I may have missed some that cover her maiden name? Could you elaborate on why you feel she meets GNG? Thanks. Sorry for the long message. Ajpolino (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that the article was created by User:Dzreinstein who has also contributed substantially to Dan Reinstein and was informed about Wikipedia's COI policy on his talk page four years ago. PamD 09:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have enough citations to pass WP:NACADEMIC #1, the only one that would be relevant. I find no other coverage of her at all, so nothing to meet WP:BASIC either, sadly. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, since subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC #1. As PamD pointed out, the contested-article's creator appears to be the subject herself; her two contributions to Wikipedia seem to be two articles, this one and another about her husband, Dan Reinstein, in which almost all sources are papers written by Reinstein. The strong aroma of promotion only amplifies the case for elimination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the editor is more likely to be the husband - but either way there's clear WP:COI. PamD 12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only does this fail WP:NACADEMIC, but it looks like it's a clear COI. I would also suggest nominating Dan Reinstein for deletion as well. Skirts89 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Reinstein likely passes WP:Prof but at least needs clean-up to prune promotional bloat. An AfD could be considered. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Citation counts (on Google Scholar under author:U-Heczko) not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. Being first author on the cover story of a journal issue is certainly not a significant enough honor by itself for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe and David Eppstein. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is very borderline. Though her most cited paper haas 111 citations, the overall body of work is not significant. Additionally, the manner of writing is indicative of promotionalism -- the only way this was gotten to even look like an articles was to list each of the small nuber of papers three times--once in the publications list, once in the discussion of what she has worked on, and once in the list of journals in which she published. I have rarely seen this done here so blatantly. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above. Too less cite-count in a field like microbiology.∯WBG^converse 16:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clpo13_(talk) 16:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of American films of 2018[edit]

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

So what are going to do about this mess, huh. It appears this list was created simply for an unknown film whose “reference” is IMDb.... Well you already know the policy about IMDb. This list is not going to be updated with actual notable films like other countries and languages already have. We’re already in 2019. I think Wikipedia will be fine without having “list of American films of 2018” article because there countless other lists, articles, and categories that American films can and already do fall into. Because this ain’t it. Trillfendi (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for now, unless someone wants to make it into a half-decent list, as in the previous years. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- And now Keep per the excellent work done by @StrayBolt: to save the article. Nice one! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly the article needs a lot of work but it is a notable topic, article needs improving and not deleting Spiderone 09:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft move to draftspace as it is a notable topic but needs expansion and can go through the WP:AFC process, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F9ED:DB25:E38D:482C (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:HEY I copied content similar to other year's lists (and removed the lone (non-notable) film). Not sure what the criteria of "American" is so I might have included too many. IMDb list 4000+ American films for 2018 so some might be missing too. StrayBolt (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StrayBolt: So instead of fixing the article you literally just created a WP:CFORK. That doesn’t help at all. That’s going to have to be undone. You can’t just copy one article and past it to the next.Trillfendi (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: Until Wikipedia has better tools to filter tables or generate them from Wikidata, there will be violations of Don't repeat yourself. I started what has been done for other articles like List of American films of 2017 or List of British films of 2018. I did a first pass reducing the list to ones which said "US". I left the "Country" column until I knew if it was only-"US" or included-"US". The article can be expanded to include other info about American films. An alternative is to have the variety of style tables, as in other countries lists like List of Japanese films of 2018 or List of Australian films of 2018, but most of the content would still be the same. Maybe this should be worked out by WT:FILM. StrayBolt (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just so everyone is aware, there is category covering every other year in American films Category:Lists of American films by year. It would not make sense to discuss this one but not the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the state of the article after substantial improvements on 17 January.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. Agree with StrayBolt and go for WP:MULTIAFD. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImmortalWizard: Just to clarify, I am not suggesting MULTIAFD, but for improvements to WP like Wikipedia:Category intersection or table filters to reduce the duplication of info. Views into these datasets would then become articles. Templates can be used now to reduce duplication and have only one source, in the same way this AfD is replicated in many discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can’t do 100+ AfDs at the same time.... Trillfendi (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Cutbush (cricketer)[edit]

