Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 May	2 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphire Partners[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 23:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources are primary. Digging deeper, even on the company's website, the only press release in existence is the one in the article. There are no indepent third-party mentions of the company that I could find. A agree with the nominator, the company fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Orville1974 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a new property investment firm, created by a new editor, and with only primary sources. No evidence of notability provided or found. (Note that there is a similarly named UK-based executive recruitment firm.) AllyD (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Norminator. Lapablo (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete., per above. Alex-h (talk) 09:05, 7 June 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 Youth detention center. MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secure units for children[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Youth detention center - The headmeads site returns a 404. It looks like part of it may have moved to youngminds.org.uk, but I couldn't find the jargon buster page. The essay puts forth the same concept as a youth detention center. Orville1974 (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Orville1974: I think the new URL is http://web.archive.org/web/20150116012957/http://www.headmeds.org.uk/about/medfacts-jargon-buster Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes youth detention centers throughout, only mentioning a psychiatric setting in the last sentence (making that sentence align with the headmeds article above). Was it meant to be a disambiguation of different secure units for children: Youth detention center and psychiatric wards (under "inpatient treatment") in the Psychiatry article? Orville1974 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources or indication of notability, and about a quarter of the text is copied from [1]. A7 does not apply because the subject is not a specific company or organization. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a specific concept in the UK where it is quite notable. A selection of sources follows. See also WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children in Secure Accommodation
Children's Rights and the Developing Law
Rethinking Residential Child Care
Children Behind Bars
Secure Accommodation in Child Care
Children's Homes: A History of Institutional Care for Britain’s Young
Child Care Protection Law and Practice
Secure Accommodation Handbook

If someone wants to write a referenced article on the subject, that's fine. But what we have wont do. Better to turn it into a redirect to Youth detention center which is another name for a similar thing. Rathfelder (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, The subject is interesting can be moved to other articles such as the one suggested by Orville1974, Alex-h (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Youth detention center. The concepts appear to be similar enough that they can be covered in a single article, rather than being WP:SPLIT into a stub. Rorshacma (talk) 18:24, 7 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prison handball[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 11 years Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7. Looking at the American Handball article, under the existing Variations heading, there is a similar mention of school handball with a "citation needed" annotation. Most likely because it's easy to acknowledge that at some schools, children play a variation of American handball, but the actual method of play most likely varies from schoolyard to schoolyard (where it is played), just like prison handball rules would vary from prison to prison. There would be no definitive set of rules or method of play that would define what school handball or prison handball actually is. For example, the prison handball article in one place states, "Unlike in standard American rules, the ball is thrown directly to the wall, not requiring a bounce before service," only to contradict itself later by stating that in Texas, the ball must bounce on the ground first. Is it really only in Texas prisons? Is it all Texas prisons or just some of them? How would anyone know without a single cited source? The article is also riddled with usually, sometimes, and commonly, indicating that even the author is aware that there is no consistent way to describe the subject of the article. Orville1974 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really think this meets the criteria for speedy deletion for reasons I mention below. I'd be interested to hear, however, why you think it meets A7, since I'm not especially familiar with speedy deletion. TheTechnician27 (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons listed by Rathfelder and Orville1974. Ultimately I don't think it meets WP:ACSD or WP:GCSD; specifically, I feel that A7 isn't satisfied because the article claims it is a "popular sport" (regardless of this claim's accuracy). As an aside, I think handball in prisons could have a mention in American handball, even if the rules aren't different. For example, here's a good article I found on the subject. Likewise, here's another. TheTechnician27 (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A7 can apply "if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible." For the reasons listed in my speedy delete recommendation above, I'm asserting that the claim isn't credible since the concept of prison handball as a "popular sport" can't even be described. Orville1974 (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So based on WP:CCOS, this ostensibly only applies to when the claim is "evidently false". That is to say that – with the exception of obvious hoaxes ("a claim so improbable that no one of sound mind would believe it") – it appears the burden of proof is placed on the editor citing A7, something which is basically infeasible with such a nebulous claim for such an obscure topic. I want to depart from being serious for a moment to say that this conversation is ridiculous, and this excerpt had me in stitches: "'Unlike in standard American rules, the ball is thrown directly to the wall, not requiring a bounce before service,' only to contradict itself later by stating that in Texas, the ball must bounce on the ground first. Is it really only in Texas prisons? Is it all Texas prisons or just some of them?" TheTechnician27 (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- lower important Anupam (talk) 19:41, 02 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge with American handball. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 4 June 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Labia Theatre[edit]

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

Edit: See comment below

The subject of this article is not noteworthy under WP:GNG. Almost no coverage whatsoever has been given to the theatre, let alone in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see also: WP:INDISCRIMINATE). I originally proposed this article for deletion, but the PROD was removed on its last day, as one editor contested the subject was "of historical interest" without any further explanation.

Not only is the 'History' section of this article entirely uncited, but the only source that even attests to some of the information in that section is published by the theatre itself. As an aside, the three sources currently referenced in the entire article are Google Maps, a crowdfunding page for the theatre, and a promotional video hosted on Vimeo about the crowdfunding effort. Moreover, the article reads like a promotional piece, with the most egregious example of this being: "For the past 37 years, it has been operating as a cinema on the alternative circuit appealing mainly to the more discerning viewer who enjoys its quality product and the charm of its old-world ambience." I should note that this line is plagiarized almost word-for-word from the theatre's website (see the 'History' tab) and that this is not the only instance of word-for-word plagiarism in the article. The self-promotion is toned down from what it was a few years ago, but it still functions as an advertisement with effectively no encyclopedic merit.

To reiterate, the subject is not notable per WP:GNG, portions of the article constitute blatant plagiarism, and most of the article is completely unreferenced. TheTechnician27 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as a weak keep due to one additional source. Guess it's time to go help rebuild the article almost entirely from scratch then. TheTechnician27 (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the building does seem to be of historic interest and I will try and find out if it is the subject of a preservation order as buildings that are so protected are usually kept on Wikipedia. Regarding the tone of the article that can be re-edited, and as for deprodding on the last day that is to allow for other's input to the article before the time is up and it can be assessed in its final state, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You continue to use this nebulous term "historic interest" – which I would contend is a weasel word – to justify keeping the article, as though it carries any weight for Wikipedia's notability guidelines; WP:NBUILD, while it mentions historic importance, basically defers to WP:GNG, which stipulates that the subject should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A good-faith search for said coverage has shown me that the theatre falls completely short of these guidelines. Moreover, I highly doubt that it's a protected historical site. I could find no evidence whatsoever that it is, and it would seem incredibly strange that the theatre wouldn't have this achievement listed on their site if they were. If, shockingly, they are, of course, that isn't where the goalpost is; the goalpost is significant, reliable, third-party coverage. As far as the plagiarism and the advertising go, that can be fixed and doesn't necessarily reflect on the subject's notability (see: WP:ARTN), but it shows the state of disrepair that the article is in and has been in for years. I'm legitimately confused by what you mean by "in its final state", as though there's ongoing work on this article. That PROD was instated over half a year ago, yet no substantial changes have been made to the article. TheTechnician27 (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I think that all of the content added in this 2015 edit is part of the problem. Not only was it filched wholesale, from the not-independent sources given in the edit summary (e.g. TripAdvisor), but it contained completely unencyclopaedic content (e.g. direct exhortations to the reader to buy things, and "Hey, they pay the rent.") because of that. Normally, on the ground of copyright I would zap the current derived work and start from the preceding version, which was a decent stub. But looking around I am unable to find any independent sources to corroborate any of this. Moreover, this edit was purportedly directly from a source, without any external confirmation at all and with some unsupported negative biographical material. The only source of any information on this subject is the subject, which could claim anything that it liked, and has done both directly in Wikipedia and in its own self-publicity. I cannot even independently confirm the contents of the stub with good sources. No reliable and independent source that I can find has ever documented, fact checked, and published any of this claimed history. Uncle G (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So I've been doing some digging, and I've managed to dig up a few sources with the theatre as their subject. What I'm presenting, however, is all I've been able to find, and calling it "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources" is grasping; the historical information is ostensibly derived solely from the owner or others affiliated with the theatre, most of the articles barely touch on the history, and many of them feel like essays rather than news stories. The first and most significant is this article published by the Daily Maverick that got republished in The Guardian through their Africa network; even this source barely touches on any historical significance, and a direct quote from the theatre's owner in the article says: "It's quite a sketchy history. I'm not quite sure whether everything is factual." The second comes from the Mail & Guardian, the author of which has never written another article for them and whose "own history with the Labia began in 1981"; more than anything, the article unsurprisingly reads like a personal essay. From the eNCA, this article is a short birthday celebration, and all of the (limited) historical information comes directly from the owner himself. Finally, this article from the Mail & Guardian doesn't touch on historical relevance whatsoever, and instead talks about the fundraising effort. I was hoping to be swayed, but it's still a strong 'delete' from me. This might serve better as its own section in some other article, but it's ridiculous for it to have its own separate article. TheTechnician27 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagree as there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG such as

this,

this one,

[2],

this,

this one, some of them you have dismissed but the coverage is substantial and in reliable sources and the last one I mentioned is controversial and certainly independent. I'm changing to a full keep Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Atlantic306, including for this substantial news article coverage (the second "this" in A's list above). And it is apparently the oldest independent theater in South Africa. And the sources more than suffice, are more than what routinely meets requirements for historic theaters in the U.S.; we should not set a much higher barrier for S.A. --Doncram (talk) 04:25, 4 June 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 Halloween (1978 film). MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Graham[edit]

