Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 November	16 November >

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 redirect to San Diego State University#Athletics. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego State University Men's Lacrosse Team[edit]

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

Men's club lacrosse team. Not notable. No verifiable independent substantial coverage. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Diego State University#Athletics. No significant coverage found. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2017 (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) 16:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Hashmat[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable computer scientist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2017 (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. Clearly deemed notable and worthy of inclusion. I suppose this is an example of basing (the original PROD) delete rationales on the basis of it not being a rivalry when the article - and more to the point, the sources - do not necessarilly define it as one in the first place. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 06:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois–Michigan football series[edit]

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

This was prodded with this rationale and then this addendum, but I'd like for it to receive stronger scrutiny through a deletion discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the PROD attempt. There's no discussion of "rivalry" in article prose, just a bunch of text about their meetings against each other, which are WP:ROUTINE. "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike most Big Ten rivalries this isn't played every year, and "Michigan leads, 70–23–2" pretty much tells us this is a lopsided rivalry in favor of the Wolverines. Michigan/Ohio State this isn't. Nate • (chatter) 19:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment previous discussions on the notability of series articles. (discussion found further down, other discussion) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The series has been played 95 times, dates back to 1898, and is historically significant and notable. Conference realignment has resulted in the series being played less frequently since 2011, but that doesn't alter the historical nature of the series. As discussed in the article, the series has had direct implications on the national championship on multiple occasions, including major upsets of teams ranked #1/#2 in 1939 (Tom Harmon), 1955 (Ron Kramer), and 1963 (Dick Butkus). The 1925 and 1926 games built the reputation of Red Grange and are among the most significant in college football history. See here. The series has also featured matchups between ranked teams on multiple occasions, including 1942 (#13 vs. #12), 1944 (#8 vs. #10), 1953 (#4 vs. #17), 1983 (#8 vs. #9), 1989 (#3 vs. #8), and 1990 (#19 vs. #17). The current Wikipedia article is the result of many hours of effort. The timing of the AfD is unfortunate, as I am traveling out of the USA for the next three weeks and have infrequent access to the Internet. Oh well . . . hopefully, others appreciate the value to Wikipedia of well-sourced work on notable aspects of American football history. Cbl62 (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's not strictly speaking a rivalry, but I don't see any convincing reason why we can't have articles about this lengthy series or others like it. It's a well–constructed, informative article, and I don't think we are doing our readers any favors by deleting it. Lepricavark (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sources dating back to the 1920s. Books, the New York Times, the old Chicago Daily Tribune, The Daily Telegram, Detroit Free Press, etc. I sometimes wonder if people just toss aside Wikipedia’s definition of Notable for the dictionary definition / personal opinion of “notable.” This definitely passes the Notability test which is about significant coverage in independent sources. It’s been covered extensively. --Allison Jean Paully (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long-lasting series of games with tremendous amount of significant, third party reliable sources over the years.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know there's no such guideline, but based on the number of times the teams have played I'm voting keep. This would be also interesting and useful for someone looking up the teams when they meet in the future. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:36, 23 November 2017 (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) 00:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risen (2018 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG. 2sources are self published (IMDB) one is a a fansite and user generated (FO box office) and the only RS is not about the film Domdeparis (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of any significant notability and I cannot find independent sources either that can satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Typical promotion articles for films not yet in even produced. — Ammarpad (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources on this. May be WP:TOOSOON. Take a look at Eddie Arya article also. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:44, 22 November 2017 (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) 11:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Breuer[edit]

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

lack of relevant notability (own autobiography) Raps (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upside: two good references in reputable publicaitons. Downsides: aboviously an autobiography, and likely to remain so. Excessive formatting and incline linking, which I trimmed. No significant presence on the web as an artist, nor in sources like books. He is on the less notable side of the the line between notable artist and self-promoter. A notable artist should return many more results and sources, news items or be included in permanent collections etc.104.163.155.95 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: COI editor, probably an autobiography, and not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. One or two examples of significant coverage, but I don't see what criteria of WP:ARTIST are met. Possibly the last one, but it's hard to tell. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of notability, and an autobiography as I first wrote here. And this debate was removed from the wiki page today, by the artist himself. There's almost nothing on him in the French press (and even less in the specialized press). Raps (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2017 (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. So Why 07:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Nehme[edit]