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

Biography which fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCRIC. None of the matches he played in were first-class, despite the claims of the article, so he fails the technical aspects of NCRIC and ATHLETE. Beyond that we have nothing other than a name on two scorecards and an array of speculation, some of it seemingly based on original research - the CricketArchive entry for Cutbush has no place of birth and only places him in one of the two matches he is claimed to have taken part in. This is really not sufficient to build a biography so fails GNG. Contested PROD with no reason given. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of OR and incorrect claims in the article. Fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet GNG, and with the cricket inclusion criteria ludicrously broad, that is the only standard we should consider at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Ziaei Parvar[edit]

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

WP:N. The article has been deleted in Persian Wikipedia. It seems self-written. Ladsgroup^overleg 11:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual claim to notability is made for a this working journalist with a page WP:REFBOMBed with press releases ( "Dr. Ziaei Parvar Becomes Head of PR at Cultural Heritage". Dana News Agency. September 30, 2014.); his resume ("Dr. Hamid Ziaei Parvar's Resume" (PDF). Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology. September 29, 2016.); and teh schedule of a meeting he perhaps attended ("Schedule of Expertise Meeting of House of Iranian Journalists in Book Fair". Deputy of Press Affairs and Information in Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. September 29, 2016.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet notability criteria for people and the sources are used to mask the lack of notability. Pahlevun (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The same goes for Maryam Salimi. Pahlevun (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Milburn[edit]

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

I started cleaning up this article, but it looks more and more as if this artist lacks all notability. His art movement Omni art (a long article before I redirected it here) has received no attention as far as I can tell. The references to the village voice are an ad Milburn posted in that publication, not an article about him. The article is not a hoax or anything, Milburn has self-published a book and has a regular podcast, and has received some attention from fringe websites, but it seems that no reliable sources (books, newspapers, art magazines) have as yet given him much attention. Fram (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this (and Omni art, whcih is redirected here). This is a masterful piece of promotion, given that nothing beyond the most minuscule passing mentions are available in RS. There might be a tiny smidgen more in sources for Omni art, but I very much doubt it. GNG fail for both this article and Omni art. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I couldn't find any RS to support GNG. --Theredproject (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe in Science[edit]

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

Drewmutt and I think this is spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What RHaworth said. If you were to remove all the lavish praise about the subject, there'd be no article left. I don't read Arabic, but it's worth noting that interviews don't constitute independent coverage of the subject. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the interviews are not independent coverage and create no weight in favor of notability. There was discussion in the Arabic AfD about potentially removing those quotes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG. Looks like pure spam. Skirts89 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is not spam (though there is a promotional tone I think needs to be edited out), though I have no issue with an AFD to test notability. I approved this article out of AfC after discussion with the article's creator, Abdullah Arfa. This discussion was preserved at Talk:I Believe in Science, and ideally can be restored during this AfD, if RHaworth would oblige. The references which pushed me into taking the article out of AfC purgatory included the Arabic language articles in legitimate newspapers El Watan and Asharq Al-Awsat, and my review of the Arabic wikipedia AfD discusssion at ar:ويكيبيديا:نقاش الحذف/أنا أصدق العلم, where the article was kept.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Talk now restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not very sure what's the problem of the article. If notability, then I disagree. The project is mentioned in many major Arabic newspapers in Egypt and Lebanon and registered legally in Lebanon and it has millions of followers on social media (the largest in the Arab world). If the problem is praising the project which isn't compatible with Wikipedia, I'd love to know what exactly to edit it or you can edit it to be compatible with Wikipedia policies. --Abdullah Arfa (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been shown on AR Wiki and the promo stuff is ultimately just a page-quality issue. FOARP (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep, providing that there is no credible challenge to the reliability or depth-of-coverage of the Arabic sources. All the rest falls under deletion is not cleanup, and it can be cleaned up if there are good sources. SpinningSpark 19:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per last to comments above. Perf115 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC) strike sock vote -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I have no knowledge of Arabic (I’m trying though) I don’t see sustained coverage from reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searching in Google about this website yield results that are mostly from their website or from Facebook pages which both are not reliable. in addition, there's many unrelated results and the coverage in English is not enough as the quotations attributed to Robert Weinberg and Lawrence Krauss are relying on YouTube videos which is also not reliable and may have much different interpretations .--مصعب (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:WEBCRIT, with coverage in four independent, reliable, non-trivial published already included as references in the article. (I have replaced one source with the same article in the English-language version of the website. There is no problem with non-English language sources, but when an English one is available, it seems sensible to use it.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability documented, if not in English.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, "Keep", but there's sort of COI, per user edit summaries = A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject --Alaa :)..! 14:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient evidence of importance, despite the coi. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a couple of references from the Arabic WP that still haven't been used. Many are clustered around a few events/times so picking the best from those clusters can help support the English version. StrayBolt (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IT@School Project#School Wiki. Feel free to merge anything from history. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 19:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