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

Actor with questionable notability. Only one credited role. While the film he was credited in was notable, he is not (as was the film he was not credited in is notable). Either delete or redirect to Halloween (1978 film) Wgolf (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Does not meet WP:NACTOR but there is a chance that some future Jeopardy champion may look for their name here. MarnetteD|Talk 00:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Subject doesn't meet GNG. It seem that there a lot of Halloween/horror fans online searching for Subject. HM Wilburt (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to remove once and for all all articles that are only cited to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 5 June 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. Notwithstanding the lack of rationale from the nominator, there is a clear consensus for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad nicknames[edit]

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

I think this article should get deleted. ATSFRailfan (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply a reason, based upon Wikipedia:deletion policy, why. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being unencyclopedic. I don't see the purpose of such lists.
Also, most of the sources fail the reliable source criteria since they are personal websites. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove questionably sourced entries. There are reliable sources listed, including an 1890 New York Times article, a Railroad History article, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On second look, there doesn't appear to be much other than the sources I have enumerated. I'm surprised. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This and this are certainly not reliable sources and that takes out most of the list. The individual railroad articles are welcome to include well-sourced nicknames, but even with the few reliable sources here, there's not much evidence for how widespread these mainly perjoratives were or evidence that this is a independently notable topic. Reywas92^Talk 20:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE; in particular, this is a near-perfect example of simple listings without context information that do not pertain to a clear, specific topic. As there are potentially thousands of railroads that could be considered, and numerous names can be proposed for each, there is no way to determine what qualifies for such a list regardless of the availability of sources. Furthermore, some sources used in the article are also indiscriminate and unreliable (per Reywas92), which means that many more miscellaneous names are included. As this list has no clear means of selecting which names to include (or at least not with its current title which is very broad), it could also grow indefinitely without clear boundaries. Thus, I would suggest only mentioning verified, commonly used nicknames in the articles about specific railroads. ComplexRational (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic, verging on original research, despite being sourced, some point to blog posts which cant be used on Wiki. Nightfury 14:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination doesn't contain a valid reason to delete and so there's no case to answer. The page has been here for over 13 years, has had a reasonable amount of good-faith editing and thousands of readers. We should not delete this on a whim. Andrew D. (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, but the other voters have given a valid reason to delete. Norminator not providing a reason to delete isn't a valid reason to keep. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As stated, the vast majority of the entries here are either being sourced off of non-reliable sources, or seemingly complete WP:OR. ComplexRational also makes a very strong argument pertaining to WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As several editors have already mentioned, the very few (if any) nicknames that might actually be verified by reliable sources can be included in the individual railroads' articles. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree that this is sourced to mostly dubious references. ComplexRational makes good points too. Reyk _YO! 15:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion - As the nominator's WP:NOREASON (argument was so compelling), and I can't argue with the it's WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC responses. Orville1974 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seriously, though, if the nickname is prominent enough, it should be in the related article's content. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIR, and WP:NOTSLANG. Orville1974 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 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. Sandstein 21:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Duggan (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor in a non-global city and an as yet unelected candidate for higher political office. As always, neither of these are notability claims that get a person into Wikipedia: a parliamentary candidate has to win the election and thereby hold the seat to pass WP:NPOL #1, and a city councillor has to serve in an internationally recognized global city to pass NPOL #2. And furthermore, the only sources here are his own primary source campaign website and two minor community hyperlocals, which is nowhere near enough coverage to claim that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 21 if he wins the federal election, but nothing here is a reason why he would already qualify for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hull—Aylmer. If he's not elected his non-election will remain noted there indefinitely. If he is elected this article can be recreated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates do not meet WP:NPOL notability. As Bearcat mentioned, Gatineau is not a big enough city to qualify for NPOL 2. If he wins in October we can revisit. Bkissin (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates do not meet WP:NPOL notability (and neither does being a member of Gatineau City Council), and while election results live on the Hull—Aylmer page, the page is about a political geography, not a person or campaign. If there were a list of 2019 Conservative Party Candidates in Quebec or similar, that would be an appropriate target for a redirect. --Enos733 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates do not meet WP:NPOL notability (and neither does being a member of Gatineau City Council). If he wins we can recreate his page Kevinhanit (talk) 23:38, 6 June 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. The article has been massively expanded since the AFD was filed. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zuleika (given name)[edit]

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

The deletion writes itself. (Before the Peanut Gallery gets mad, you’ve got to be on bath salts to think ^[1] is an acceptable method of reference. Trillfendi (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ 1990 U.S. Census

Comment I would remind the nominator that article content does not determine notability - the fact that the article is currently poorly referenced is not a reason to delete it. I'm not familiar with AfD precedent regarding articles on names, but I'll note that this name at least meets the notability criteria suggested by Wikiproject Anthroponymy at WP:NNAME. Colin M (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’re gonna be hard-pressed to find reliable sources for notability of the name itself. "But... somebody in the Bible had it!" isn’t sufficient. Trillfendi (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two edits later, it is a perfectly valid set index article. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the "reference" is 3 words inside of a ref tag. Next y’all are gonna say Babynames.com, Nameberrg, and BabyCenter are reasonable. Trillfendi (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove that claim and reference if they bother you, as it makes no difference one way or the other to a set index article. By the same token, your deletion rationale does not apply to a set index article. Bakazaka (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NNAME states that "A name article usually contains either a list of entries that link to other articles or a wikilink to a list article. If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created." English Wikipedia has 12 articles about real people named Zuleika (or a variant thereof), as well as 4 other Zuleika articles about books, films or musicals. That's not including the biblical Zuleika. (I realise that is an essay not a policy, but I have seen AfD rationales saying that there are no notable people with a name, so an article on the name is not needed, so it appears that consensus is following the essay on names that are otherwise not well referenced.) I have added two sources for the origin and meaning of the name, and many more could be found (there is no need for websites about first names when there are many published books from reputable publishers). RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book, film, musical belong on the main dab page, but that still leaves plenty of people and fictional characters with the name. There are a zillion other given name lists, so why is this one being singled out? Me leika. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page history exists.... But all of a sudden, just as I suspected, random "baby name" books that give absolutely no meaning, definition, or depth to a name, only providing a modicum and fragment of trivia, are being use to mitigate the of dearth of sources. Trillfendi (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Collins, Random House and Oxford University Press are not "random" publishers. They give what meaning is known. As the previous editor says, why is this name list singled out, of all the many on Wikipedia? If there were no notable people with the name, it might make sense to delete it, but that is not the case here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one said the publishers were random. I definitely said book. "Perfect Babies’ Names"? Meaning unknown? Come on now. Trillfendi (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want them to make the meaning up? And what does the title of a reference book have to do with keeping the list article? We could delete that reference and add another with a title you approve of, of course. Does the title A Dictionary of First Names meet with your approval? Or are you requiring a book with the title A List of Zuleikas, or The Name Zuleika? Since you didn't actually give a deletion rationale, it's not clear what you think the problem with the article is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly normal given name article with a long index of articles about women with that name or variants thereof. A few more sources and a bit about origin was added. Since nom fails to advance any argument for deletion, and nobody else has !voted "delete", this discussion may be closed as speedy keep under WP:SK1. Sam Sailor 10:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and note that User:Trillfendi must indeed be on bath salts (drug) to consider this an acceptable deletion nomination. Please stop nominating so many articles when you clearly don’t understand the criteria. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated the article it looked like this with no actual citations. If that’s an acceptable "article" to you, regardless of the subject, then oh well. I don’t care what random people have the name (not that there’s even an actual policy for it), a name is notable when there are reliable sources for its history (and it’s not saying U.S. census). Learn how to read or use a history page before you come at me. Trillfendi (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep comment writes itself. Bogger (talk) 10:36, 5 June 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. Sandstein 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Corsi Staub[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, whose notability claims are referenced entirely to primary sources and blogs rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about her in real media. For example, a literary award only constitutes a WP:AUTHOR pass if it's a major award for which media report on the award presentation as news, and not if it's a minor or local award that can be referenced only to its own self-published website about itself because media coverage about it is non-existent. There simply isn't even one reference present here at all that counts for anything whatsoever toward establishing her as notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is one of the most popular (top selling; widely held) suspense writers today. I was under the impression that the site of the awards would be more authoritative than mentions by third parties. I will cite reviews, bestseller rank info, etc., and see if I can find coverage of the awards. To what blog do you refer? Would it be helpful if I cited WorldCat to show library holdings? --DiamondRemley39

No, WorldCat wouldn't be helpful either. WorldCat is just a directory, not a publisher of editorial content. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. To which "blogs" I referenced do you refer (and object)?--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' and it's not even close. DiamondRemley is correct that there is an abundance of reviews which satisfy NAUTHOR. For example here is a list of the Publishers Weekly reviews of her books. There are also reviews by Library Journal (accessed via subscription database) and at least one Edgar nomination. And this was all just found using Wendy Corsi Staub, I imagine there is even more coverage if we look under her other pen names. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this, Barkeep49. I probably have access to LJ and other reviews through subscription databases. Should I go through and add more review citations to each work, as I did yesterday with the PW reviews? Or is it satisfactory that the reviews exist?--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that this is enough for Bearcat to reconsider his nomination and other AfD !voters to agree to keep her article. Longterm you need to find more biographical data from reliable sources. Things like this from Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works (Salem, 2007). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources exist to establist the notability of this popular genre writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNG of this author is clear. See comments of Barkeep49 Lubbad85 (☎) 22:37, 3 June 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. Sandstein 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Saltzman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television journalist, whose only apparent notability claim is that he exists and whose only sources are his own primary source staff profiles on the self-published website of his own employer. As always, journalists are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist: they need stronger notability claims than just existing, and they need reliable source coverage about them in sources that they aren't directly affiliated with. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, notability requirements haven't been met. Geoffroi (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not encyclopedic. Cox wasan (talk) 18:56, 6 June 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. Sandstein 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke (Danish band)[edit]