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

Deprodded earlier this year because he has been the subject of a local TV program about him, this successful businessman nevertheless fails WP:GNG. He has been the subject of a book, written by one of his sons. Gnews reveals virtually nothing, save a glowing review of the son's book in local press. Neither this article nor the one on the Arabic wiki seem to have any independent WP:RS, nor can I find anything. Perhaps a listing at Nehme (surname) would suffice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that just until a few minutes ago when I edited this article on someone who died in 2010 in the opening seemed to suggest he was still alive tells us how low level and thus under followed of an individual Nehme is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of independent coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bizmancruft. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 06:21, 23 November 2017 (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) 11:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Ellis (artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Notability is in doubt. Zazzysa (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis he's had a couple of big ticket buyers but his presence is largely on Pinterest and eBay at the moment (he only started out on this career path a couple of years ago). I can only find one, rather flaky local news article about him. Currently fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not an artist sells their artwork, and at what price, has zero direct bearing on their notability and this deletion discussion. If there are significant reliable sources about their selling prices (e.g. the recent Davinci sale) then those can be considered, but not the price on its own.198.58.171.47 (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's said anything different. By "big ticket" I suppose I mean "big pockets", because we don't know what price they were allegedly sold for (the claim is only sourced to a photo of a boardroom on Wikimedia). I imagine the claim was put in the article to show Ellis is more than an amateur 'Sunday painter', but all the same there's currently negligible evidence he meets WP:NARTIST. Sionk (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned it because you gave price as part of the rationale for deletion. "Delete, on the basis he's had a couple of big ticket buyers". You said it. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are negligible and do not support either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST.198.58.171.47 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2017 (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) 11:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zenza Raggi[edit]

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

Fails gng and pornbio. Regional award surely isnt enough when gng is failed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Looking through the other language editions of Wikipedia yields various other claims that may prove notability. He apparently has an important part in Melancholie der Engel and fr:Zenza Raggi claims that he also played in Baise-moi (as "Karim Sabaheddine"). So he may be more notable than he looks. There is also a crime claim in the french Wikipedia that doesn't appear to be sourced very well. —Kusma (t·c) 20:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actor, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:ANYBIO; trivial coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2017 (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) 16:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship[edit]

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

This religious affiliation claims 5000 congregations and a million members. This claim is supported by a single reference, whose independence and reliability is disputed. Fails WP:V. Rhadow (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the AfD notice was deleted from the article page; the editor has confused PROD with AfD. I haven't come up with any independent reliable sources that describe the scope of this group (watch for self-reported numbers). Nothing has changed in the sourcing for the article since 2003. It cannot stay for another fourteen years. It needs to be fixed or be gone.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep == This appears to be about a denomination, not a single congregation. The right course is to tag it as needing verification, not to delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Peterkingiron .I have added references.It does to be appear to be denomination.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does have some references. Vorbee (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a religious denomination. You can't cover all but this one, with its asserted 1 million members. Suppose it only had 10,000 members, we would keep it too. --do ncr am 05:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that citations have been added. Just two years after it was founded, H. Beecher Hicks wrote in 1994, "While it is technically not a denomination, its numbers are too large, its growth too rapid, and its broad base of appeal too large, its growth too rapid, and its broad base of appeal too obvious to be ignored." ("Challenge to the African American Church: Problems and Perspectives for the Third Millennium," Journal of Religious Thought 51 (1994), 81-97.)[1] After that, it grew massively, so that conclusion still stands. – Fayenatic London 10:44, 20 November 2017 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Alink[edit]

