Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 June	15 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 keep. There is clearly no consensus to delete this, even from the nominator. AfD is the wrong forum for merge proposals. Please use article talk. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nike-Nike

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

~~No third party source of topic~~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) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 29 May 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) 16:38, 29 May 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These rockets share a name, but they aren't all the same. I don't think they should be merged. These rockets were designed and used before the Internet. I was able to find some old reports that had been scanned into PDF format and add them as references, but other references may only avail;able in hard copy. When you do a search for a U.S. military topic, you can focus your search by adding site:mil at the end of your search so that you will only get results within the .mil top=level domain. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, the source you added only supports the fact it's used 16 times. Hardly significant, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge to a yet to be determined target: We can do better than dictionary entries. Something like Black Brant (rocket) would be better presented. Otr500 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As long as we don't end up with a large article like Project Nike, obviously receiving a lot of work, has been sectioned tagged with no references since 2011. Otr500 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: Merging the articles does not get rid of them, they can still receive individual coverage under one article title, and at a point can always be split if sources provide context for justification. Otr500 (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Project Nike. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 14 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 human Sesame Street characters.

Merge
Merge
Merge a page
Merge out loud
Merge out strong
Merge the good things, not bad
Merge of happy, not sad

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Gordon

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

Does not meet GNG - only source is a Sesame Street episode. Should we redirect or merge, and either way, to The Robinson family (Sesame Street) or List of human Sesame Street characters? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Doesn't pass WP:GNG but is not valueless content. Merge to List of human Sesame Street characters. FOARP (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of human Sesame Street characters. Agree not enough notability for a standalone article, but any good sourced material could be merged into the list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of human Sesame Street characters - I don't see anything to merge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of human Sesame Street characters. Everything about the character is already present in the list so I do not think a merge is needed here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the specific discussion on redirect vs merge.. The merge/redirect target seems to have been settled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 14 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 Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. Per WP:PRESERVE this is preferable to deletion since no specific arguments against merging have been raised, although the delete arguments certainly justify removing the article in its present form (including merging/redirecting it somewhere else) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theory Eatery

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

Not notable, fails GNG. A small restaurant inside a museum in Portland, Oregon is not credible. CookieMonster755 ✉ 22:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CookieMonster755 ✉ 22:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability (WP:GNG, WP:REST). No significant coverage found through google or news searches. Mentions that do exist are trivial. ogenstein (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oregon Museum of Science and Industry as it is also an ongoing exhibit of the museum. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 21 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) 00:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ravenelle

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

Fails WP:NBASE and WP:NCOLLATH. Maybe redirect to 2014 Vanderbilt Commodores baseball team or 2014 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament#Game_Results, where he's listed as recording a save in the CWS final? GPL93 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; original creation looks to have been WP:TOOSOON. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable former baseball player. He is no longer in affiliated ball so can not be merged and he was not a top draft pick. Spanneraol (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Playing in an independent minor league. Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NBASEBALL. Routine sports coverage is not enough to meet the GNG, and that's all he has.Sandals1 (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination & others. Geoffroi (talk) 10:08, 21 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 extent to which the article's detail should be trimmed should be better left to editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gunslinger Girl characters

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

Redirect to Gunslinger Girl was disputed, but no actual reason was given besides "should be discussed". My edit summary: "no justification for this at all: minor manga whose article lacks proper secondary sourcing (it's all from ANN etc.), meaning these characters have even less encyclopedic relevance. in addition, of course, this is greatly excessive and consists solely of primary, in-universe material more suitable for Wikia". I stand by this. The only thing in there that's not a primary source is note 25, " Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes do a similar exercise in The Adventure of the Greek Interpreter"--which is editorial commentary. The main article is already in very bad shape, with so few secondary sources that one may well question what encyclopedic justification a derivative article (full of original research, character analysis, and just outright trivia) for a list of characters has. Now, if AngusWOOF wants to merge some information to the main articles (one can argue that voicing information is relevant--but that's not sourced either), they're welcome to do that, but our encyclopedia doesn't need 54k of trivial information that is of relevance only to the fans. Dr Aaij (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)~~Not for fictional characters AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this discussion starting here, with an AFD nomination, rather than on the list talk page, or on the talk page of the editor who disagreed with you? postdlf (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it was the nominator's intent, but I've seen many editors use AfD in place of merge discussions because it's more binding. Recently another editor opened an AFD hours after I started a merge discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This isn't the place, nominating something for AfD just because an editor disagreed with you also looks bad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Knowledgekid87, I nominated this for AfD because I consider it unencyclopedic fanboy content. You've not presented an argument for keeping. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The anime show notes 20 characters http://www.mxtv.co.jp/gunslinger/chara.html. Also, deletion is not cleanup WP:DINC. The detail can certainly be trimmed down but sourcing info to the manga and anime is expected for character descriptions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- None of that proves the actual content is of encyclopedic value, AngusWoof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Aaij (talk • contribs)
Trim and Merge - the base article isn't that big, so I don't see a reason for a separate character list (if it can be trimmed down some). Someone familiar with the series should probably do the trimming though. If the article is kept, then it might be a good idea to link to it from Gunslinger Girl... Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with AngusWoof. AfD nominations are not for cleanup. Also question for the nominator @Dr Aaij: Are you planning to start AfD for every article like this in [[Category:Lists_of_anime_and_manga_characters]]? Masum Reza^📞 09:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Masumrezarock100, if I had to clean up every anime article that should be on Wikia, not on Wikipedia, I'd be dead before I got halfway. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. See also policy at WP:ATD, and WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 21 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carina Jiang

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

Could find zero references that even mention her on a Google News search. A regular Google search turns up lots of modeling-related sites designed to promote her career, but I didn't see enough material there to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can find lots of references (and I added some) if you search for her Chinese name, 蒋单单 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Eastmain, I can not find reliable sources on her Chinese name as well. Sohu is not reliable source because anyone can post on it, much like how "contributors" can post to Forbes. I see that you created an article on zhwiki for her, and I nominated it for deletion, I hope you don't mind. Viztor (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See above. Viztor (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously not notable per Viztor. The article is also a possible autobiography. Aspening (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:BIO or WP:GNG notability criteria being met per supplied sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:27, 19 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 Foot fetishism. If pedal pumping is restored, material can be merged there as desired and redirects created/retargeted as well, but restoring a redirect is not quite in scope of an AFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cranking (fetish)

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

Notability and also misnaming. There's a fetish, based on feet, for 'pedal pumping', That's not what's described here (we already have pedal pumping) and there's no indication of separate notability. Merge anything useful (if any) and delete. Not even worth a redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Foot fetishism, for failing WP:GNG, also WP:NOTDIC, WP:NEO. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough to revive the article at pedal pumping [2] [3], with this merged in. It's narrower than foot fetishism in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Foot fetishism and make the existing page a redirect. Not a broad enough to warrant its own article. Although the nominator states we already have the similar pedal pumping, this is just a redirect to Foot fetishism, which contains no content about pedal pumping. --John B123 (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It used to have an article on pedal pumping, and the sources in cranking are more about pedal pumping and would be usable for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even with Cranking (fetish) and the former content at pedal pumping merged, it would still be a stub. However, if you feel you can make a properly referenced start class article out of the two, then go for it. --John B123 (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get all the best jobs. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 17 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Applied Informatics

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGCRIT. Sourced either to the conference website itself, or directing to academic journals where some of the conference papers have been published, but without any in-depth coverage of the conference itself. No indication of importance – this conference has only taken place once so far, and is not related to any identically-named conferences held before 2018. Has been deleted once before, and immediately recreated by the creator, who happens to be the conference's organizer, so this article is promotional. Richard3120 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:52, 14 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Florez

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Autobiographical article for a university professor who does not meet criterion #5 of WP:NACADEMIC, being currently an associate professor, nor criterion #6, being a senior researcher at Colciencias. Entirely sourced either to Prof. Florez's own publications, or to the universities where he is employed. The article was PRODded by Cahk and immediately recreated by Prof. Florez, so AfD is the only option now. Richard3120 (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 14 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaddam IV

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

this article about a fictional subject cites no secondary reliable sources WP:RS are required to WP:V verify its general notability per WP:GNG. The subject of the article may therefore be unsuitable for a standalone article as it may lack WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. Some mentions appear to be trivial mentions rather than in-depth coverage of this fictional character. AadaamS (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did you do WP:BEFORE? There are abundant articles in reliable sources, generally academic journals, at this Google Scholar search. Notability is determined by whether references form reliable sources exist, not whether they are cited in the current version of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Eastmain says, a clear candidate for improvement rather than deletion. I see that Eastmain has now done a lot of the required work. Alarichall (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the coverage in multiple academic sources identified above and the ongoing improvement of the article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 17 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) 00:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Militia – A Tribute to Metallica

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

Recreated after a prod only two weeks ago. The reason then was that it fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG and nothing has changed there. The article itself says "The album quickly fell into obscurity" which doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in its notability... Hugsyrup (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that the article title has a dash while the true album title has a colon, which may indicate an attempt to get around a previous deletion. It is true that this album features a few notable bands but that notability cannot be inherited by the album. It is also true that the album sank without a trace, and that is because it received no reliable media notice when it was released or ever since. Therefore it is not eligible for an encyclopedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:19, 15 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 and redirect to Rappin' for Jesus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Colerick

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

I debated speedy-ing this as a hoax, but I'm not sure it's quite as simple as a 'blatant hoax'. Jim Colerick is indeed the claimed pastor who appears in the video, but a) he almost certainly wouldn't be notable in his own right, and I'd have argued for a redirect b) however, it turns out that several sources [4] (see the Rappin' for Jesus article) suggest that the video was fake and Jim Colerick doesn't even exist.