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

Certes took this to a discussion for redirects because she didn't agree with my deletion of the page. I am hereby initiating a discussion here to officially have the page removed. The page is entirely promotional and the band is not a known one to have its own Wikipedia page. There are also no verifiable sources to prove this band has sufficient notability to maintain this page. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has existed since 2005 though it is completely unreferenced and does not assert notability of the band. Note that a corresponding article on the Danish Wikipedia has a few sources, though I don't know if they're any good. Google search is tricky due to the name of the band and anything useful might not be in English. I did find this Danish language album review for whatever it's worth. PC78 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Rfd was to get advice on what to do with the remaining redirect, which targeted a dab with no information on the band. AfD is a better forum. I'm no expert on notability in music but a quick search suggests that the page should be deleted. Certes (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The band exists in Musicbrainz and Discogs, but it's not clear that they satisfy WP:BAND. Certes (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Danish band. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:09, 2 June 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. Sandstein 21:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Sawyer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASEBALL. An outside source did not find material to satisfy WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:NBASEBALL or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. References to news coverage such as The Gophers will start lefthander Dalton Sawyer, a true freshman from Waconia, Minn.. He is 2-2 with a 3.09 ERA, but all 17 of his appearances have come in relief. are very much trivial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:05, 7 June 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. Sandstein 21:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kasem bin Abubakar[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for two years. The single source is a widely circulated Agence France-Presse story. Searches of the usual Google types, including by name in Bengali script, found a few passing mentions and numerous Bengali-language editorials in response to the AFP piece. They more or less ask "Kasem bin Who?" and criticize the AFP article.[3][4][5][6][7][8] One agency piece (and the brief furor it caused in the opinion pages) neither meets WP:AUTHOR, nor constitutes significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Worldbruce (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly Delete. I did not find any Bangladeshi news information after searching google . —Apupam) 19:26, 1 June 2019)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TechVibes[edit]

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

Little to no notability, 210,527 rank shows why it is not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more input required before we can close this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing substantive sources to pass NCORP. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Listings, a routine acquisition announcement, and an item which only describes the subject as "a technology publication that also provides event listings and a job board to the startup community" are insufficient and my searches are not finding the coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:44, 2 June 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timbuktu Chronicles[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Neither entry in this set index references "Timbuktu Chronicles" as an alternative name. Although the name is referenced under "Further reading" in one of the entries, it's not an appropriate target for redirection as it does not provide detail for someone searching for the name. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: It's now very clear to me that the search results provided by Srnec are sufficient to keep this set index. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inadequacies in other articles do not invalidate this article. See this Google Scholar search. Srnec (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Srnec is right. It is fairly easy to find these items referred to as the "Timbuktu chronicles", even in academic literature and without context (e.g. ISBN 9780521887243 page 91, a CUP book by a UCLA history professor), and we do serve readers who might want to know what they are and come to Wikipedia in order to find out, by pointing them to the proper names of the subjects.
ISBN 9780253219619 page 24, an IUP book by a Pennsylvania State literature professor, confirms all assertions made in this article, were citing sources the norm for disambiguation articles. Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SMEC. I'm not bothered by the target articles not using the term, but a source verifying that this is what the chronicles consist of would be handy. SpinningSpark 19:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both. "Timbuktu Chronicles" also seems to be used as a collective term for these two chronicles, which the article could usefully spell out. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 2 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Saini[edit]

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

Promotional. Created by a blocked spammer. No reliable sources; dailyhunt and newzopedia use the exact same text. Vexations (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Effectively a commercial actors. scope_creep^Talk 18:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article of non-notable subject. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 06:11, 2 June 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. Sandstein 21:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Chadha[edit]

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

Promotional. Created by a blocked spammer. No reliable sources; they all use the exact same text. Vexations (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 5 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jianping Ge[edit]

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

Lots of references to what this professor has written - but where is the beef as to his notability? I don't see it. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as google scholar shows highly cited works, one with over 900 cites and five over 400 as shown here so criteria 1 of WP:ACADEMIC is passed, as it is determined by the number of cites so the article should be kept, regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC) struck as it was a different professor of the same name Atlantic306 (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mentioned works with high citation counts don't seem to be authored by him. "Superparamagnetic magnetite colloidal nanocrystal clusters" certainly doesn't seem like the work of an environmental economist. These publications aren't mentioned in the list of publications in the article either. --Tataral (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To avoid publications by that other Jianping Ge (who may well pass WP:PROF#C1) I searched Google Scholar by title for the publications listed in this article. The citation counts I found were 28, 27, 21, 18... with an h-index of 9. Spot-checking the 28-citation paper found that about a third of the listed citations were self-citations (I don't think this is any form of academic misconduct, it's just what happens when citation counts are low). In any case, this is not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and we don't seem to have any evidence of other forms of academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Atlantic306: there are several academics named Jianping Ge, and the most cited one you mentioned is actually a chemist at East China Normal University (born 1980), who has a Baidu page. Another notable Jianping Ge (born 1962) is an ecologist and Vice President of Beijing Normal University who's won multiple national awards, see here. The Jianping Ge (born 1982) under discussion does not yet seem to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC, although he's won some municipal awards of Beijing and may become notable in the future, see his bio. -Zanhe (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks, striking my keep vote Atlantic306 (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable Anupam (talk) 19:52, 02 June 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. Sandstein 21:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Morten Furseth[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:NHOCKEY. The GET-ligaen does not qualify for criteria #2 regardless of how many games are played, while it does qualify for #3 to my knowledge Best GAA does not count and he does not appear to have played for Norway at all let alone in the top pool of the World Championship which is required to pass #6. Articles does have references so whether is can pass WP:GNG or not I personally am never sure so I'm throwing it out there to those who would be able to judge it. Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 13:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. My search for sources found routine sports reporting, but nothing to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:02, 6 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Marcinek[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. 142 games played in Slovak Extraliga when 200 minimum is required for notability. Subject is still active but has been playing in the French lower leagues since 2013. Tay87 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 13:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is quite a lot of regional coverage from secondary sources, but never mention him as main subject. Fails WP:NHOCKEY as mentioned in nomination. Spyder212 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and my search for coverage didn't find that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:57, 6 June 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. Sandstein 21:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble (website)[edit]

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

Rumble, currently ranks 15,866, is a website which went viral a year ago for a time being and generated some hits. Now, its time to analyze its notability as page was created by paid editors. There is limited coverage in prominent media houses about the website and current rank makes it not notable enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, most references are based on announcements, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:22, 7 June 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 merge to Mornington railway line. T. Canens (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMSP 16 railway station, Melbourne[edit]