School wiki[edit]

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

Not notable. Article seems to be more of an advertisement, all sources are from their own site, and after a WP:BEFORE I found very little to support a claim of notability. Sivanannanfva (talk)

Procedural Note: This nomination was never transcluded for discussion in a daily AFD log. I have now transcluded it, please consider the time of this comment as the listing time when closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Sourcing in reliable sources is plentiful for this 1 2 3 4. Clear failure to do WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Lacks notable refs. Appears to fail WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IT@School Project#School Wiki. This topic is marginally notable but I see no need for a separate page since all encyclopaedic material can be included in the target section. Just Chilling (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this nomination is by a blocked sock. Just Chilling (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - sock nom. Balkywrest (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to IT@School Project#School Wiki - The website is more or less notable but not enough for a standalone article - Would be better off merged imho. –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will move International (disambiguation) here in a minute. Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International[edit]

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

Reason 14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This article reads like a dictionary entry and does not contain relevant encyclopedic content. "Wikipedia articles are not: (1.) Definitions. Articles should begin with a good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them. In some cases, the definition of a word may be an encyclopedic subject, such as the definition of planet. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Dictionary definitions should be transwikied there. (2.) Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable." The authors of this page may consider integrating some of it into Wiktionary. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Human-potato hybrid (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it to the disambiguation page.Trillfendi (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough in the article to get it past WP:GNG and have it not fail WP:DICDEF, particularly the detailed comments on its etymology and the list of how it's used in different contexts. SportingFlyer talk 21:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per Trillfendi I would say redirect it to the disambiguation page. However, there's no need to have the disambiguation in parentheses so I would suggest using pageswap and then redirecting International (disambiguation) to International, because the content of (what will become) International (disambiguation) is merely a dictionary definition, something Wikipedia isn't. SITH (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a bad dictdef/DAB hybrid, the existing DAB page International (disambiguation) should be moved here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and move the disambiguation page to this location. NoCOBOL (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There is definitely a notable concept of something being "international". This may, however, benefit from being moved to a noun title such as Internationality. If it is moved, we can have a separate discussion about whether to keep "International" as a redirect to that title, or move the dab. bd2412 T 00:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and move the dab page over. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ~~Also, only the sports example is synonymous with the word in the "Meaning in particular fields" section.~~ Now that I think about it, I'm not sure even that's true. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the disambiguation page over. Use Template:Wiktionary on International disambiguation page. —Ntmamgtw (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the form of this article could be changed to make it seem less dictionary-like.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be merged with a more detailed dab page; I see no unifying concept for the examples in the article besides the common use of a dictionary word in various contexts. Reywas92^Talk 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Adia[edit]

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

I do not see why the individual is notable. Being an unsuccessful election candidate does not create notability. Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any notability standard. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NPOL as only a candidate in a primary election for the US House of Representatives. --Enos733 (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft. Copyediting required before recreation. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe draft, per above. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 18:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, but there's no evidence here that she had any preexisting notability for other reasons independently of being a candidate either. Not even draftworthy, as there's literally nothing here that would even approach a valid notability claim for the purposes of getting this back into mainspace again. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nya Lee[edit]