Given that, I'm not sure even a redirect is really appropriate so I'm arguing for deletion. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rappin' for Jesus is still the best option imo, though I get Hugsyrup's argument for deletion. Whether Jim Colerick is a real person or not, the fact is that this name remains a plausible search term and doubts about his existence are explained in the Rappin' for Jesus article. Deletion is my second favorite option. Pichpich (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, though I would have started the deletion process with a WP:BLP PROD. Jmertel23 (talk)
Delete and then sure we can redirect. This is a huge BLP violation. It is as ~~Hugsyrup~~ Pichpich notes a legitimate alternative search term but we need to delete this page full of potentially damaging material which should not be a part of the viewable history of any live article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also ok with that solution. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Sorry for attibuting to Hugs what you had said. I've edited above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect per Barkeep49 as it discourages prank reverting.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:37, 16 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) 00:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh S Shah

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

Does not pass WP:BASIC. Subject's claim to fame is having founded IIMUN, a Model United Nations conference in India, similar to the 400 Model UN conferences in the world. Google search results yielded little beyond what's already in the article except trivial mentions. Two people bearing the same name also appear in the results: a 14-year old chess player (1, 2)), and a sophomore in biology in the US (3). Beyond the trivial mentions that Shah receives due to his Model UN conference (4, 5, 6, 7, etc.), Shah's best coverage is a single piece in the Economic Times from an unnamed reporter (who could have used some copyediting at the end). To his credit, the subject is the primary object of this article. However, the article claims that the conference is noteworthy for being hosted at the UN, but so are 10 other Model UN conferences. This significantly calls into question the reliability of the source, given that such information is widely available, and suggests that the piece is promotional in nature too. Pilaz (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional piece which only exists to glorify the subject. Per the nom, it is evident that his MUN is not the only one to be conducted in the UN, questioning the veracity of the facts in the ET article, which is the only piece that speaks in some length about the said person. Jupitus Smart 17:45, 14 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. Seeing as the claims of notability have gone uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niyati Keni

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

One novel, that was "crowdfunded" (i.e., self published). No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One novel, published by award-winning independent publishers And Other Stories, mentioned in Guardian. Not as un-notable as nominator suggests. PamD 17:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: several sources added, appears enough for WP:GNG. PamD 18:04, 15 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 Doctor Sleep. With respect to the keep argument, a hit count is not evidence of notability and it appears from the argument that the sources that make up said hit count are inadequate. As for redirect vs. deletion vs. draft, picking redirect so that the content remains preserved in the page history (since the argument is that she could become notable soon) and that readers land on a pertinent article in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The redirect target was supposed to be Doctor Sleep (2019 film) not Doctor Sleep, as the former was linked in this discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyliegh Curran

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

Clearly not a notable actress yet. Her only notable role is for a film not released yet. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly notable if the film and stage roles are taken together. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a starring actor whose name has appeared in ~~over 129,000~~ numerous news sources per Google News, which shows notability through the combination of multiple independent sources even though there is not substantial coverage at this point. Before the trailer release, the article averaged 67 views a day. Then it jumped over 4,800% in views to 3,914, reflecting readers' interest in knowing who she is, and this will continue up to the film's release and after it. Information about her previous roles cannot be placed elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is extremely unlikely that the current stub will remain this way. At minimum, the article should be userfied because it will most definitely be brought back with additional coverage. Deleting this article does not serve the readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not have enough familiarity with Google. Google will not show you 129,000 results, and there will not have been 129,000 articles. It does not give me even the comparatively mere 2,100 articles that it claims for me. That is not how Google actually works. Google hit counts are a fallacious argument both at AFD and in general elsewhere.
  Try, instead, demonstrating with citations of reliable sources, that it is possible to write a Wikipedia biography of a child that is in compliance with Wikipedia's content policies. One has to actually read what the search engines turn up. I did. This exemplifies what I found: On the 8th page of results from Google News, the top article was a news article that was not about this person at all, and only matched because of a sidebar containing links to other news articles. So we've so far got a news article (recycled by several news sources) about a film that devotes two sentences to this person, and the rest to the film, and a fallacious Google hit counting argument that upon examination (and as is far too often the case) is about false counts of things that aren't even sources.
  Uncle G (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - How many results can you find? If it is not 129,000, it is still a lot because every article that talks about the upcoming film mentions that she stars in it, and we see that readers want to know who is this starring actress who is playing one of the three main characters. Is it any less than a thousand in any case? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not even 100, and they're all the same, about the film and not about this subject. You aren't getting it. The hit count is a fallacious and uninformed argument to make. Experience with Google readily shows that it is not a measure of anything, and this is something that is nowadays widely documented about Google. Try citing sources, as I said. That's a good argument. You haven't cited one, yet, though. Notability is about what is written, not about how much is read. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Fails notability, either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. BTW, google 'hits' are 12,900. Somebody added a '0' to the discussion. What's more, when you actually go through them page by page, you will eventually find that there are actually only 167 results. And all of those are trivial mentions. There is a huge base of film newstrivia sites looking for clicks that rush to post something with every press or trailer release. It is important to resist getting caught up in the numbers (even when there are any).
I should point out that even the non-RS results aren't about her. They simply provide some variation of: "Curran will portray Abra Stone". Most of these mentions seem to be based off of other trivial mentions (i.e. copy/paste and change an adjective). RS such as UPI, discuss the film but simply include her name among a list of eight actors in the film. And typically, when there is even modest coverage of the movie, the source will say that the star is Ewan McGregor, not the subject — because he is the star. NB, there is not yet any significant coverage because the film is still in production. A BLP requires good sources (and I think there are special concerns when a minor is the subject) and these do not exist yet. ogenstein (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as the film is very high profile and she has a major role so it is likely she will receive more substantial coverage in the medium term so draftifying until then seems a good option, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Actors fails GNG and is a case of TOOSOON. Actor has only 2 credits, one of which is an unreleased film. Doctor Sleep isn't released yet so we have to judge with the current available sources and not speculate. Redirect to Doctor Sleep (for now). HM Wilburt (talk) 15:56, 20 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) 00:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ria Chatterjee

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

no evidence of notability for this journalist. Being "Ria is involved in the ITN competition 'Breaking into News' to find new journalists." translates as Not Yet Notable. DGG ( talk ) 14:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable journalist. The only publicity she got is due to a crash which happened during her programme. She has also authored some articles, none of which is enough to impart any lasting notability. Jupitus Smart 17:50, 14 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. Per the uncontested claims of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jérémy_Amelin

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

Missing high quality secondary sources. Doesn't meet notability standards. Promo. Articles for deletion. TheSpectra (talk) 12:40, 14 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} 12:46, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to be the nominator's first edit. See TheSpectra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). While the nomination is signed by TheSpectra, it was submitted by 2a01:e35:8be2:6d00:91ba:57f4:a79e:3b3a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD was formatted incorrectly, so I fixed it. My first reaction is that the subject looks notable. 2a01:e35:8be2:6d00:91ba:57f4:a79e:3b3a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who submitted this nomination, has also submitted one for the corresponding French article, fr:Jérémy Amelin Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The result of the French AfD, closed on october 17, 2014, was no consensus: meets the notability guidelines and is sourced for the keep !votes, sources are not good for the delete !votes. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources from Le Parisien ([5]) and fr:La République du Centre ([6]) make the article pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC with significant coverage in reliable sources as shown above and also passes criteria 2 with a release charting on two national charts so the article deserves to be kept imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 20 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. Due to lack of a deletion reason/the problem being resolvable without deletion. @Interstellarity:, if there are copyright concerns listing the article at WP:CP would be the best course of action. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partial hospitalization