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

This closed, unused railway station (although it appears to have barely been a station at all) doesn't seem very notable. It is unreferenced, and information included in the article appears rather vague. – numbermaniac 13:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 13:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 13:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mornington railway line. SpinningSpark 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All railway stations are notable, including flag stops. This includes disused stations. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No they're not. There is nothing in guidelines that says flag stops, or any kind of station, are intrinsically notable and should have a stand-alone article. Even the essay Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) recommends merging non-notable stations: If a non-notable line or station has its own article, be bold and merge the article into a parent article... and explicitly on minor lines For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on. SpinningSpark 07:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Eastmain. All rail stations are considered notable per long standing consensus. Oakshade (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to where such a consensus is documented. I don't believe there is such a consensus; WP:RAILOUTCOMES says Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD. Other stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on.. SpinningSpark 14:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is documented of all stations being kept. WP consensus wisely decided long ago to retain all rail stations. This way we don't have the colossal waist of editors' time fleshing out the notability of the tens of thousands of stations when editors time should be better spent on creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones. Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating that consensus has decided to keep all stations without any evidence whatsoever. Wikipedia guidelines are the documentation of our consensus and, as I have shown above, they explicitly contradict what you claim about stations. You have not pointed to a single policy, guideline, essay, or discussion that backs up your position. SpinningSpark 12:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is every AfD on mainline rail stations. Oakshade (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably not. But just for yucks, mind linking to a half dozen of these AfDs putatively backing up your assertion? That being said, having to back up assertions of notability (even for "tens of thousands of stations," an absurd bit of hyperbole if I've ever heard one) is not a colossal "waist" of time, but a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Ravenswing 18:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably so. You only want half a dozen to convince you of the assertion that mainline rail stations are always kept? How about over three full dozens? [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] It would be easy but somewhat time-consuming to bring up three full dozen more if I didn't have an actual life. There are some proposed station articles that have been deleted and the occasional tram stop, but existing or having existed mainline stations have always been kept. Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A long list of keeps (most of which were kept for other reasons) does not demonstrate that all stations are kept. This is the fallacy of faulty generalization. SpinningSpark 08:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact most of these AfDs were kept due to the precedent that we keep all mainline station articles. You had requested 6 former AfDs to convince you of the assertion that mainline rail stations are always kept. From barely a look above, here's 15. [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] Now you've been provided with way beyond what you were requesting to convince you of the precedent that all mainline station articles are retained.Oakshade (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. I am seeing people argue in many of those discussions that there are, in fact, reliable sources for the station under discussion. For instance, the first item on your list has Three seconds with Google satisifes WP:V..., and by the way, that one, and a number of others appear on both lists, so you can't add the two lists together to get a new total. For physical stations on major lines, I would be inclined to let them be, either if they do not strictly comply with GNG. But a flag stop on a disused rural branch line? That's starting to take the piss out of the goodwill of the community. This claim that there is consensus that all stations are intrinsically notable no matter what seems to have been going on for years despite a total failure to get it written into any SNG. I'm inclined to start a RFC after when AFD is over to settle once and for all what the community position really is on this. SpinningSpark 13:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was the point. These were extracted from the first list to demonstrate you've been provided with much more than what you were requesting to be convinced that all mainline stations are retained. For that first one when the nom said "fails WP:V", [61], passing WP:V in itself is not a reason for an article to survive AfD but stipulating real precedent that all mainline stations are retained does and that's exactly what happened in that AfD. In fact most of the of iVotes are "All railway stations are considered to be notable" or similar and even the nom brings up the same counter you are here with "All railway stations are considered to be notable. -- Where is this policy established?" with the response "Consensus over many AfDs. That's how consensus is always established." For an RfC on rail stations retention, already occurred this year with extensive discussion and the proposal went nowhere. Oakshade (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a mainline station. It's not mainline. It's not even a station, it's a flag stop. So your rationale is pretty much a strawman argument. SpinningSpark 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Again, you make the claim, but provide no evidence. Has anyone done a survey of AFD results that show that every station put to AFD ended as keep? Such results are collected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which pretty robustly contradicts you. In any case, your claim is easily falsified by counterexample: merge, redirect, redirect, delete, redirect. Have you any examples of flag stops that were kept because they were as station when they did not meet GNG? SpinningSpark 18:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, it's amusing how many of those AfDs Oakshade threw up closed Keep for reasons other than "all stations are notable" -- some because substantive sources were discovered, a couple on the premise (with which I agree) that nominating an article for deletion less than a minute after it's created is obnoxious. Ravenswing 05:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, flag stops and barely-used sidings tend to get redirected or merged, eg. [62]. Reyk _YO! 05:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mornington railway line. This article contains no sources, and is about a flag stop that was never even really a train station. There is no such thing as automatic or intrinsic notability. Assuming the information is even accurate, it would be better to present this information in a larger article than diluting it over a multitude of microstubs. Reyk _YO! 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Spinning spark rationale and recommendation of Reyk - this is not notable enough for an article. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mornington railway line. The only "All X are notable ..." is when they're followed "... if they meet the provisions of the GNG." That being said, I would appreciate Eastmain and Oakshade explaining from where they get the notion of a guideline or consensus stipulating that every flag stop is notable -- or else retracting their unfounded suppositions. Ravenswing 03:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mornington railway line. Not all anything are notable; notability always depends on source coverage. That seems to be lacking here, but it would fit fine in the parent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although it is certainly true, despite the claims of some, that there is a consensus that all railways stations should have articles, established over many, many AfDs (which is what makes consensus - it really doesn't have to be written down anywhere), I'm really not sure that this counts as a railway station (since there is no consensus that tram stops, for instance, should have an article, and this is pretty much the same thing, even though trams do usually stop at all stops!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 5 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Green[edit]

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

Little known or non-notable article for local radio and TV broadcaster. The only links provided point towards a personal website or presenter profile pages. Hardly anything on Google or any other searches. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:N guidelines. Geoffroi (talk) 18:42, 3 June 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 merge to Nike (rocket stage). T. Canens (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nike-Orion[edit]

(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)

Suggest to merge all Nike rockets to a single article as there is not enough source to sustain individual articles for all of them Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No evidence these are notable individually, can certainly be covered within a general article for added benefit to the reader. Reywas92^Talk 19:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the lot of these rocket stubs into Nike (rocket stage); not enough material and substantial sourcing for individual articles. Might have been more efficient to bundle all of these together into one nomination rather than spread it over half a dozen instances. - Note, every single one of these has at least an entry on the Encyclopedia Astronautica; I'm not sure how authoritative that is, but stating "no third-party source", as in several of the nominations, is untrue. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Elmidae, I'll edit --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:04, 4 June 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 Speedy keep again. E.3, please stop wasting other people's time with mis-use of AFD. AFD is for where you need an administrator to use the administrator-only history deletion tool that you do not have. Making a redirect, the second step in article merger, uses the edit tool that you do have. Ironically, you could have made a redirect from this title in fewer edits than it took you to make a second AFD nomination asking for someone else to make a redirect. Use the tools that your account actually has. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital addict[edit]

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

Hello. This nomination for deletion is part of a longer term project of mine to improve English wikipedia's coverage of Digital media use and mental health. This is a complex discussion and all thoughts welcome. This is the second nomination for deletion (previous discussion was speedy keep). Reason for deletion

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

That is the main reason for deletion. In an effective merge to digital media use and mental health content from this page was brought over in January 2019, and improved as part of the good article review of that page.

We can see that consensus at mobile phone overuse is to avoid the terminology of "addiction" in relation to overuse of mobile phones. I have a detailed discussion with reliable sources in the history and terminology section of the article I wrote using the content from this page.

I have considered many times improving the article but the title and scope of its original intent makes it near impossible. Related articles can be seen at this template.

Digital addict in my opinion after extensive research for the article I wrote, is outdated terminology, and I propose that this article is deleted and redirected to digital media use and mental health.

Many kind thanks to all contributors. --E.3 (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 1 June 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. Sandstein 14:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Customer lifecycle management[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM of a seemingly name up name and where neither current source actually references Customer lifecycle management as far as I can tell. Google will give hits but we essentially have a marketing buzzword neologism Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of these words are especially new and the combination is used in relevant sources such as this. The nomination just seems to express a dislike of the topic rather than a substantive reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The combination appears just once as a passing mention in that source. It does not appear at all in the existing references. The article more resemblence to an original essay that anything that can be WP:DBV for the purpose of perhaps sustaining an original lead.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is quite mistaken. That source has two chapters (8 and 9) whose title starts "Managing the customer lifecycle:" The order of the words is different but the meaning is the same and so the notability of the topic is established. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Customer lifecycle (or customer life cycle) is notable; customer lifecycle management is probably also notable and seems to be used often enough (also abbreviated to CLM) to be more than a neologism. Peter James (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe just another set of buzzwords like MRM, MOM, EMM, MPM ... that are interpreted as needed by marketing vendors. This is one essay on one interpretation of CLM. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word use is used in other sources such as this. Cryptowriter (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This this is the same this (We are actually pointing at Customer Relationship Management: Concepts and Technologies by Buttle, (e.g. isbbn 978-1856175227) as above and has the unaddressed issues above.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC) The or CRM indicates the neologism and the essay formed out of part the words cannot work out if the 'M' is for measurement, management or model. Customer life-cycle CL is good; and CLV is a specific metric, but this is an essay.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:06, 4 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Cukic[edit]

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominating editor.Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches should included Ana Armstrong as well as Ana Cukic. I went through all of the awards that provided sources. Only one award seemed to be to her rather than the firm. Those that only mentioned the firm I deleted. If the award was to the firm but she was mentioned, I deleted from awards and mentioned it in article. I suspect most of the remaining awards are also to the firm by the way they're worded. --valereee (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 1 June 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 NMUSIC is not met, and although there are many sources, they are all about one single event (BLP1E) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naira Marley[edit]

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

Fail to see how this musician is notable, almost all the sources are primary or are mainly about his controversy. No chart placings, no official signings, fails WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has he placed on the Nigerian or British music charts? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain Have you found any sources that support that? Ceethekreator (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain: he's never been anywhere near charting in the UK, and we're not sure if there is an official Nigerian chart. Richard3120 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. The subject is an up-and-coming artist who is known only for his collaborative effort on the popular song "Issa Goal". Outside of that one song, the artist does not have a career to speak of. The subject has not won any major awards in Nigeria. He is more known for his alleged involvement in Advance-fee scam. The subject was recently arrested by the EFCC and is currently awaiting trial. @Richard3120: Nigeria does not have an official music chart. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no official Nigeria music chart but the subject's song Am I a Yahoo boy is No.4 on the official Nigeria Itunes chart [63] and the song has over 1.4million views on Youtube.[64] The subjects being in the news for over two weeks has made him notable.Haylad (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haylad we do not include instances of iTunes charts. These charts are irrelevant on wikipedia. You can read more and the guidelines here WP:CHART Ceethekreator (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Several newspapers in Nigeria have published articles about his arrest and will likely continue to do so as the case progresses.