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

Rapper who does not meet NMUSICIAN or GNG. She is on a reality show but still fails WP:ENT because she doesn't have multiple notable roles. She is not signed to a notable label and hasn't had any singles chart or anything else that meets the subject-specific criteria. Citrivescence (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I knew that name sounded familiar.... The problem with many people who go on Love & Hip Hop (who aren’t already notable à la Joe Budden) is that the majority of them don’t have reliable sources so the editor relies on VH1 who employs the subject. Unacceptable. (Even Cardi B had this problem at one point, though.) Trillfendi (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Trillfendi. Not enough reliable and notable sources that focus on her specifically - the Respect Mag interview works, but a quick google news search only turns up celebrity/hip hop/TV blogs and a brief mention in a BET article about Erica Mena. However, some of the info involving Trina or Cardi B might be worth merging into List_of_Love_&_Hip_Hop:_New_York_cast_members#Nya_Lee. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 17:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nya Lee is extremely notable as a rapper and tv personality. The resources that are presented on this page clearly identifies Nya as notable person. Emilywlk (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The linked draft should be sent to WP:MFD to be discussed on its own merits. clpo13_(talk) 16:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here Be Dragons (company)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions, and / or WP:SPIP. A spot check of references reveal that they do not mention either "Here be Dragons" nor "DIVISION7", such as The Verge; instead, they discuss the projects that the company produced, w/o mentioning the latter. Created by Special:Contributions/Meramiao with no other contributions outside this topic.

Agreeing that Here Be Dragons does not meet WP:CORP and should be deleted. Norway idealist18 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A draft has been recently created for the new name of the company by accounts that only edited related subjects (Special:Contributions/Interiordesign girl 179 & Special:Contributions/Gabbybrownnyc); I recommend deleting it as well:

Draft:DIVISION7

-- K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another great example of Notability is not inherited. While this organization associates with subject matter that may be notable, the references fail the criteria for establishing the notability of the organization itself. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little in the way of real sources. Most of whats there seems to documenting their own work history. No real notability. Curious how a new draft has been created. I hope its not the start of a new pattern. Delete both scope_creep^Talk 10:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfenoot[edit]

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

essentially nonsense DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nonsense?, yes it is. But very notable nonsense. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I have been won over by superior logic. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, meme with no indication of lasting coverage. The article (and a Google News search) does not even indicate that it was celebrated/marked the first year it was proposed.-gadfium 05:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no lasting coverage. Honestly this is really a WP:TOOSOON situation; Wolfenoot has had a more promising start than 99.99% of the other holiday ideas proposed by children, but it still has a ways to go before it becomes a real holiday in any sense. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no "lasting effect/enduring significance"; coverage is limited to immediate period after its creation. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Agricultural science. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geoponic[edit]

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

This article is about a rarely used technical word from the 19th century. Current use of the word in news articles and literature are isolated and are either not informative as to the specific meaning, or seem to be in conflict with the established meaning. Searching for sources, the term geoponics seems to mean whatever the user of the term wants it to mean. Due to an absence of reliable sources upon which to build content, this article cannot be expanded beyond a definition using reliable sources. See WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Paleorthid (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into agricultural science, which is the same topic. Andrew D. (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is possibly an advertisement for geoponicscorp.com , then redirect the term to "Cash crop" or "Farm" or "agricultural science"--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Hilker[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for many reasons. 1) No inline citations and random “references” improperly jumbled at the bottom. 2) WP:NOTRESUME 3) When you actually do a search on him, there is no significant coverage anywhere.
Delete and draft. Not many inline citations and most of the refs are unreliable. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Babina (film)[edit]

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

Complete failure to satisfy WP:NFILM - only sources I could find were either primary, non-independent or 2 line mentions.

Afaict A9 would not apply, but that would logically make sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk)

21:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Everybody, this article should not be deleted because it's one of Ghana's old movies in the early party of 2000's which the locals or the indigence liked a lot. The movies is much popular in Ghana till date, if you search for it you would be amazed of the number of search queries or information you would find, as time goes the article would surely be improved upon Jwale2 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references here and more info about the screenwriter. The last source does not have much about the film itself but a bio of the screenwriter. There are however, lots of references about the movie but they are in snippets which I cannot access. Considering the age of this Ghanaian (a developing country) movie and the close proximity to the internet age particularly in Africa, I think we are more likely to find more RS in old newspaper publications and magazines which may not be available online. I am actually surprised there are online references to this movie given its age, which in my view adds to its notability. I will be adding some refs to the article.Tamsier (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamsier: - I'm not sure any of these arguments really hold up. Coverage of the screenwriter can't be INHERITED by the film. There's a source that covers the content/appearance of a trailer, but isn't a review so doesn't resolve any of NFILM's criteria. Most of the rest of your statement is WP:MUSTBESOURCES - you may well be right that there are offline sources. But that doesn't mean we can just assume their existence. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you or I cannot view the snippet sources does not mean they are unverifiable. WP:PAYWALL may apply here. My comment above was not referring to inherit.Tamsier (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film simply isn’t notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A German master's thesis on Ghanaian film had a chapter on the Babina films (there were three of them, or one film released in three parts if you like). Here is a link to an online working paper version of that thesis: [5]. More importantly for establishing notability, Babina was one of the subjects of the documentary Ghanaian Video Tales by Tobias Wendl, sponsored by DFG (Federal German Research Foundation). Website for documentary: [6], description of contents by Nordic Anthropological Film Association: [7]. That suggests notability under WP:NFO#2, "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." Of course it may meet WP:GNG or one of the other WP:NFO criteria as well. Bakazaka (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a quick note on "notability is not inherited": this is a film, not an organization or album. Sure, WP:INHERITED is part of an essay on arguments to avoid in AfD discussions. But WP:NFO is a film notability guideline in which the "inclusionary criteria" include "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." So that possibility should be at least considered rather than dismissed. Bakazaka (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: - an interesting point, and certainly I should have been more careful about my INHERITED statement. However, alongside that inclusionary criteria is "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." - in practical effect, it only can gain notability if it is a legitimate CONTENTFORK off the notable person's own page. None of the cast/directors etc has their own page, so I don't think this holds up, and certainly their pages wouldn't be so busy that they couldn't include the entirety of this article. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there. (Warning: The following is a comment about Wikipedia, not any editors in this discussion.) But the fact that Wikipedia is not very good with African subjects, especially women, is a reason to improve content rather than delete it, in my opinion. Kalsoume Sinare, for example, is clearly notable, but she doesn't have a Wikipedia article. (Her husband plays football, so of course he does: Anthony Baffoe). That said, the academic sources and the documentary are covering the significance and impact of the film, especially its visual language and symbolism, which wouldn't be great content for an actor's article. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't have to be able to read the snippets, we know they exist and that's enough per WP:NEXIST. These sources just about get it over the line for notability 1 2 3 FOARP (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd and 3rd of those have nowhere near enough content to qualify - they aren't snippeting for me, in any case, they can be read normally. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the problem I have with NEXIST. Just because it EXISTS doesn’t make it usable, reliable, or even relevant. NFILM’s guidelines are clear as day. Trillfendi (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST is about the existence of sources, not about the existence of the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A couple of the available reliable sources are here and here. It seems that people are imposing much higher standards on African films than are expected for American or European films. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coming back to this discussion to !vote. The film already meets WP:NFO#2 as one of the subjects of the documentary listed above, so that's technically enough by itself. Additionally, in the course of creating a page for Kalsoume Sinare, it became clear that this film was a major part of her career, and was also a major part (indeed, the launch) of Leila Djansi's career, which is further reason under the WP:NFO inclusionary criteria for having an article on the film. Having two reasonable targets also precludes redirecting or merging the article, and there is enough material in the sources already provided to improve the article considerably. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Group[edit]

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

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. Balkywrest (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written, however even a cursory search for "ויולה" in Hebrew gnews shows ample sourcing for this (arguably) largest business group of ita kind in Israel (they are mainly active in the local market).Icewhiz (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage satisfying WP:ORGCRIT:
And more is available - this is arguably the largest PE firm in Israel, and has been active since 1999. Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by Icewhiz. b uidhe 16:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz'z points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanse the Bacteria[edit]

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

Can't find evidence that this album meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. The only website that seems to have any info on it is discogs. It's mentioned in a few books on the history of punk/metal but always in passing, never in any substantial way. Ajpolino (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, my own BEFORE sweep didn't pick up more than short mentions in any reliable source. I don't think a redirect to Pushead is appropriate - I don't think people looking for it would be happier to be redirected to the producer. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (Swore I voted on this already but it appears not). Anyway, the fact that no sources were given is red flag for me. Automatic delete. Trillfendi (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychologist. Randykitty (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academic psychologist[edit]