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

This is just copied and pasted. None of this is paraphrased. Interstellarity T 🌟 13:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the article was not. Always check the edit history. Uncle G (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G: Should I let the nomination run or withdraw this nomination? Interstellarity T 🌟 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That really depends from whether you want an administrator to hit the delete button and erase (from view) both the current article and its entire edit history. Because that's what AFD is for.
    If you think that there's no possibility for an article, because there's no such subject or no properly researched and published knowledge of it, then keep going. If the problem was merely with the text in a few recent versions of the article, and not what it looked like for the decade prior to that, then that's something that you (and even people without acccounts) possess the tools for fixing yourself. You could revert. Better, you could revert and then try to improve upon the older text, having researched the subject and found good sources to work from.
    I suggest at this point that you go and look to see whether this is a properly documented subject, by looking for good documentation (including but not limited to any cited in the article) and reading and evaluating it; decide based upon what you find which of these two courses is the appropriate one; and then come back with your conclusion. Once one gets beyond Wikignoming, this is what (our kind of) encyclopaedists do. They find good sources, read and understand them, evaluate their provenances and depths, and write free-content prose. For an AFD nomination and subsequent discussion, the first three apply; although some do the fourth as well, to prove the point.
    Uncle G (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Uncle G: What do you think is the best course of action at this point? Interstellarity T 🌟 17:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:56, 19 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Sheep

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

This is basically a one-time experiment by a non-notable poet, not a whole movement or style of poetry that other people have picked up on and imitated since the initial effort. It appears to have been mildly locally newsworthy as a human-interest story when it occurred, and has attracted almost no interest or critical commentary since then. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 07:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Um, not so fast. Laws made the first poems back in 2002; it attracted quite a lot of attention back then; the respected Peterloo Poets published a book on the topic in 2006 (a substantial leap in notability in the quiet world of poetry). Later, in 2017, the composer Stephen Downing made a musical piece of the Quantum Sheep, showing both that it continued to have currency and that another artist thought it worth working with. In 2018, educators thought fit to write about the poem's experimental approach, showing that the poetic method of the said sheep has currency 16 years later, and is of interest to another constituency of people; hardly a nine-days-wonder. This is a definite keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this had perhaps a handful of more notable sources, I would change this to Weak keep, but as it stands the only ones I can find are the BBC News article and this HuffPost article from a Stegner Fellow/poetry teacher. The problem, I think, with using Laws' books to advance notability – one of which was the one Chiswick Chap describes above as attesting to the style's notability – is that she was the one who pioneered the style of poetry, and thus it's by definition not independent. As far as the FutureLearn source, the single reference used is Laws herself, and the article – which has very little depth – effectively defers entirely to Laws when describing quantum sheep. I pretty much concur with Premeditated Chaos' description about it being a "mildly locally newsworthy [...] human-interest story". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, the FutureLearn source is an independently-created page in an independent field, education. If we're on a source hunt, another is the philosopher Robert P. Crease's article Quantum of Culture on Physics World, which gives substantial coverage to the Quantum Sheep. It's certainly an independent source from a notable authority in his own field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really "all the same". As I pointed out, the literal only reference for that brief FutureLearn article, by its own admission, is Valerie Laws' webpage. Per the GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The problem here is that the FutureLearn article effectively just regurgiates what's on Laws' website wholesale while adding nothing of its own.

While I would consider that Physics World page as adding to notability, I would say only marginally due to a couple qualifiers. First, quantum sheep is far from the main subject of that article; it's not a perfect metric for importance, but it receives ~230 words in a ~1975-word article. Second, the coverage seems to be sourced half from Laws' website, and half from quotes from Laws from the BBC interview, i.e. another article that ostensibly adds very little outside of "Here's what Laws says". The saving grace here that makes me say "marginal" is the article's author. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 10:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, that article may need to be sheared down just a bit. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTESSAY. WP:NEO, and WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 16:39, 19 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Larocca

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only non-trivial mention I can find is an Adnews article of AdNews, but it describes itself as "the trade title that services the advertising, media, marketing and technology industries in Australia", so it doesn't strike me as reliable. Certainly fails WP:AUTHOR as well. Pilaz (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is almost entirely self serving and promotional. Teraplane (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as paid-for spam, or business development for a paid-for spamming operation. MER-C 17:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The primary 2 accounts that created the page also look very suspicious and far from a bona fide editor's contribution history. Cabrils (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, WP:SNOW and WP:SALT should be applied Gnan garra
Delete pile on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:SNOW. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:04, 21 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Institute of Marketing Ghana

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

Does not make a claim of importance or significance. Has only one source, which is its own domain name www.cimghana.org. In searching for sources I find nothing usable, only passing mentions, the giving out of its award, or its expression of condolences after a disaster. Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG or WPGNG. Lopifalko (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is a professional institutions/body just like the UK's Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. There are WP:RS available online on Google Books if you search the original name of this organisation (the Institute of Marketing, Ghana [7]) covering the subject in-depth. We should be very slow to nominate or delete African related articles especially if the subject is very old e.g. old organisations before the advent of the internet. Google sometimes does not index African sources or takes a hell of a lot of time before indexing them. Also, just because one can't find sources online does not mean there aren't off-line sources. Here are some sources discussing the subject matter although some are in snippets but if you do a specific search you can complete or make out the whole text/paragraph. For example here addressing the launching of the Institute of Marketing, Ghana'and the reason for the launch as well as what it tries to promote/its responsibilities; the founding of the organisation in 1981 and its board; and here in the Nexus Commonwealth Network. Here are also sources of the new name in Google Scholars [8].Tamsier (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is useful and I will look into all your points. Firstly, you say "This is a professional institutions/body" but its web site appears to say it is not yet a professional body: "The vision of the Ghana School of Marketing is to become a model marketing professional institute, providing top classes marketing education.". -Lopifalko (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a vision statement as Phil has pointed out below. WP:COMMONSENSE needs to apply sometimes.Tamsier (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For better results it's best to omit both "chartered" and "the" from searches:

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

The Google Books, Scholar and News searches all find plenty of coverage in reliable sources. What this institute might say in its "vision statement" is meaningless, as all such vision statements that I have ever seen are. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tamsier and Phil Bridger. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:50, 21 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flanco

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

"The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. While the Romanian wiki article is a bit longer and has references, from what I can gather with Google Translate is that they are not in-depth coverage - just the rewritten press releases, like "Flamingo opens three Flanco stores" or "Flanco wants to employ over 150 people this year". If you think any references are in-depth and reliable, please provide a more detailed analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many articles found in a search - [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], and many many more, covering all aspects of the company, including history, finance, stores, etc. It appears to be a significant electronics and appliance retail chain in Romania, and should satisfy WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits are not sufficient. Can you provide an analysis of those sources, showing that they are independent and in-depth, and not mentions in passing and reprinted press releases? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you are the one who should read and analyze the sources if you want to nominate articles for deletion. You should be prepared to do the work per WP:BEFORE which would have reveal these sources and more before you nominated. You might get lucky and someone might come along and do the work for you, but you should not expect it as a matter of course. I've read the sources, and I considered them passing the criteria for sources, and you should read them first too. Hzh (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 14 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. There's a list of sources presented, with a claim that they are WP:RS. The nom disputes the quality of the sources, but neither side has made any arguments which are so clear-cut that I, as somebody not familiar with any of the source publications, can draw any clear conclusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pareshaan Parinda

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

Non-notable film, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources of the film of reliable media when I have created the article. Prothom Alo, Kaler Kantho, Amader Shomoy, Bangladesh Pratidin are reliable media in Bangladesh. The film has got much coverage in Bangladeshi media. So, I think the article should be on Wikipedia.Smnsbd1971 (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- They do not show significant coverage as required by WP:NFILM and there is no evidence of satisfying WP:NFO either. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Pratidin, Prothom Alo, Kaler Kantho and Amader Shomoy are in the first, second, third and seventh position respectively by circulation of Bangladeshi newspaper. The movie has coverage on these newspapers. So, I think the article should be on Wikipedia & it has fulfilled the requirement to be on Wikipedia.Smnsbd1971 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Once more re-read my reply above. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your comment when I have written the reply. The movie has its presence in IMDB and Book My Show.^[1] And the sources are added, all of them are third party souces and are not self published. The Indian films probably do not get much coverage in India but for the Bangladeshi actress, the movie has got significant coverage in Bangladeshi media.Smnsbd1971 (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable film, fails WP:NFILM. Geoffroi (talk) 00:03, 18 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sowmya Rao Nadig

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only one significant role, the rest seem fairly minor. Minimal details in the article, just not enough here to keep. Ravensfire (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as she does have some prominent roles, such as in Nenjam Marappathillai (TV series) and in Valli (TV series) where she had a prominent role before leaving the show, also can you explain why you removed the existing references, were they unreliable? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, correct, neither of those were good sources. One was more wiki / blog and they were both just click-bait sites. The sources that remain and the linked articles for the shows don't show anythign about prominence except for the one. That's not enough to meet WP:NACTOR. We can't just say there's enough, there has to actually be enough in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 14 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Richardson