Blueprint Newspaper "Speed Darlington reacts to Zlatan, Naira Marley’s arrest"

Daily Champion "Naira Marley is small boy, go after looters of Nigeria’s treasury – Daddy Showkey slams EFCC"

Daily Post "Naira Marley: Actress, Georgina Onuoha begs EFCC, seeks arrest of corrupt politicians"

Daily Times of Nigeria "Alleged online fraud: EFCC to arraign Naira Marley on Monday"

Daily Trust "EFCC confirms arrest of 'Naira Marley'"

Daylight Nigeria "Why we arrested alleged yahoo singer, Naira Marley – EFCC"

Independent "Naira Marley Depressed, Mother Weeps As He Appears In Court Today"

Leadership "Court Remands Musician, Naira Marley, In Prison Custody"

The Nation "Naira Marley: EFCC seeks partnership with artistes against internet fraud"

New Telegraph "Naira Marley’ll not run away, it is bailable offence –Lawyer"

Osun Defender "Alleged Credit Card Fraud: EFCC Files 11 Charges Against Naira Marley"

P.M. News "Davido promises to free Naira Marley after EFCC arrest"

Premium Times "Naira Marley: Why I shot ‘Am I a Yahoo Boy’ video – TG Omori"

The Punch "Naira Marley risks seven years in prison –EFCC"

The Sun "Naira Marley to be docked today"

Nigerian Tribune "Naira Marley as template of a failed nation"

Vanguard "Fresh controversy greets Naira Marley’s incarceration as fan threatens Ruggedman, Dolapo Badmus"

Here are some sources from before his recent controversy:

Paragraph in i-D 24 March 2017

Complex "Premiere: Team Salut Recruit Afrowave Star Naira Marley For Wavy Banger 'Wagon'" 30 November 2017 and "Premiere: Afroswing Pioneer Naira Marley Is On A Getaway Mission In New 'JAPA' Video" 9 November 2018

The Fader "Yxng Bane, Belly Squad, Afro B, Naira Marley define the street sound of London in new SoundCloud doc" 1 December 2017 and Watch the new video for Naira Marley’s World Cup anthem, 'Issa Goal' 27 April 2018

Mixmag "Get to know Naira Marley, the Lagos via Peckham MC pioneering afrobashment" 2 March 2018

Clash "Naira Marley Shares Two New Songs, Adds London Show" 24 July 2018

The Guardian "How Naira Marley’s Issa Goal became Nigeria’s World Cup, 2018 theme song" 23 June 2018 Blumpf (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blumpf: Citing numerous sources relating to his arrest doesn't make him notable. Marley fails WP:MUSICBIO. With the exception of the ID source, all of the remaining sources is about the songs "Issa Goal", "Wagon", and "Japa" and "Drummer Boy". Keep in mind that while these sources are about said songs, none of these songs pass WP:NSONG. Like I said earlier, Naira Marley is an up-and-coming artist who is now known more for his alleged involvement in 419. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it fails WP:MUSICBIO. completly . but however he might be notable over his controversy. Advance-fee scam in future , but NOT as musician at the moment Samat lib (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I will basing my arguments in two parts, the first being pre-fraud Marley, while the second is post-fraud Marley.

Starting with the first. I believe this is one of those few cases where a musical artist has contributed to a notable song, but the song didn't confer sufficient notability to the musician. I believe "Issa Goal" passes WP:NSONG, and can have its own independent article but seeing that it was a collaborative work with other artist, I do not think it makes Marley to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. As stated by other commentators, he's still fairly new in the music industry and will likely pass WP:NMUSICIAN in the future, but at the moment I'm not convinced he meets it. I've also gone through multiple sources that covers his career as a artist (pre-fraud perspective), and they don't seem to be sufficient enough for GNG either.

Now speaking about the second scenario, let me remind us that this is a biographical article, and if there is so much interest/coverage in his fraud case, I suggest a Naira Marley arrest or Naira Marley fraud case article that will outline the dramatic itinerary of events leading to his arrest, release and trial. Information such as his lyrical content glorifying 419, making comments in defense of 419, his beef with Simi on 419 before his arrest, notable reactions to his arrest, etc will be included in the article. While I agree that the fraud case is a notable one that will always be referenced when it comes to celebrities and advance fee scams, I do not think it should be used to keep the article. In my opinion, we'll be setting a wrong precedence to what Wikipedia biographies is meant to cover.HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to me to have an article about the case but not the musician. It's not being reported on because of unique aspects of the crime like being one of the highest value fraud cases or having a very large number of victims. It's because of the person involved.

Vanguard "Popular Musician Naira Marley gets N2m bail" May 30

The Punch "GTB, Mastercard officials, seven others to testify at Naira Marley’s trial" May 31

The Punch "Give us Naira Marley’s transaction history, EFCC tells Mastercard, Visa" June 1 Blumpf (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "delete" arguments are more persuasive. There are almost no serious arguments that the person is notable as a musician; an online chart doesn't confer notability. Which leaves us with the coverage related to his legal problems, but that is a WP:BLP1E case. Sandstein 14:39, 9 June 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Giannetti[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails to meet notability guidelines as defined by WP:NSOCCER. In my opinion, fails overarching WP:GNG as all other listed references/citations are trivial mentions (e.g. signing with a team, leaving a team, etc.) which for me doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and many run in to WP:COISOURCE issues (e.g. publicity by her teams/leagues). Upon a cursory search, I could only find one, maybe two, sources I would consider adding to the article (though did find other routine and first-person interviews, podcasts, etc.), whereas the PROD was removed with no reason ("rm prod - take to afd if desired"). GauchoDude (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the references already in the article, the articles listed above and Norwegian coverage such as [65]. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I'm sure you're aware, WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The article you provided, like many others, barely mentions the subject or does so as part of WP:ROUTINE coverage which still doesn't satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about whether the article is kept, and that link probably wasn't the best considering I don't read Norwegian, but a Norwegian language search uncovered a number of possible WP:GNG hits. SportingFlyer T·C 22:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Goalkeeper of the Year in Norway (edging out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madalyn Schiffel) is a "significant honor" well into WP:BIO#Sports personalities territory. There's an extensive interview [66] and bits of coverage in Norwegian media [67] which nudges WP:GNG. Although I'm fully aware that someone will be along in a minute to call the first one a blog and pretend the second one is routine. That's invariably how these things go down when elite female players are involved! It's as sad and predictable as GiantSnowman's robotic "fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL" vote. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal attacks have no place. (Is there an echo in here?) Don't bring the level of discourse down like that. Comment on the notability of the article subject, not on other editors, please. – Levivich 02:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Plays for the top league in her country, Goalkeeper of the Year, works for me. – Levivich 02:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG (nothing more than routine coverage, some of it primary) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a FPL or senior international football. The Goalkeeper of the Year award is only for goalies in her league of 12 teams. Playing top division football = article keep is not a precedent that should be set. Dougal18 (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG with sources in article and above (I think User:Dougal18 is mistaken when they claim nothing is more than routine - how is this routine?) Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The interview is sigcov but Everybody Soccer focuses on goalkeepers mostly in the American game. Giannetti is only being interviewed because of her position and involvement in US college football. That interview shouldn't be enough for her article to survive AFD. Dougal18 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the interview is about her play in Europe in addition to her play at the university level. In particular it talks about her win of Goalkeeper of the Year in the Norwegian Toppserien - for which there's another reference that I'll add to the article. Nfitz (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per remarks of SportingFlyer and per Levivich. Passes WP:GNG with the references in the article Lubbad85 (☎) 17:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY. Not the article it was when this AFD started. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:08, 5 June 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. Sandstein 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Gould[edit]

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

Even if you want to argue that Gould technically meets WP:NACTOR (and, at best, it's borderline, with only two "significant" roles as a child actor...), I have found nothing to indicate the kind of subject-specific coverage that would meet WP:BASIC. In addition, subject has not worked in over 5 years, and appears to have retired from acting, so it does not appear that this situation will improve. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. "Subject has retired from [occupation]" ought to be added to Arguments to avoid. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to actually read what I said before firing off a vote. As it is, you've contributed nothing to the discussion, as you have completely ignored the WP:BASIC argument, which is the crux of the deletion reasoning. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once WP:GNG always WP:GNG. See Noah Raby - notable for lying at the turn of the century. Still notable 100 years later. Eastmain is correct. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, Lubbad85 – then where is the sourcing to show that?! You can't just claim somebody is "notable" – you have to prove that they are notable under WP:BASIC. So far we have two editors claiming "notable", without offering a shred of evidence of actual "notability" in Wikipedia terms. If there's no "in depth coverage", they aren't notable. So show me how Gould is notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject needed a thorough WP:BEFORE - understandably not an easy task based on my cursory search. It is evident that the subject is GNG through the many mainstream national roles on television and in popular culture - however I am finding many passing mentions in sources. Some unknown ambitious editor will need search deeper and farther. This is not a case of WP:BUTITEXISTS. But more a case of WP:HARDWORK WP:PRESERVE