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

Personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content seemed rather tendentious so I rewrote it. See WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numerous hits on the term in books and scholar searches. The article obviously needs the attention of an expert in the field to make it more than the current stub, but the term itself seems to be used enough to be notable. Neiltonks (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychologist. Redundant content fork, since much more information on academic psychologists is already included in the main article, and the distinction "academic" appears to be used primarily to distinguish psychologists from psychiatrists in publications aimed at laymen who hear "psychologist" and the image that jumps to mind is Frasier, but this distinction is one we already make with our separate psychologist and psychiatrist articles. Andrew's claim above and in his edit summary to have "rewritten" the page is misleading, as what he really did was blank it and replace it with a single sentence that made it an even more useless content fork than before. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction made by the term "academic psychologist" is from "clinical psychologist" rather than "psychiatrist", in the same way that an academic lawyer is different from a practising lawyer. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's now less tendentious, but only a dictionary entry. Hard to see why a separate article is required. Rathfelder (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. This term is presumably used to distinguish an academic psychologist from a worker in popular psychology or an applied psychologist (worker in clinical, occupational or educational psychology). Do other sciences (physics, biology and chemistry) have a separate article on academic workers in their fields, to distinguish them from "popular science" or "applied science"? Vorbee (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vorbee not that I can find. Nor do other professional fields. We do not, for example, have social work and academic social work, but the first sentence of Social work states: "Social work is an academic discipline and profession that..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just needs cleanup & improvement. Term itself is notable. Skirts89 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skirts89: What do you mean by "notable"? Can you give an example of encyclopedic content that could be included in the page under discussion but not Psychologist, the page of which I contend it is a content fork? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to psychologist or DELETE. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This common English usage is not a topic, merely a juxtaposition of two words with perfectly obvious plain English meanings. Note that we do not have articles on academic chemist, academic physician, or academic attorney although some attorneys practice while others are full time academics. This is not a topic, even though some advice books /articles have been published for psychologists who wish to pursue academic research careers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to psychologist (otherwise delete). This distinction is not necessary at all. Do we really need "academic physicist", "academic zoologist", "academic sociologist", academic archaeologist", "academic computer scientist", etc.? MarkH21 (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) WP:NOTDICTIONARY and 2) nothing notable is even presented in this “article” it’s literally one goddamn sentence. Trillfendi (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite Andrew Davidson's rewrite from this version, I feel neither iteration offers anything significant beyond that already available at either Psychologist or Research psychologist. I had considered suggesting a 'redirect' to the latter but, surprisingly, the former actually offers better careers guidance, and I don't feel a redirect can be justified in this instance. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Kocianova[edit]

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

Proposing this article for deletion because a) none of the sources given are reliable to confirm any statement about her career. Nothing I’ve tried to find has. B) Given the timeline of director Guy Richie’s divorce from Madonna to his relationship with his now-wife Jacqui Ainsley, it’s not possible that she “dated” him as the one source given here claims. All she did was allegedly work on a 5 minute job he directed with no source. That Grazia link doesn’t even work. And the other is a defunct online magazine that took the rumor from the non-existent Grazia link that is simply the homepage. C) while I have no knowledge of the Czech language, from what I could determine from Czech sources is that they only talk about gossip from her love life. Nothing about her career has been found. Trillfendi (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how it's relevant to her career, but Guy Ritchie's page says that he and Madonna divorced at the end of 2008, and "he had been dating Jacqui Ainsley since 2010". The Gazette in Montreal carried a story on 21 April 2010 that Michaela Kocianova told News of the World that "Guy Ritchie fell in love with me because of my nose". [8] It seems perfectly possible that he could have dated Kocianova before that date in 2010, and Ainsley later in the year. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not relevant to her career at all but the only two “sources” given here, only one visible, claim she dated Richie and put more emphasis on that than her actual career. While plausible, I guess (initially I misread the divorce date as later than that), it wasn’t the relationship the source tried to make it appear to be (probably why they deleted it). Pure gossip, nothing that contributed to the article to begin with. Trillfendi (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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