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. All of the refs are amazon links to nowhere as well. This article was created by a user who has not been active in 13 years and who has a history of deleted pages as well. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft move to draftspace as the article is in a dire state and is not suitable for mainspace in this condition, but he does pass WP:Creative with screenplays for multiple very notable films. Also worldcat shows over 6,000 library holdings which indicates that there should be many reviews of such popular books, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Assuming facts in the article are true, meets WP:CREATIVE #3. I see no real reason to draftify, the article is honestly not as bad as all that. I'll try to do some work on it in the few hours before this AFD closes anyway. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep moving to keep from draftify as the article has been improved and is acceptable for mainspace, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 15 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. I didn't give much weight to Forest90's comment; from what they wrote, I don't think they understand our concept of WP:N. But, SpinningSpark's argument is enough that I can't see calling this a clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albannach (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND. Only reliable sourcing in article regards assault on member, rather than band per se. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous AfDs in 2012-13 when the article had a different title: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albannach, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albannach (2nd nomination). AllyD (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Article. I looked to Article and guess it's a normal article. I think the Article should remain because they are a notable band.Forest90 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your policy-based reason being..? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their use in the Discovery Channel documentary weakly meets WP:NBAND criterion #10 and the subsequent newspaper coverage meets GNG. SpinningSpark 00:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not convinced that being used as an extra in a documentary addresses WP:GNG. The only depth of coverage from a source that meets WP:RS would be this one. The other reasonable sources are primarily about the stabbing incident. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:10, 8 June 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, 14 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relode LLC

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

There are several companies with similar names, however none of them are notable afaict. Everything is just basic funding announcements, passing mentions and nothing in depth. Praxidicae (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not sure I agree with this about notability. I created this article after reviewing this section of WP:NCORP (and not in exchange for reimbursement--so not advertisement or COIN):~~

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING.

From what these sources show, Relode's getting noticed in local media and recruiting media, and as a startup it looks like it could have a big impact there. It's a smaller company, comparatively, to others that have a presence on Wikipedia, but I don't think that makes it inherently not notable.

What about these pieces that focus solely on this company? Or is there a number limit to how many article need to mention a company? I'm still new to creating articles on Wikipedia but follow startups and have started creating articles for ones I find interesting, and thought this range of articles over a 3 year period would qualify this one for notability.
Tennessean

Nashville medical news

Recruiting Daily

Nashville Post

~~FrankieCP (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Sock Blocked From user's Talk page, clocked by administrator - Confirmed to Elizabethmaryparker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) both accounts seem intent on promoting various subjects on Wikipedia HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should Draft:Relode be considered as bundled with this, then? It was created by the master. Bri.public (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since sources already provided, such as The Tennessean, Nashville Post, The Bismarck Tribune, etc, are enough for subject to meet WP:NCORP. This is a start up that's past the WP:TOOSOON hurdle. -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...that sourcing is still poor. It's all hyper local and not otherwise independent coverage (interviews, press releases, puff pieces are not the type of sources we require to establish notability.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Praxidicae. I'll let other editors opine on your assessment of extant sources as "poor." Me, I'll just provide some details about them.

The Tennessean, which is evidently not some "hyper local" source unless Tennessee has shrunk in size , has an article, written by Holly Fletcher, that profiles the company's, i.e. its field ("...uses web and mobile software to list jobs that take referrals from agents"), finances, operations, and prospects. That's a bona fide proper & reliable reference in any book.
The Nashville Post interview is not the only thing they have published about Relode. There are at least two more reports on the company (here and here) that testify to its Wikinotability.
The article in The Bismarck Tribune, which is "the primary daily newspaper for south-central and southwest North Dakota", again hardly a small area, seems like a fair presentation of the company and not ike a "press release". But this is a subjective call.

Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Any company can get its name into papers. However, WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT require significant, independent, multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Crunchbase profiles, regurgitated press releases, and staff interviews in local press just aren't enough for this organisation to have an article yet. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article fail the criteria for establishing notability. Some references such as the ones in The Tennessean might appear to meet the criteria but are, in fact, based on company announcements of funding, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a WP:NCORP failure. Coverage of the topic is lacking the nessesary depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) to establish the subject's encyclopedic notability, and per HighKing's point above several of the regional sources cited are based on WP:PRIMARY information. In addition, the tone of some of the cited sources (like Could “eBay meets recruiting” fix healthcare recruiting? and Recruiting company aims to help find nurses) is clearly speculative and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia, per WP:CRYSTAL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:15, 19 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 delete per A3 (no meaningful content) ... discospinster _talk 13:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Bench Creations

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

No content and there are no references given Agaba Perez (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New Communist Party of Britain. All commenters are clear on a consensus including the nominator. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New Worker

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

Merge into New Communist Party of Britain: Written more like a copy-and-paste job by members and activists themselves of this 'so-called' (i.e., not actually registered with the Electoral Commission here in the UK) New Communist Party (NCP). [18] Tone certainly overtly if not entirely promotional. An obscure [19][20][21][22] (and judging from the fact that all of its pages (invariably only the front page) are directly from The New Worker website itself, as scanned JPGs [23]) 'newsletter' in its own right (and not even a newspaper here in the UK, unlike say The Morning Star or The Socialist Worker), and which is invariably associated with and connected to the NCP, with absolutely NO semblance or pretence of independence between the two ('one and the same')... there is no reason, except for deliberate promotion via the means of Wikipedia [24][25], why there needs two separate articles. This newsletter is so obscure that literally NO non-support/activist independent sources are available on-line! (And that is the 'polite' version! "List of left and radical bookshops that sell the New Worker." I mean, really!) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I don’t think it’s true that this is ‘not even a newspaper’ though it’s not widely sold. I’m not clear why a merge proposal came to AfD though. Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nom. The sources to support a page just don't exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, can a friendly:) (or not so friendly:( :)) admin please close this quickly as it shouldn't be here, the nominator could have carried out the merge themselves (be WP:BOLD), or created a discussion on the Talk:New Communist Party of Britain in line with WP:MERGE. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 21 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Halmstad

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

Obscure business executive of a non-notable small tech firm Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While JAMF may not have a page right now, it appears that Halmstead has enough by WP:GNG to establish notability. Upon further research, he has started to venture into property management, and has begun to be involved with government. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 14 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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 09:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Anderson

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

There is no inherent notability in being a beauty pageant contestant and that is all that there are sources for. This is a BLP. Large chunks of information are sourced to pageant trade publications which are certainly not reliable sources for BLP. I'd proposed it for deletion as BLP1E and sources have been added since to get over that, but all sources are for pageant participation. The editor who removed the PROD claims that since winning the Puerto Rico pageant she won sends her to the Miss Universe pageant she's notable. I disagree. John from Idegon (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: It is standard practice for national titleholders of major competitions to receive their own articles, beauty pageants are frequently the subject of scrutiny on here because of internalized I don't like it mentalities. Saying Anderson is only notable for one event is the equivalent of saying Maelyn Jarmon is notable for one event and does not deserve an article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: My reasons to keep this are
- The living person joined a lot of beauty pageants even on another country (Miss USA Florida, Miss Grand International, Miss Grand Puerto Rico, Miss Universe Puerto Rico and an upcoming Miss Universe 2019 contestant)
- And has been a titleholder of two beauty pageants. Miss Grand International Puerto Rico and Miss Universe Puerto Rico.
- Who was involved on a controversy.
- Who was a runner-up of an international beauty pageant.
- Who will be an upcoming contestant of a major international beauty pageant.