Los Angeles Times
Disney
Jewish Journal
Desert News
Denver Post

@Lubbad85: Yes, and "passing mentions" is the problem – that, by definition, doesn't establish notability (as per WP:BASIC)... However, that Jewish Journal profile is a good find – it's a bona fide "in depth" coverage, and explains why Gould hasn't acted since 2014. That one, at least, moves me from "strong delete" to "weak delete". If somebody can find another in-depth coverage article, esp. dating from when Gould was still a working child actress, I think that would probably be enough to get it "over the hump" to "keep"... So, better, but still not there yet, IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In response to the deletion rationale, if the person has two significant notable roles, that counts to passing the subject specific guideline for actors. Remember Wikipedia:Notability clearly states that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". It doesn't have to meet both or the subject-specific guidelines would be meaningless. Dream Focus 18:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dream Focus: No – that reveals a common misconception about the SNG's: the SNG's are subservient to (or "supplements to") WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, they don't "overrule" them. See, for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Timmins (2nd nomination) – while that subject almost certainly met WP:NACTOR in technical terms, she still did not meet WP:BASIC. IOW, being in the "main cast" of 2 TV series, and say a movie, doesn't a priori make you notable – it just makes it likely that you will be notable... I'll ping Bearcat here, because he generally does a better job of explaining this than I do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - When the notability guidelines were first created it was determined there was more than one way to prove notability. So guidelines were made for certain specific subjects. A scientists or mathematician is notable for their accomplishments alone, even if they didn't get written up in the media, musicians are notable for their work even if they did no interviews or revealed anything about themselves someone would write about, etc. People argue back and forth for years on this, articles kept or deleted based on whoever randomly appears to comment and the closing administrator. An actor is notable for their work even if they had no scandals to write about in the media or did interviews. Dream Focus 19:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for actors, if you're shooting for "notable because she's had roles", is not passed just because the article says that roles have been had — it is passed only when reliable sources attest to the "majorness" of the roles by paying attention to them and/or her. For example, a film review can help speak to an actor's notability if the critic singles the actor's performance out for special praise, but does not help speak to the actor's notability if it just mentions their name a single time in the cast list endnotes. Simply listing roles does not hand an actor a free exemption from having to have any sources, because then every actor would always get that free exemption the moment they had a second role. It doesn't take as much reliable source coverage to get a person over an SNG on "meets a specific notability criterion" grounds as it does to get a person over GNG on pure "just because media coverage exists" grounds — but it still takes more than none, and no SNG ever confers a free exemption from having to show any evidence of reliable sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She has two things listed as "Main role". If she is on every episode, then she "Has had significant roles in multiple television shows". Dream Focus 20:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat's point, and mine, is that: just because you're in the main cast of a TV series, it doesn't guarantee that you're "notable". Yes, usually it does, but not always. That goes double for child actors – you can be a child actor who's in the main cast of a TV series, but that doesn't mean the character the child actor plays on the show is particularly notable or "significant". I agree with Bearcat – the real test of notability is whether the actor's role(s) garners significant, independent coverage... But you can even be the lead of a lower-rung TV series (e.g. a "kid's' show"), and still not be notable, because the show itself is basically ignored by independent sources... Going with your thinking would mean that every journeyman character actor who's had a years-long career would justify a Wikipedia article, but again and again at AfD those kinds of articles tend to get deleted, because while being journeyman character actor leads to a very substantial list of credits, it doesn't guarantee significant independent coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they get deleted and sometimes they don't. So far three people say she is notable and the article should be kept, with the only person but you saying it should be deleted someone you pinged to come over here and agree with you. She had speaking roles on two notable television shows and was most likely in every episode. I believe that is clear enough to make her qualified for a Wikipedia article under the current rules. But we'll see how many others give their opinions and how consensus is read by the closing administrator. Dream Focus 21:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying for an article under WP:NACTOR does not hinge on merely naming roles, it hinges on reliably sourcing the significance of the roles. If just saying the words "speaking role" were an automatic inclusion freebie that exempted the person from ever actually having to show any sources at all, then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable actor anymore. Reliable sources have to tell us whether any given role was "major" enough to count toward getting the actor over NACTOR, and just throwing the word "major" around like potatoes in a food fight doesn't accomplish anything if the correct quality of sources aren't there to support the description. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting arguments regarding notability. Dream Focus is correct. Also I too see a problem with pinging Bearcat - Bearcat has been canvased, and Bearcat is a regular afd nominator. I will say that her notability will always be there. However I will continue to search for sources. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus is not correct. Getting an actor over NACTOR is not a question of saying the words "major role", it is a question of referencing the majorness of the roles to reliable sources. There are no SNGs for people that ever exempt the subject from having to have any reliable source coverage just because of what the article claims, because sometimes people lie about themselves in an attempt to get into Wikipedia for the free publicity — we've seen actors and writers and musicians claim award nominations they did not really have, we've seen actors claim roles they didn't really play and/or vastly overstate the significance of roles they did (e.g. claiming starring status for what was really a non-speaking extra role), we've seen musicians claim charting hits they didn't really achieve, we've seen politicians claim offices they didn't really hold. So every notability claim, GNG or SNG or otherwise, always still has to be verifiable in some form of reliable source coverage before it actually translates into a keepable article. It's not what an article says that gets it kept, because sometimes our articles actually say false things: the question of whether someone passes a notability criterion or not is determined by how well the article references that the things it says are true. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat wasn't "canvassed" – I didn't ask him to "vote" here: I asked him to explain his opinion on something. I honestly didn't expect him to vote in this AfD (and I didn't ask him to), 'cos I doubted he would care about this specific AfD. I only asked him to explain that SNG's do not "trump" WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, despite some editors believing that this is the case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall I will AGF, however you pinged Bearcat because you knew Bearcat would agree with your position and could explain it. That is canvassing. Bearcat nominates quite a few articles for deletion and sometimes I agree with Bearcat - not in this case. So pinging Bearcat was to get support for your position - and that is pretty much the definition of canvassing. Anyway, I am going to try to improve the article instead of arguing here. The reason I do not consider ARS canvassing is that the members come to improve an article. Not to simply say keep or delete and argue. Lubbad85 (☎) 15:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first sentences of WP:Canvassing: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." (emphasis mine) It's right there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the section labeled Inappropriate notification it says Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions. You knew he'd agree with you and say delete. I doubt you would've pinged him otherwise. Dream Focus 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not know that – I knew he'd explain a POV, but I didn't expect Bearcat to actually vote. You, OTOH, are dangerously close to violating WP:ASPERSIONS there, sport. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gently suggest that both of you need to Cool off and concentrate on the issue at hand. WP:Dead horse and WP:Civil could be applied. We are all wp:volunteers here – See WP:Cooperation – and we need to fix the problem and the article; not fix the blame. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She is not faking her GNG. I will do my best on the article. "Drop Dead Diva" also stars comedian Margaret Cho as Jane's assistant, and features a long roster of A-list guest stars including Tim Gunn, Kathy Najimy, Teri Polo, Kelly Gould, Sharon Lawrence (as Deb's mom) and Rosie O'Donnell." Lubbad85 (☎) 02:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Another "passing mention" only. Nearly every actor can produce sources like this. This is why WP:BASIC says "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" (emphasis mine). So far, only the Jewish Journal profile source seems to meet this standard. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall We can disagree - However I see a very notable child star who retired to pursue college - I am going to give it a go. So far the article is improving. Perhaps you will change your opinion when it gets improved. Lubbad85 (☎) 03:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Deseret News source is another helpful addition – it's not enough by itself, but combined with a couple of in-depth profile sources, it may arguably be enough... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said she was "faking her GNG". GNG is a measure of the quality of the sourcing, not of what the article says, so on the basis of the source that have been shown so far she doesn't have any GNG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. "Subject has retired from [occupation]" ought to be added to Arguments to avoid. Indeed, given her age, her career may very well be on hiatus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did not say that "subject has retired" was a reason to delete — they said that "subject has retired" is a reason that we can't just presume that notability-supporting sources will actually start to exist anytime soon. And "once notable, always notable" only becomes true if and when the subject's notability has actually been properly demonstrated to the correct type of sourcing — and the sources here aren't demonstrating that she was ever notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Strong disagree. The quality of sourcing is improved. And will continue to seek more nationally known sources. The subject was notable when she starred along Catherine Zeta-Jones in The Rebound and alongside Miley Cyrus in Hannah Montana She was widely known and notable when she starred in cable shows and on Lifetime channel. She was notable enough to appear in major newspapers like the LA Times. She retains that notability. Please keep an open mind, since this is not.. and will not be the same article which was nominated. I can see how a WP:BEFORE might have missed things Lubbad85 (☎) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that what you're adding is not sources about Gould, it's sources which glancingly namecheck Gould's existence in the process of being about other people. As I said above, a film review doesn't automatically support an actor's notability just because her name gets mentioned in the cast list — it supports her notability if it analyzes her performance in detail, not if it just mentions her name. Similarly, an article whose core subject is Pamela Adlon or Nicole Sullivan or Brooke Elliott does not support Gould's notability just because it happens to mention Gould's name as a castmate of the article's actual subject — it only supports Gould's notability if Gould herself is the subject. The notability test for an actor is not "roles can be listed and technically verified": it is "the actor has been the subject of reliable source coverage about her having of roles". Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat We all pretty much stated our views on the article and positions regarding notability. I understand your points. I do not think you are right on policy, but I understand your concerns. Lubbad85 (☎) 15:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am right on policy, though. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a really tough article to determine notability on. There's a very good argument she meets WP:NACTOR, but WP:NACTOR doesn't trump WP:GNG, and she definitively fails WP:GNG. The only article I've seen that's specifically on her which doesn't cover her in a passing mention is the Jewish Journal article, but that's in their "Graduation" section, which profiles young people graduating from high school, and I don't think counts towards Wikipedia notability - they profile a number of people every year. Even if it did, there are no other articles I can find which cover her significantly. SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If all the sources allow us to do is list off her (mostly minor) roles, that's not enough to hang an article on. Even if the article were to be kept, all the unsourced BLP, including her birthdate, would need to be removed. Her reluctance to say the word "asshole" is practically the definition of WP:TRIVIA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with SportingFlyer. Despite the apparent abundance of sources present in the article, the WP:GNG is not met at all. As stated, only the first one, from the Jewish Journal, has any sort of extensive coverage on the individual at all. The vast majority only mention her when listing cast members of a particular show or movie, and provide absolutely no meaningful discussion at all. The rest are from sites that can not be used as a reliable secondary source, such as IMDB. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can see some coverage of her, not just her roles. Its not a lot, but it is there.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 5 June 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. Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Chamberlain[edit]

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

Not sure if person is notable enough and article has many issues including promotional content and unsourced contend and a short lead section Abote2 (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I worry that this AfD will be plagued with vandalism in a similar way to the article. However, I believe that this article should be kept per WP:GNG. A previous version of the article can be viewed here that has no unsourced or promotional content. The sources in the article, along with many that can be found with a Google News search, show notability. If you think the lead is too short, I suggest you WP:FIXIT. MarkZusab (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BASIC with significant secondary RS coverage. Subject is clearly notable with multiple awards. Article has been cleaned up and more content added. It also now has an expanded lede. Subject easily meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just count Special:WhatLinksHere/Emma_Chamberlain, and I'm far from sure that I've wikilinked all plain text occurrences of the name. A complete AfD for what is in essence one bogus Social Blade reference makes no sense, just remove this bad reference and whatever it is supporting. The Sixteen other references are okay, and the living person is meanwhile 18 years old. For "not sure" check out WP:BEFORE, this is enwiki, absolutely everything has an essay, a guideline, or a policy. –84.46.52.65 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:BASIC. Problems describes are endemic to WP pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - This is pretty much WP:PROMO. The coverage is trivial and despite its quantity there is a complete absence of depth; this is reflected in the page's contents. Claims such as the itunes podcast one are unsupported and seemingly promotional in nature (please advise which 50 countries). I looked at several of the articles which allegedly link back to this one and could not find any such links. Perhaps I misunderstand exactly what the 'whatlinkshere' function does but maybe someone can explain. Perhaps this is better suited for wikinews. It is not encyclopedic. There is not a single sentence in the article that is. ogenstein (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think here it might be useful to have a detailed analysis of the sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, and the promotional material has been removed recently. wumbolo ^^^ 12:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you please advise exactly which coverage satisfies GNG? I'm really not seeing any reliable sources for this. Thanks. Adding signing. ogenstein (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I guess I do not understand your statement, "I'm really not seeing any reliable sources for this." They are referenced in the subject's article. Here are five: Forbes, Seventeen magazine, People magazine, The Michigan Daily newspaper and DEADLINE - all third-party, reliable sources. You might try looking again. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of those qualify as reliable sources. A reliable source has integrity, fact checking, editorial oversight, etc…. 'Human interest news reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting.' A Forbes contributor is not a reliable source. Please see the WP:RSP. Especially one whose stated purpose is to promote youtube. What fact checking was done in the Seventeen or People articles? They are just rumours regurgitated. Those magazines exist to promote stuff. WP:QUESTIONABLE, in addition to rejecting sources without fact checking or editorial oversight, also advises against 'sources expressing views that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumours and personal opinions.' As for Michigan Daily, you do realise that it is a student newspaper, don't you? And look at the 'quote' used from it. Does that really belong in an encyclopedia? In what way does that seem to be independent or reliable (other than reliably fawning and slavish)? The Deadline piece is just a press release over a non-significant award. WP:NEWSORG advises that republished press releases are 'churnalism' and should not be treated differently from the release.

For all these examples, please consider WP:NEWSORG again which states that editorial commentary and opinion pieces are 'rarely reliable as statements of fact.' Also, 'Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.' WP:SOURCE: Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

I'll add two more concerns as well: WP:HITS specifies that undue weight should not be given to matters related to popular culture, 'popularity is not notability'. And that some subjects, "…May be on 700 pages and might still not be considered 'existing' enough to show any notability, for Wikipedia's purposes." WP:GOOGLECHECK advises that lots of hits do not… "Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance." Given that Google has an inherent interest in promoting youtube, this is doubly a concern.

All of these citations should be removed from the page (along with all of the inappropriate content). The reality is that while this subject may be popular, she is not notable. This is proven by the quality of additions to the page. If the subject was notable, it would be comparatively easy to write the article. People who wish to read celebrity gossip can do so at some of the sites you've mentioned but it's not suitable material for an encyclopedia. People can think that WP:ILIKEIT means that an article is a legitimate keep but it doesn't actually mean that. ogenstein (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Seventeen is a national, reputable magazine published by the Hearst Corporation beginning in 1944. National magazines are heavily fact-checked within the mag's editorial process and writers and reporters working or contributing to it are journalists and part of traditional media. I suggest you look up the editorial practices of traditional publications. People, published by the Meredith Corporation since 1974, has the same practices in place. These are not tabloids. They are mainstream publications. Saying differently does not make it so. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You do realise that the term 'yellow journalism' was first coined for a Hearst paper, don't you? The Seventeen article gossips about a teenager's private life. Is that the act of a reputable publication? The People article quotes the Forbes contributor article. And consider their article's headline about the podcast. Where is the fact-checking? It's not even mentioned in the actual article. This article is pure sensationalism. Even if you believe that the publications are reliable, you still have to look at the individual pieces and the context. These are opinion pieces. They don't get fact checking. This is one site repeating what another site wrote. NB I'm obviously commenting a lot on this page and it's not actually my intent to bludgeon so I'll leave room for others to comment. Regards, ogenstein (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -@Bbb23:I know this user:Mothman. He is using multiple account. He is a new user. He writing wrong Policy information all of afD negative comments also he don’t know which article eligible for notable or not. Please check this user. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.115 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is another case of an internet celebrity who clearly deserves an article per WP:ENT (it would be hard to argue that 7.9 million subscribers isn't a "large fan base"), but who hasn't been covered extensively in traditional media. In this case, I believe there's just enough coverage that the subject passes GNG (Forbes, People), although more sources are needed for verifiability purposes. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ENTand WP:BIO, has a large "fan" base and has significant coverage by reliable sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENT and WP:BIO. She has a large following and is the recipient of multiple awards. Meets WP:BASIC based on news/press coverage. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW Subject is GNG per above comments Lubbad85 (☎) 22:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – article subject meets WP:BASIC. The WP:THREE are Forbes 2018, Michigan Daily 2019, and Elle 2019. – Levivich 04:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that the gold standard is a Forbes contributor story (explicitly designated as non-RS), a student paper, and an Elle contributor story (complete with affiliate links) in which the second sentence claims that the subject doesn't have a wikipedia page yet — What are we all doing here then? ogenstein (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're doing here, Mothman/ogenstein. (BTW, please use a signature that includes your username, it's kind of required.) According to your AfD stats, you're a 100% delete !voter, and you've voted delete 43 or more times in like the last 20 days. That's a lot of delete. Yes, Elle (magazine) and Forbes are WP:RSes, as are Seventeen (American magazine) and People (magazine) (linked above), and, yeah, so is the University of Michigan campus newspaper The Michigan Daily (not every student paper is, but this one is, it's the major, and I think the only, daily newspaper in Ann Arbor). – Levivich 06:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Excepting the handful of times I forgotten, I always sign my posts with the same signature that I've always had, which seems to meet WP:CUSTOMSIG. If I'm missing something, please advise. Is ~two !votes per day a lot or improper? It is a small fraction of the AfDs. I research before voting.

The Michigan Daily is the only paper with a daily print run but is not the sole source of news in the city and is not likely the paper of record. Putting aside that it's a student paper, even if you wish to consider it a generally reliable source (which is typically not the case for a local paper when determining notability), when examing the context of the cited article, it does not qualify. Just read the quote that's cited. Forbes has two separate entries in the perennials list and if you read the relevant one you'll see that contributors are explicitly identified as non-RS. People is a celebrity gossip magazine. Seventeen is celebrity gossip with a youth twist. Elle is celebrity gossip with a fashion twist. And putting aside the journals themselves, all of these articles are sensationalist opinion — WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The Seventeen article for example, before reporting that the subject is obsessed with coffee, shares speculation on her dating life. Did Elle do fact-checking when the writer claimed that the subject doesn't have a wikipedia page? That's the second sentence of the article. For all we know, the author used the Michigan piece as her 'source'. Please read the articles? ogenstein (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -@Bbb23:I know this user:Mothman. He is using multiple account. He is a new user. He writing wrong Policy information all of afD negative comments also he don’t know which article eligible for notable or not. Please check this user. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.115 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like WP:SNOW Lubbad85 (☎) 14:57, 5 June 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 merge to List of Catholic dioceses in the Dominican Republic. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in the Dominican Republic by name[edit]

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

Duplicates List of Catholic dioceses in the Dominican Republic Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge/redirect/whatever Seems pretty uncontroversial that these are the same, just do it. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No need for two lists with the same topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge using the content of this article and the structure of the other. No need to duplicate and no value in a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 6 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Albania by name[edit]

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

Duplicates List of Catholic dioceses in Albania Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge/redirect/whatever Seems pretty uncontroversial that these are the same, just do it. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No merge required as there is no extra content. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- redirecting is pointless. This article has less content than the potential merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 6 June 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 merge to List of Catholic dioceses in Bangladesh. In light of the comments here about the eventual name, this will probably need a page title discussion after the merge Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Bangladesh by name[edit]

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

Duplicvates List of Catholic dioceses in Bangladesh Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic dioceses in Bangladesh has less information than this one. I say delete the other one and rename this one. Dream Focus 12:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/redirect/whatever Seems pretty uncontroversial that these are the same, just do it. Reywas92^Talk 19:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Catholic dioceses in Bangladesh. Dates and whatnot should be transferred over. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Roman" is sometimes used to refer exclusively to the Latin Rite whereas Catholic on its own encompasses both the Latin Rite and the 23 other sui juris churches in communion with the Holy See so I would say that "Catholic" is preferable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles under the other name. Use the content of this article, but the arrangement of the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 6 June 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. Sandstein 21:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Commons[edit]