I consider these notable, A lot of pageant experiences and has a BIG pageant career. I am keeping it if I were you. Come on it is notable enough. Triila73 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as with comments above that person has met with the notability guidelines for being a beauty pageant winner in a national contest. Let us give a consensus for a procedural close. ApprenticeFan work 14:36, 17 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. Given the uncontested claims of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Springs (Tokyo DisneySea)

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

The "plan" just announced (June 14, 2019) and nothing is under construction - WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until it opens since the rides inside the area are already notable. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It doesn't matter if nothing is under construction. Not only is it already verified, but easily passes WP:GNG. Already in-depth coverage from English language sources like Kyodo News, The Japan Times, Mainichi Shimbun and Japan Today plus many more. [26][27][28][29] Most certainly much more exists in the Japanese language. The essay, not policy or guideline, WP:TOOSOON is meant for topics that don't yet pass our notability guidelines. The TOOSOON train has already left the station. Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "toot, toot ... oh, oh here comes the fat controller!", some editors may think 'and the Disney PR juggernaut keeps rolling along'. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 21 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Burgos Flor

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly there is a tiny bit of notability here but it doesn't seem to be anything like enough for an article. Of the two references, the only one I have access to is a mere passing mention and not an article about him at all. The Spanish language article seems to be a translation of this one and offers no better references. (If this is deleted then maybe that should be too?) The Google searches show enough to prove that the subject exists and is an artist, but not much more than that. The photo was taken by the original author of the article which might suggest a COI or maybe just enthusiasm. Either way, I don't think we can keep this. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search for sources finds only Wikipedia spinoff content.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:14, 14 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. Closing early: nomination withdrawn and no delete !votes left. Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Vigil

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

Subject fails to pass WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST. For WP:BASIC, the three best sources I could find (after some web browsing, news browsing, and 5 pages of digging through Google Scholar) are this passing mention of Vigil's work, this brief mention in a book specifically about "Hispano Arts and Culture of New Mexico", and probably most significantly, this article from the Santa Fe New Mexican, which has less to do with Vigil or even her art itself as much as it does drama about an oversight from the local government; I would argue that none of these qualify as "significant coverage". The rest are either passing to a point of being not worthy of mention or primary. The only unlikely hope I can see for notability is if the coverage in Latin American Women Artists of the United States (2008) is extensive enough to almost single-handedly justify an article. Also fails all four criteria of WP:ARTIST, as mentioned before. Note: Subject also known as "Doña Bernadette Vigil". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, Withdraw per ThatMontrealIP's rationale of WP:HEY due to Netherzone's significant improvements.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the name definitely rings a bell. I'll do some research, sometimes regionally-based artists who work in vernacular forms are not received in the same manner as the mainstream New York-Paris-Dusseldorf-Tokyo art world. The solo show at Millicent Rogers Museum is a big deal. So is the solo show at Owings-Dewey Fine Art (one of the best galleries in Santa Fe - they produce museum-quality shows.) As to the group shows, these are quite prestigious: Museum of Fine Arts, Santa Fe; Armory for the Arts, Harwood Foundation Museum; Albuquerque Museum, Roswell Museum. The problem is that none of those items have citations and the article is poorly written. Also problematic is the statement that she worked with Diego Rivera, the famous Mexican muralist. If she was born in 1955 and he died in 1957, did she work for him when she was 2 years old? Perhaps the editor meant she was influenced by him? The article creator is a student editor, which may be why the article sourcing is not very good. Netherzone (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ the coverage is extremely weak. She did some public murals in Santa Fe, and I see one book entry on Latin American artists, but that is it. Notability fail based on lack of sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems that she was commissioned by the City of Albuquerque to do three permanent public artworks (mural frescos). I added one citation re: one of the works in this collection. She is notable in her vernacular arena and within the genre of Hispanic/Latinx muralists in the Southwest. The exhibitions are nothing to sniff at, these are significant museums that have shown her work. I will see what else I may be able to find, also if she has a married name or maiden name that is different. I think I'd like to develop this article. To my way of thinking, this article (and artist) requires some time because it may involve library research rather than web research. I'll be in New Mexico next month, and can volunteer to do this. The article has only been up for 6 weeks and was done by a student editor out in California (who perhaps did not have guidance in proper referencing - just a guess.) Netherzone (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out that available sourcing is extremely weak, as the nominator points out. The article is decently written and the issue is not so much proper referencing as it is the availability of our guiding principle: published sources. If you can find refs, more power to you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone: As admirable as your goal is, and as much as I would love to see this article be developed if possible, I don't believe "Well, it might be better a month later if I manage to find sources" should affect this nomination. If you can find better sources, more power to you, but I don't think the article should remain up in this state for a month or more in the hopes that you turn up something substantive in your digging. I would suggest that the article be removed, and if you come back with better sources that show this subject meets WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST, there should be no problem reinstating the article with stronger sourcing and better prose. As it stands right now, this is an article with poor sourcing that may not even be entirely true (for example, as you pointed out, Vigil apparently worked with Rivera when she was two years old). The short essays WP:NOW and WP:REALPROBLEM broadly explain my sentiments. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheTechnician27 You are absolutely right, how absurd to assume the article could be draftified until I traveled to New Mexico. Instead, I've taken a proactive approach, went to the library, did online research, and called two museum libraries. As it now stands, the citation issues have been resolved, sourcing improved, resolved orphanhood, added categories, checked it for copy vio, and I've spent some time rectifying the horrific writing and removed what seemed like possible original research. The article passes WP:BASIC, WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG. She has works in permanent collections of the City of Albuquerque, has numerous public artworks, has had three solo museum exhibitions, one two-person museum show, and has had work included in eleven museum group shows. An entire chapter of the book, Latin American Women Artists of the United States The Works of 33 Twentieth-Century Women is on her work. Additionally she has authored a book published by Simon & Schuster that has been translated into two other languages. BTW, weak sourcing is not criteria for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Additionally she has authored a book published by Simon & Schuster that has been translated into two other languages" - NO, the article is totally clear she did the cover art for someone else's book. Careless nonsense doesn't help your case. The exhibition history & works in local museums are helpful to her but not really at big enough galleries to be clear evidence of notability. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you are incorrect Johnbod, she did in fact author a book published by Simon and Schuster - there are citations in the article lead that point to these. Here they are again in case you don't have time to look at the article itself: Simon & Schuster here, Publishers weekly here, Spanish translation here, German translation here. As to the opinion that the galleries and museums who have shown and represented her work are not important enough, yes, it is correct she is a regional artist, although not entirely, she has indeed shown in all the major museums and best galleries in her geographic region, and is obviously notable when you look at the multiple instances of press coverage here. On the second aspect of your critique, just because an artist does not live in New York or London or Paris and show at Gagosian or WhiteBox or Pace Gallery does not mean they are unworthy of representation as a historically important person in the encyclopedia. Just sayin'... Netherzone (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough re the book. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Netherzone, I don't see why you felt the need to be snarky about this; I feel I was being reasonable and polite.~~ You stated, "I'll be in New Mexico next month, and can volunteer to do this", meaning according to you at the time, the poorly sourced article would've been left unchanged on the mainspace for at least another month (note: you said nothing about draftifying) in the hopes that you would find something substantive. Moreover, I never remotely stated that weak sourcing alone is criteria for deletion, as though I've never read WP:NEXIST; I stated both that the current sourcing in the article was weak and that the rest of the sourcing we knew to be available was just as weak. As far as draftifying, my thought was that it would have been put on WP:HUD until you took your trip to New Mexico and gathered sources, i.e., the article would have been removed from the mainspace to be worked on as a draft (admittedly, I don't remember why I crossed out "draftify" in a previous revision; a draft space article would've worked just as well).

Finally, as far as notability is concerned, it seems more like a grey area than "clearly passing" notability guidelines; I will therefore defer to ThatMontrealIP, as their expertise on Wikipedia seems to be about notable female artists; if they ultimately find that this subject passes notability guidelines and provide an explanation, I'll withdraw my nomination (note: not meant as an ultimatum; I just mean if they reach that conclusion at some point). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27:, I think it's a good nomination, see my comments below. The murals were community works projects partially done by kids (this could be OK, see for example Suzanne Lacy, but these murals aren't cutting edge art like Lacy's is). The books, solo and group shows are mostly unreviewed, so here we are at AFD. Maybe Netherzone can find newspaper articles that establish GNG? We're all a bunch of well-intentioned editors doing what we are supposed to do at AFD: giving the subject a good examinaton. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: Hello again, TheTechnician27 I'm perplexed with the characterization "snarky", as no snark was intended. In fact I thanked you for lighting a fire under me to edit proactively online rather than waiting until I was in the local geographic area to do library research. I called myself out on the abusurdity of keeping this AfD open so long. That is being realistic, not snarky. I no longer have access to newspapers.com, and given the dates of her activity, local library research made sense. New Mexico is the 50th poorest state and even major institutions such as the National Hispanic Cultural Center with thousands of works in their collections cannot afford to digitize them (they have only digitized SIX works from their massive collection). It takes many years and more importantly money to digitize a collection. Local and regional magazines and newspapers are either not digitized or poorly digitized. It's just social-economic reality. These conditions make library research even more essential. However, the point is moot now, because the article has been vastly improved and if you kindly take the time to look at it again with fresh eyes, I think you may agree that deleting it would erase an important Latina woman artist from the historical record, which to my way of thinking, is a diservice to the encyclopedia. I have found three important permanent collections, in additon to her shows at galleries and art centers, she has had three solo museum shows, one museum two-person show, and eleven museum group shows - all curated by intelligent, informed and well-educated museum professionals. Please have a look at it again now that it has been cleaned up and improved. I'm just wondering if you thought about WP:BEFORE since you deleted before adding the sources you did find, or attempting to improve it first. I say that in the spirit of inclusionism. Netherzone (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone: Sorry about that. The sarcasm came off as snark, mostly due to the "how absurd to assume"; I didn't realize you were addressing yourself. I did carry out WP:BEFORE. I think you're questioning whether or not I performed WP:BEFORE C.2 because of the article's somewhat recent creation, but that's left to the editor's discretion, the article in its nominated state was more akin to WP:REALPROBLEM than WP:INSPECTOR, I could find no sources through WP:BEFORE D that would make me assume the article could be readily improved, and 6 weeks should have been plenty of time to improve it (although it never should have gone to mainspace in the first place in that state). As far as keeping the article is concerned, I gave myself no further say in favor of deferring to ThatMontrealIP's judgement; as they changed their vote to Keep and explained their decision as WP:HEY, the nomination is withdrawn. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes WP:BASIC, WP:ARTIST, and WP:GNG. She has works in permanent collections of the City of Albuquerque, and has numerous public artworks. In addition to numerous shows in galleries, university galleries and art centers, she has had three solo museum exhibitions; one two-person museum show; and has had work included in eleven museum group shows. An entire chapter of the book, Latin American Women Artists of the United States: The Works of 33 Twentieth-Century Women is on her artwork. Additionally she has authored a book published by Simon & Schuster that has been translated into two other languages. -- Netherzone (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The museum collections might do it, were they actually in amuseum collection per the intention of WP:ARTIST. It is worth noting that the recent article about one of her murals being covered says "In 1995, Santa Fe artist Bernadette Vigil and five teenagers teamed up to paint a fresco on an exterior wall of City Hall under a program started by then-Mayor Debbie Jaramillo to produce public art as a positive way to counter the city’s graffiti problem." WP:Artist says artists are likely notable if their work is held in the permanent collections of multiple museums or notable galleries. That is a notability rule of thumb that works because those museums have curators who judge notability by carefully selecting works. In Vigil's case she was not selected by a curator to be in a permanent collection, but rather she was selected to lead a bunch of kids to paint some public murals (as detailed in the Project report here). It's essentially a public works project. Regarding the solo shows, they are of no value without reviews. Re: group shows, those are what artists do and are only important here with in-depth reviews. Same goes for the book: no reviews, no importance in notability. So the murals do not make her meet WP:ARTIST, and the books, group and solo shows have almost no reviews. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThatMontrealIP I suppose that is one way to look at that specific commission: "lead a bunch of kids to paint some public murals"; the other way to look at it is that Vigil was commissioned (which is a selective, curatorial process) by the City of Santa Fe Art Commission (which is the equivalent of a state council on the arts) to create a mural for City Hall of the New Mexico State Capital city. Also wanted to point out that you were looking at an incorrect link for works in collections. I've moved that section up, BtW. Thank you for your comments, they have been instructive. Netherzone (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the phrase I used is exactly correct: she was comissioned to "lead a bunch of kids to paint some public murals". It is very, very far from being selected for a permanent collection of a museum or notable gallery by a curator, which is the intention of WP:ARTIST 4. d). Muralists are all over the place, and the commissioning process is very low-level. WP:ARTIST relies on museum curators as they are high-level qualified personel who can do the bnotability judging for us. I think the level of care in the mural is process is exemplified by the fact that Vigil's mural got covered over in stucco one day by a contractor. It's a community beautification program and youth engagement project (Project title "Community Youth Mural Program") and not a highly trained curator selecting works that will be carefully preserved for centuries. We rely on WP:ARTIST 4d) because we can defer tot he judgement of those highly trained personnel; the same cannot be said for us relying on the whoever curated the mural project. The word curator does not even appear in the project report for the Community Youth Mural Program.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how the encyclopedia can be improved by deleting this article. We have citations to reliable sources. Her work has been curated in museum exhibits, so I'm happy to defer an evaluation of the merits of her work to the expertise of those curators. Vexations (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep per WP:HEY, based on Netherzone having found more museum collections. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as I am viewing it clearly meets GNG, and, in my view, NARTIST as well. Montanabw^(talk) 16:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep The article, which could be improved as regards referencing and info - eg where are these public murals exactly? - just about squeaks through GNG and WP:ARTIST, though not as clearly as some keepers claim. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Johnbod dozens of sources of full page, half page articles and reviews are on Newspapers.com. Once I get my WP library card renewed (or when I travel to New Mexico next month - these sources can be added as full citations. She is notable in her field and geographic arena. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and per WP:NARTIST — I couldn't find the permanent collection information now in the article when I tried searching for it, so thanks to those who did. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 15 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 Organizations of the Dune universe. Seems pretty clear that the notability guidelines are not met here - "it's no less useful than other similar articles" is not enough to defeat a notability concern, and it appears that the Google Scholar search does not actually provide good sources. Note that due to the concerns about WP:OR the merge should probably be somewhat selective; in particular the material sourced to the works themselves will need due care. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sardaukar

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

this article about a fictional subject cites no secondary reliable sources WP:RS are required to WP:V verify its general notability per WP:GNG. The subject of the article may therefore be unsuitable for a standalone article as it may lack WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's no less useful than the other articles about the Dune universe.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTUSEFUL, usefulness is not a criterion which determines the general notability of a subject to merit a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countering the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is a more relevant point to make imo. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Organizations of the Dune universe, as with Mentat. I volunteer to perform the merge if that is the final outcome.— TAnthony^Talk 14:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every single source cited in the article so far is a work of fiction. There is no factual work cited as a source anywhere. The article itself consists entirely of Wikipedia editors' collective original firsthand analyses of these works of fiction, with each analysis citing an entire book as its source, because (fairly obviously) verifiability is expected to be ″read the books and you will form the same unpublished conclusions″.
Thinking that Dune is pretty well analysed by people, and so factual sources must exist, I went looking. To my surprise, I couldn't find any. I can find a small amount about Salusa Secundus, relating it to Gamma Piscium. It's not really enough for a whole article on that subject, and that is more than I can find in any factual work about this subject. It just hasn't been analysed and documented.
It is not possible to write an article on this subject without violating our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should probably be merged into the article stated above, no point keeping a standalone article that is basically fancruft. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please take a look at the scholarly articles shown in this Google Scholar search for analysis of the topic. And for your amusement, look at this document about securities fraud and guess where the company name "Sardaukar Holdings" came from. I think the company was named by an investment executive who read Dune. Eastmain (talk • contribs)
- I took a look and saw in the first five an article on the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, an article from fandom.com which is Wikia's new name, an article with 1 sentence on this subject that is actually about women's rôles, and an article that is not accessible to me. So I think that the onus is on you to actually cite stuff rather than make the usual vague handwave. A search engine query is not a citation. Uncle G (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Organizations of the Dune universe - Per above. While the organization does come up in searches, none of the results are actually in-depth discussion about the group themselves. They are mainly only described in terms of their role in the plot of the books. A Merge to the general "Organizations" article is the better choice here. Rorshacma (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and no one has attempted to really improve the article with decent sources for years. If we merge, there is nothing stopping an editor in the near or far future from doing the research and recreating the article to meet our standards for a standalone. For now, however, I think a merge of key info into the list of organizations is appropriate, and any improvement can begin there.— TAnthony^Talk 23:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge: The lack of significant coverage, and WP:OR with synthesis, are more valid reasoning than fancruft. WP:OTHERSTUFF seems to be brought up regularly and just as regularly advised that it is not a good point at AFD. I notice the target article is B-class and I would have concerns that a merge could be effected without degrading that article. Otr500 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm failing to see the OR or synthesis in this article. A published work of fiction is a perfectly valid source for its own plot elements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes but I think the point is that only having primary sources does not help the topic meet the criteria of WP:GNG.— TAnthony^Talk 14:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That wasn't the point I was making. I was merely questioning the validity of the allegations of OR and synthesis. Different issue from whether this is a valid standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: When I see an article, fiction or not, where there are actually only two sources that contains a large amount of content, that includes a section with a Wikipedia reference like to Dune Messiah (with a large plot summary and only two actual sources) --AND content in the article that states "The Sardaukar do not appear in Dune Messiah (1969)...", that I did not find in the sources, I see this as WP:OR. This is just one instance and I could point out more. A concept of Wikipedia is to use what is found in sources (and cite them) and not interpret the sources or make assertions or assumptions not supported by sources. Many of these articles have these very large plot summaries, that is oftentimes totally unsourced, or lacking inline citations to support inclusion, so that is why I commented on concerns of WP:OR and possibly that content draws from more than one source but makes a conclusion not actually found in any sources. If I was in error with this I will stand corrected but on the face of it that is how it seems to me. Otr500 (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a published work of fiction is a perfectly valid and reliable source for its own plot elements. It is not OR to use it as such. It would be ludicrous if a piece of information was OR if cited from the original source work but not OR if someone else had simply repeated it in another reliable source. A complete failure of common sense. A plot summary is by definition sourced from the work in which it appears; is that not blatantly obvious? I have seen this before: some editors do not seem to realise that a work of fiction - book, film, TV programme or whatever - is a source in and of itself for its own content. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we don't require citations for plot summary that isn't interpretive because yes, the work itself is an accepted source. I think what Otr500 is getting at is that we sometimes include details that may not be notable or consequential enough to include. Like obviously "The Sardaukar do not appear in Dune Messiah" is technically OR since there isn't an external source that makes this fact notable. I wouldn't expect this to be mentioned in the Dune Messiah plot summary itself. But considering that this article is about the Sardaukar, and the primary source supports the fact that the army is not present in the book, it seems relevant. That said, there is definitely some stuff that should be excised. I've already come up with a condensed version to use if we merge to the list, see User:TAnthony/sandbox#Sardaukar.— TAnthony^Talk 15:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR. It's simply a statement of fact that could be ascertained by reading the book. Stating that an organisation doesn't appear in a particular book in a series in which it otherwise often does appear is hardly OR and I'm mystified as to why anyone would think it was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I think it's fine in this article. But the Sardaukar really only feature in Dune itself, so one could argue that their absence is not notable in this context. Mentioning this in the plot summary of the Dune Messiah article, for example, is sort of like mentioning "Paul does not appear in this novel" in the plot summary of God Emperor of Dune. This is not notable info in the context of that novel. In the case of the GoT character Jon Snow, his absence from A Feast for Crows is established as notable because it is mentioned in reliable sources like this one. But I think I've taken us off on a tangent because this particular factoid is not the problem with this article. The lack of external sources discussing the Sardaukar makes the current version of this article WP:JUSTPLOT, and there are other crufty elements (sourced to the novels) and borderline POV/OR phrasing.— TAnthony^Talk 17:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Organizations of the Dune universe as above, i see that at the moment none of the sources are reliable, even The Dune Encyclopedia was coauthored by Herbert (see here), it looks like way back in the dim, dusty past, well march 2003 anyway:)) when WP notability wasn't so strict(?), Justin Johnson created the article (along with a few others that may also need looking at?). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 21 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 SM Entertainment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Label V