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

A completely unreferenced in-universe guide to the fictional universe of a series of three minor novels. Non-encyclopaedic cruft, that would be better suited to a fan site. Step hen 07:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Step hen 07:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:FICT. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 3 June 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. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 10:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nail H. Ibragimov[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. A quick Google search shows that the subject of the article has no coverage in reliable sources. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reviews of his books over multiple respectable sites/publications but this ain't social science. ∯WBG^converse 07:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What's social science got to do with it? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I have no clue as to how I ended up here. This was for some different AfD:-( ∯WBG^converse 09:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pages 326–329 of the memoir of Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat are in part concerned with Ibragimov and provide some information about his life and career. As this is a personal memoir, I'm not sure whether it is suitable as a source. Will Orrick (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (massive citation counts on Google scholar, especially as some of the heavily cited works are in pure mathematics, usually a very low citation field) and WP:AUTHOR (17 books with 15 published reviews just counting the ones on MathSciNet; probably others available elsewhere as well). As for GNG, (1) it's not the relevant notability guideline here, and (2) my strong suspicion is that the opinions above based on "a quick Google search" did not bother searching the Cyrillic version of his name, Ибрагимов, Наиль Хайруллович, because if they did they would have likely found many more sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Even just looking at Wikipedia would have provided more. ru:Ибрагимов, Наиль Хайруллович cites a 3 page detailed biography of the subject, by Raphael Gazizov and published to celebrate the subject's 70th birthday. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. The nominator first tried to get this speedy deleted, then prodded, before taking it to AfD, starting less than 20 minutes after the article was created. The deprod edit summary already clearly pointed to the subject's citation record, and to WP:PROF#C1, something the nominator seems to have ignored or not understood in making the AfD nomination. So a trout may be in order as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously per the above. "A quick Google search" is never enough to determine whether any topic is notable, and I would advise the nominator to listen to experienced editors rather than argue every time that mistakes are pointed out. It gets very tiresome when someone first tries to get an article speedily deleted, then goes on to propose deletion without discussion, and then nominates it here, without at any point pausing to think whether those contesting deletion might have a point. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:PROF#C1. --Tataral (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Work has had influence in multiple fields: pure mathematics, mathematical physics, mathematical finance. Numerous published works with triple-digit, even quadruple-digit citation counts. Clearly meets requirements of WP:PROF#C1. Will Orrick (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very highly cited works in analysis. Definitely passes WP:PROF#C1. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes WP:Prof#C1. Nominators should do more than a "quick google search". Xxanthippe (talk) 09:14, 2 June 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. Sandstein 21:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OneClass[edit]

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

basically promotional article, by paid editor. Non-notable company. The references are either mentions, PR, or about the general practice of commercialized academic note taking DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of sources, none that meet the requirements for WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE Hugsyrup (talk) 15:39, 7 June 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. Sandstein 21:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris Rose[edit]

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

UPE Promotion for Non notable band. Award is not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but most are not independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. Only good one is The Aquarian but one is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether the creator is a UPE or not, the article does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:37, 7 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Demenkoff[edit]

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

Blimey, you'd think this guy was a Oscar winner or something but no, nothing here in all that puff that say's notable. This is just UPE Promotion for a Non notable actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of him. Some don't even mention his name. Pure PR complete with official promo shot. And this has even been cleaned up a bit, [68]. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oh puffery, thy name is Demenkoff. His IMDb credits are sparse and do not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Media coverage is non-existent, so no WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. With extra demerits to page creator User:Amandadoyle543 for Wikipedia:Citation overkill. I note that User:Amandadoyle543, an active editor, is a repeat offender who has created a series of pages on minor actors and "financial experts" bombarded with trivial sources. 21% of articles he created have been deleted.[69].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure if he is notable or not but this is so promotional it qualifies for speedy deletion G11 in my view and is a paid advert and an example of WP:PROMO, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 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. Sandstein 21:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nita Mistry (actress)[edit]

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

UPE Promotion for Non notable actress. Lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions, Romeo vs Juliet would make one. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but most are not independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of her. Best is Leicester Mercury, a single local puff piece on a local actress going to Hollywood to try her luck. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing there satisfying NACTOR or GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 1 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Pormer[edit]

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

A great deal of PR, but no substantial accomplishments in any of several careers. The refs are none of them substantial, or even reliable. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with DGG, especially on the sources, one of which is even IMDB. WP:N isn't reached. Geoffroi (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just having a PhD does not make one notable. A postion given to someone when they were 5 does not make one notable, unless that is a position as ruler of a country or in some other way attached to power. There is nothing substantive, and when you are bottom barreling by mentioning an appearance in a vapid reality TV show, it is a strong sign the person is not actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I think this is a borderline one, due to sources such as [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. But none of these sources quite get me over the line of being significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC, and I see no other evidence of notability. – Levivich 05:51, 5 June 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 speedy deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 08:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Mustard[edit]

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

no significant awards; no substantial works about her ; the referenes are mostly to her own journalism or photogtapjhy. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently non-notable – several photo-credits on GNews and in the press, one verifiable credit on GBooks, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that I'm able to see, either in the article or not. This is obvious undisclosed paid editing in violation of the Terms of Use, created by one now-blocked sockpuppet and moved to mainspace by another. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious COI/UPE issues that need to be cleaned up, but subject passes GNG. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Created by spammer who was evading their block. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see in-depth coverage by multiple sources that would satisfy the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 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. Sandstein 21:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Care Divas[edit]

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

Film that has been listed as upcoming for years. I can't find any info about it, the only ref is a dead blog. Not sure if this was ever coming out or not. Wgolf (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should add the only thing I can find is about a play with the same title, from 2017 (which is years after this article even) Wgolf (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see anything related to a film by this name, but there does appear to be a Filipino musical (see [75] [76]). This article could transition into one about the staged version, but if there is some film adaptation, I don't see any evidence. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Broccoli:-well the sources I found for the stage version are in 2017, where as this says upcoming 2013 film (4 years before that) as well as the fact this article actually originally said it was a 2011 film. Wgolf (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. From minimal research, I would say the staged version could pass GNG, but I'm not going to be the one to write that article. For the supposed film version, if it even exists, I'd say delete. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:40, 1 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German Institute of Food Technologies[edit]

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

No indication of notability, not a single reliable third-party source. Nothing beyond trivial passing mentions found via Google News. PROD was removed by Necrothesp without improvement or explanation, so I'm bringing it here. Huon (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There isn’t a huge amount I found, but a few things of some use: DiL is the lead partner in this EU research project, there’s a bunch of papers from DiL at Researchgate, sector press coverage here and third party coverage here. Mccapra (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The references listed at de:Deutsches Institut für Lebensmitteltechnik may be worth adding. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the "third-party coverage" mentioned by Mccapra is a political party's press release, not a reliable source. The German article doesn't cite any reliable third-party sources either. The "sector press coverage" is trivial personnel coverage that does not reach the level of WP:SIGCOV. All it says is, "X and Y retire, the new institute leader is Z" - plus some biographical details about Z that predate his tenure at the institute. Huon (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the subject is not independently notable. The "German Institute of Food Technologies" is part of the Hochschule Osnabrück or the Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences. The university itself is indeed notable and Wikiworthy but the institute is not. The article in the German Wikipedia contains the following sources:

Citations from the subject's own website, either currently live (e.g. here) or archived (e.g. here); dead links such as the one to Wissenschaftliche Kommission Niedersachsen über das DIL (Scientific Commission Lower Saxony on the DIL); more institute sources such as this or this; a dead link to the Jahresabschlussbericht (annual report) (!); citations from the host university's website, e.g. here; a brochure; and so on. For a supposedly notable university-institute the harvest for outside sources is extremely poor. There is nothing to support independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nowhere can I see any evidence that it's actually part of the Hochschule Osnabrück. It certainly co-operates with it, but it appears to be an independent institution and a notable enough one for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The institute cooperates with Hochschule Osnabrück, through offering a Bachelor's in Industrial Engineering Food Production, and is not part of it. My mistaken reading of the German Wikipedia article. Apologies. This changes nothing as to the subject of the contested article. Where exactly are the sources, Necrothesp, that support its "independent notability" -apart from the fact that it exists? -The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an odd one. While I believe that the institute exists, it's a challenge to find documentation to support notability. The page itself looks like 99% WP:PROMO and WP:BROCHURE with the other 1% about foundation stones. The references are internal. This article is the sole contribution from the user that created it. There are two other language pages (German, Dutch) and they're essentially identical brochures. The Dutch page was created by the same user, who did not create the German page but did edit it (very similar user name, only edits). All edits were contemporaneous. It seems like multiple edits on the German page were rolled back for reasons such as advertising or commercialism or lack of WP:NPOV. ogenstein (talk) 05:25, 1 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-Five (solitaire)[edit]

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

Unsourced since it was created at 2009; no game of this description appears at Pagat. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And it's not listed in Parlett's huge compendium of patience games either. Bermicourt (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks incomplete, like it just abruptly cuts off after the card image, and it can't be expanded if it's unreferenced. – numbermaniac 13:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the creator's 2009 card game articles took that form, a lead and a single gameplay section. Uncle G (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources on this game... Spyder212 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible WP:HOAX per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 June 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. Sandstein 21:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentleman's Review[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no coverage. Fails GNG. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not encyclopedic. Cox wasan (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Could not find a single decent RS on this where it was the main subject; and nothing that even close to WP:SIGCOV. Britishfinance (talk) 16:56, 8 June 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. Eddie891 had a primary concern of there only being two entries on the disambig page, it looks like additional entries have been added and there's snow in the forecast - consensus is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Connell (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Richard Connell is the primary topic. His father, Richard E. Connell was a representative in the US House of Representatives. Mrs. Richard Connell does not have a Wikipedia article. A hatnote will suffice on both pages Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is always Richard Connell, already a dangling hyperlink elsewhere, who was Mayor and alderman of Kilkenny and then Member of Parliament for St Canice three times. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Irish politician now added. PamD 04:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several valid entries. They don't need articles to be a valid entry, just to meet MOS:DABMENTION or MOS:DABRL. Boleyn (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that additional entries have been added. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now a valid and useful disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No reason for this debate to go on any longer. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as more useful and notable entries have been included. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 June 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.

[1] 1990 U.S. Census

[1]