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

Per WP:NCORP. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources.They are only mentioned briefly in any of the sources I reviewed. Cannot WP:INHERIT notability from WayV. Comatmebro (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As an alternative - to SM Entertainment or one of the group pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - a non-notable subsidiary of a notable company. -Zanhe (talk) 23:46, 15 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Marker

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

The only reference actually bout her is the Okwudu write-up in Vogue, and that's not enough .Otherwise, it's just placement on lists, and the existence of photos in magazines. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet again, I have to explain common sense. The "existence of photos in magazines" isn't there to look cute, it's the verification of work by reliable sources. God, what happened to reading comprehension? The only list there is by models.com; when they place a model on their "Hot List" (they pointed out at 7 notable jobs including Chanel, Versace, Vogue Italia etc. that got her on that radar) that means the model has had a successful breakout and they expect them to move (or graduate, in their words) to the "Top 50 Models", on top of already being one of their "Top Newcomers" because she made maximum impact on the premium runways of Fenty, Coach, J.W. Anderson, Fendi, Versace, Saint Laurent and Givenchy. Needless to say, Nina is so on the rise. Elite Model Look gives more than enough detail about her career so far, it's practically a Wikipedia article itself. When Vogue has on multiple occasions that said she is a top model, successful in couture, and one the biggest breakouts she must be doing something right. But wait, if she were dating a famous actor and had a famous "step-dad" people would be willing to overlook such "deficiencies" conveniently. At least this model has a career to speak of. Trillfendi (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Trillfendi is correct that the subject is notable. I had to research to see that she was not only notable for being a model and having Aspergers: she is actually notable for her modeling work. She passes GNG: She has featured articles about her in major publications. Her appearance on the hot list speaks to the fact that she has arrived. And she is not just the model du jour ...but even if she was, once notable always notable. The subject has been featured in vogue. And again in vogue as a Breakout Model. And her various cover photos. This subject easily passes GNG. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with the above - coverage is non-trivial and discusses the subject, so passes WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novabrahm (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the above - coverage is non-trivial and discusses the subject, so passes WP:GNG. WP:Not paper. Her work is itself evidence of notability. See WP:Actor.7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.vogue.com/article/nina-marker-versace-model-on-fashion-autism-awareness is significant coverage clearly. https://www.popsugar.co.uk/fashion/Nina-Marker-Funny-Model-Instagram-43367448 mentions how funny she is on Instagram. Got things written about her in various places other than just brief mentions of her modeling. Dream Focus 16:29, 19 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 Surasakmontree School. Fenix down (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tokio BlueArmy F.C.

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

The team hasn't played in the Thai FA Cup which is a big part of WP:FOOTYN. HawkAussie (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Surasakmontree School#Football or similar sub-section. Giant Snowman 19:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject of a three-minute news segment by Nation TV;[30] in-depth coverage in a ten-minute segment of Channel 3's 3 Sport Magazine programme (focus is on its head coach);[31] reporting in Siam Sport covering their multiple student championships.[32][33][34][35] --Paul_012 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename) or merge to Surasakmontree School. I've rewritten the article; it should now provide some proper context as to the subject's significance. The TV coverage by 3 Sport Magazine and Sport Fan should satisfy the GNG, IMO. HawkAussie and GiantSnowman, please take a look. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:06, 19 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Fantasy (Surfing album)

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

Only 1 or two usable sources, the rest are either streaming services (YouTube, Spotify) or generally unreliable (who sampled, Discogs). Pretty much just fails WP:NMUSIC. Micro (Talk) 01:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Micro (Talk) 01:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Speedy Delete) per WP:A9 because there is no article for the band. The text of A9 says it could be overcome if there is a claim that the album is important, but this article only claims that it is "one of the examples" of its genre, which is not too impressive. A search only finds routine retail/streaming entries and attempted self-promotions in social media, many of which have already been used to pad the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:16, 15 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. There are two questions here, whether the article should be deleted and whether the article should be merged in some way into the main legislative chamber articles. Regarding the first question, as noted by people WP:LISTN is based on the notability of the list topic not that of the individual items of the list so that isn't a good argument for deletion. It is not clear from this discussion why WP:INDISCRIMINATE is supposed to apply here and the counterargument offered is valid. A bigger question is whether the list topic as a whole is notable; Spinningspark has offered one source and it's hinted at that there is room for expansion, but it's not a lot of evidence. Regarding the second question, the lines of argument are that either the list is redundant to the committee lists on the legislature articles or that there is room for expansion here/that the split is justified (although somewhat vaguely). Overall my assessment is that this discussion is leaning towards putting the list pages on the legislative house pages, but not enough to deem this a consensus. So no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of legislative committees of Georgia (U.S. state)

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

Subject fails WP:LISTN now that this AfD deleted all the articles that were listed here. Since this isn't a notable subject, there's no reason for the list to exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. I would not oppose the content itself being integrated into the respective chamber's article, but since it's bicameral there are two targets and this isn't a plausible redirect either way, so I vote outright deletion. Both articles already have committee lists. (Also, re the last AFD, I do think state legislatures are/at least ought to be inherently notable, but that's irrelevant here.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcome of the AfD's which consisted of every list entry. List now fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- LISTN says no such thing. What it actually says is Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable... The fact that every item in the list has been deleted on notability grounds does not affect the notability of the list one bit. WP:CSC criterion #2 explicitly says that a list of all non-notable items is a valid list precisely because the individual items cannot have articles. SpinningSpark 17:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Spinningspark: If the list of items was notable we would need sources to show that but sources don't discuss the collective of committees, just as sources don't discuss the committees themselves. The list fails WP:GNG, hence why my nomination said "Since this isn't a notable subject". Chris Troutman (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was about to provide a source if you had not edit conflicted, so no, this does not fail GNG. SpinningSpark 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book Politics in Georgia lists the committees and discusses them as a group over several pages. ~~However, I would not object to the page being reduced to an index of the two sections in the chambers' articles.~~ SpinningSpark 17:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to parent article, which currently just links to this list. Justifiable as a WP:SPLIT even notwithstanding whether the subtopic of committees is itself notable. These kinds of AFDs are always a poor use of the process, where it's really a question of how much detail a notable topic merits and how to best organize it, and there has been a failure to even attempt talk page discussion of that issue first. SpinningSpark is also correct that the LISTN deletion argument presented completely misapplies/misunderstands that guideline as the separate notability of individual entries is irrelevant. postdlf (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination should be withdrawn as a very clear misapplication of the wp:listn guidelines. I also disagree that the list fails wp:indiscriminate as the list is very much the antithesis of an indiscriminate collection of information; organized on highly discriminate, well defined, objective criteria. Sadly, I missed the discussion which resulted in the mass deletion of these committee stubs when merge/redirect to this list would have been a far more intuitive outcome if what best serves Wikipedia is the primary endeavor. Notwithstanding the many things Wikipedia is not, it is the largest and most popular general reference work in the history of the world and that prominence is deliberately diminished when probable search terms on plausible topics are precluded from appearing in search results (by deletion) when they so easily could and arguably should appear in those results (by redirection) instead. Finally, while I am not against Spinningspark's suggestion to possibly reduce this list to an {{sia}}, I would prefer expanding it to include all of the verifiable information that was lost in deleting the stubs while leaving the lists in each of the chamber articles as they are with a main article hat note added to each linking here. If the list survives this discussion, I will begin working on it to that end. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck the set index suggestion because we now have an editor intending to expand the page. The suggestion was made on the assumption that the page would remain a plain list. SpinningSpark 15:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content is already at Georgia State Senate and Georgia House of Representatives; expansion is welcome there, a split is not warranted. At the very least the title is wrong. Reywas92^Talk 22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per User:Reywas92. The "keep" was very compelling concerning WP:listn guidelines, mass deleting of the stubs, possible redirects to this page, and an editor taking interest --"UNTIL"-- I saw the above mentioned Senate and House lists, that this list just duplicates, with the possible exception of joint committees. I cannot see why the above provided main article links can be expanded, or redirected to, so this renders most of that discussion moot. Otr500 (talk) 01:42, 18 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Pointe

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

This does not meet WP:NBUILD guidelines. Speedy deletion was previously contested because it ranks #31 in tallest buildings in Jersey City, that is not a valid reason for inclusion. Rusf10 (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an apparently unremarkable building in a city with many tallish buildings. I can't find anything online to hint at anything otherwise. Sionk (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Non-notable building. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ The architects of this project, DeWitt Tishman Architects can support an article. It's not surprising that one or another of the architects doing multiple huge projects in New Jersey would. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something, how is that relevant? The Afd is not about the architects. Sionk (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all relevant. Even if the architects are notable (not sure if they are), notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so their notability does not transfer to a building.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Harsimus, the neighborhood it is located in. I am not seeing enough to support a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, notability of the architects is relevant, not to "keep" the article but as a "merge/redirect" to the firm and/or neighborhood article as well known/notable architects' works may be wikireader lookups. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article does not show it is a distinguished building or... , not notable Alex-h (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Coolabahapple says, a notable architect contributes to the notability of a building. This is why this page should be merged to Harsimus, the neighborhood Grove Pointe is located in. I have added 2 sourced sentences to the target page, Harsimus Cove.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete Not every generic apartment building is notable, even if it's tall and got routine coverage that a developer constructed it. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 21 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. Consensus was that the building passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Modern (building)

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

Does not meet WP:NBUILD guidelines for inclusion of buildings. Also may violate WP:NOTPROMO. Rusf10 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The twin towers notable as result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They are the tallest buildings in Fort Lee and among tallest buildings in New Jersey and tallest twin buildings in the world.Djflem (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" historic, social, economic, or architectural importance", which one? all of them? (or more likely, none of them). Also, the buildings do not rank that high on either list and inclusion on such lists do not mean that they are notable enough to get their own article.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee, where it ranks the highest.Djflem (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other buildings on that list have articles, so it may be eligible for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason for deletion, and that is not a helpful impulse. Having list-articles allows coverage of notable or lesser/marginal items instead of creating separate articles. If you are inclined to delete stuff, then you should support list-articles. Or do you want me or anyone else to create seven or so separate articles right away to fight your impulse to delete the list-article? --Doncram (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article about a notable subject. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:E.M.Gregory. --Doncram (talk) 20:00, 21 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Tung

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

Precedent is that being a RhodesScholar is not enough for an article. I'm not sure I agree, but I think it well to be consistent. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being a national champion in women's wrestling ought to be enough for notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hadn't fully considered the sports aspect as much but the notability criteria for sports says "a sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Seems to apply here due to many media/other sources. Novabrahm (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this time, the notability factor hasn't been met. Inching close to it though. Maybe in the future there will be more to say. Trillfendi (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Page is much more detailed now - I feel that notability has been clearly met to the level of other athletes by inclusion of additional info. Welcome your thoughts! Novabrahm (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her wrestling championship was for high school girls in the 113-117 pound division in folkstyle wrestling. Folkstyle is not one of the internationally recognized styles (which are freestyle and Greco-Roman). I don't think that any SNG is met. I haven't looked at the sources carefully enough to comment about meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a junior folkstyle wrestling does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC unless a sportsperson won a major NCAA Division title or participate in major events such as Olympic games, world championship event (senior level). The rest of the sources does not quality WP:GNG as they are merely outlines her background such as being in the air force, receive a scholarship and graduated from a University. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A notable achievment that may qualify beyond the Rhodes scholarship is that she may be one of the 1st persons to be a selectee for all of the following national scholarships: Stamps, Truman, Schwartzman, Marshall and Rhodes. If this achievement would satisfy notability criteria, the page and citations could be updated to reflect this. 20:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.104.91 (talk)

— 172.91.104.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC). Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a national champion is sufficient notability to include her. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My understanding of WP:SPORTBASIC is that the guidelines for NCAA division title or Olympics are a rule of thumb because such figures are likely to meet WP:BASIC. I feel that multiple independent secondary sources for multiple accomplishments meets the intent of WP:BIO. Novabrahm (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a few notable things about this subject. Rhodes scholar: Each year 32 young students from the United States are selected. ...So that is quite a prestigious award (I added some sources). Next: first woman to wrestle for the all men's team at the USAF Academy which is NCAA Division I In addition the subject is a Stamps scholar - from what I have read there are 900 current scholars, and Truman scholar 55-65 annually ...so the Truman award is limited to a few very qualified people. There are significant secondary sources where the subject was featured as well. And the subject has a Black Belt in Hapkido (primary sourced). To sum it up, person meets our WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 21:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Where is the evidence she wrestled on the men's wrestling team? I looked at the 45 man wrestling roster [36] and did not see her name. There's also no evidence that she has ever completed at the highest level, which is the default for--high school events are not the highest level. Finally, the claim that no one else has been awarded these multiple scholarships sounds like original research unless there is an independent reliable source. Is there? Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Subject was not on the USAFA roster and not a scholarship athlete. The addition of that USAFA wrestling blurb is information only found in mini bios for the subject's other noteworthy awards. The subject meets GNG by being a Rhodes Scholar. WP:NSPORT is not the only criteria for the subject to meet - subject meets GNG...subject has to pass one, not both. Lubbad85 (☎) 03:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to DGG, the precedent is that being a Rhodes Scholar is not grounds for automatic notability. In my original comment I said I hadn't decided if WP:GNG was met and that's still true. I'm simply trying to get rid of extraneous issues that people keep citing as proof of notability so I can focus on what I believe is the real deciding factor. Papaursa (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Arguably WP:ANYBIO could apply to Rhodes Scholars: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Rhodes Scholarship is the among the most prestigious awards/scholarships a scholar can receive and it is widely known and reported. Very few Americans (32 annually) receive the award...and recipients get a full ride to Oxford (2 year renewable) and all expenses paid. In addition very few Americans (55-65) receive the $30,000 Truman Award making it extremely prestigious and the award also makes most of the lists of most prestigious scholarships. I believe the subject meets GNG in several other ways as I stated above. I will now step back so I do not WP:BLUDGEON this Afd thread. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject is on the roster as a manager per NCAA rules due to being female. Listed in the cited media guide from the 2015-2016 season. It's social media (albeit an official account) so IMO not a suitable source for the article, but also referenced here: https://twitter.com/afawrestling/status/696844318707814400 I personally would believe it to be plausible that she is the first to win all the major grad scholarships, but I don't see a source for that and therefore don't think it suitable for inclusion in the article or notability criteria. Novabrahm (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More broadly, though, I'm not sure we need to worry about meeting WP:NSPORT - subject seems notable according to society (and POTUS, evidently :) ), due to availability of secondary sources. There's no self-pub or anything. Novabrahm (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO as "has received a well-known and significant award or honor" ie. being a Rhodes scholar. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing in her athletic record makes her WP notable, but there's plenty of coverage about her being a Rhodes Scholar. It could be argued that's a BLP1E event, but then there's the Truman scholarship. I think a reasonable case has been made for her meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:38, 21 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] [1]

[1]