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

BLP Article with no references. Very minor coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More links, sources and articles have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drs. Daja (talk • contribs) 12:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all criteria of basic WP:GNGand specific WP:FILMMAKER. The article is virtually unsourced because the only reference is about a film not about him. @Drs. Daja: you tried to improve the article but instead to provide reliable sources for the entire unsourced article you ended up adding only external links (while some exists already), some were even now removed as spam. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added information about the documentary-style he developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drs. Daja (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Drs. Daja: the documentary-style addition you mentioned above is here; but it can be added by anybody, as it is only almost 2000 bytes of unsourced content. I tried to search from where it came but didn't find any reliable source and the paragraph has exceptional claim of developing new techniques. Please can you provide the sources here? — Ammarpad (talk)

Very fair point! I have just added links to Dutch and Belgian media as references in which the new documentary technique is discussed. comment added by Drs. Daja —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2017 (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) 00:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJPC[edit]

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

Although he has had one UK hit single, I cannot find any in-depth sources about him or his music on Google, GBooks, GNews, JSTOR, or Highbeam. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient sources available to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2017 (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) 11:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Lisabeth Marziello[edit]

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

non notable community activists. All the references are mere notices, not substantial coverage, including a listoingo n one page of a general book. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article created by a WP:SPA, and probable paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO / WP:ANYBIO fail. Non notable creation by a SPA. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete overly promotional article. Anyway, heads of local branches of nationwide non-profit organizations are very rarely notable. Especially when we are talking about shrinking organizations like the Boys and Girls Club.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2017 (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) 16:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea Moss-Christian[edit]

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

fails WP:ANYBIO the sources are not sufficently in-depth to pass WP:GNG. There is one indepth article but the source seems very local. The other sources are passing mentions Domdeparis (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's more sources in the article. KEAB has added some more and so did I. The role she's been elected to is a big deal and there is good, substantial coverage of her in reliable sources. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the current state of the article, it passes WP:GNG. Also heads of the notable organizations are considered notable. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and is the head of International organisation Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission with 26 nations as members.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2017 (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. If anyone wants the content userfied so it can be used in another article, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of footballers born in Scotland who have played for other international teams[edit]

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

It's the same case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players with dual nationality and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian-born footballers who have played for another national team. Another trivial list list. It does not seem to me that the fact that someone was born in Scotland and play for another country is by itself notable (and the list of Brazil, which seems to be way more notable in soccer than Scotland, was deleted). Bilhauano (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a regularly reported subject when there are players who were born in Scotland play for other national teams, e.g. James McCarthy or Aiden McGeady playing for Ireland Telegraph Guardian Irish Independent, or Scott Arfield playing for Canada BBC Sport. The article also details historic examples, such as when the early US World Cup teams had many Scottish players. I'm not sure that debates from 2010 or 2012 about different articles are particularly useful. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: most of the entries are unsourced, and I fail to see what this sort of list is actually for ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list like this could be conceivable be created for any single nation, it is very common for footballers to internationally represent a country they were not born in. I would not be opposed however to a merge to Football in Scotland if there is any information that is deemed worth saving. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only because it's in the wrong place, if anything. I, too, would not be averse to seeing it as part of an article on the wider topic of Scottish football. Montgomery15 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic is not notable. Giant Snowman 09:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For information, the following articles are on a similar theme:

I suppose these may be considered differently, as it is the converse scenario, but I'm not sure why. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the above comment that such a list could conceivably be created for any country, so I'm not sure of its encyclopedic worth. Where there are instances where early in another country's history significant numbers of players from Scotland represented that country, or where there is crossover between two countries, such as Scotland and Ireland, this should be discussed in sourced prose in the relevant Football in... article. Fenix down (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2017 (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) 17:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Chambers[edit]

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

Article created and edited by WP:SPA editors. Fails WP:ARTIST no in-depth secondary sources to prove he passes the topic specific guideline or WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the references, as far as I can see, are primary sources on the book and as such are just passing mentions of the illustrator, who is the article subject. Lack of independent reliable sources = not notable. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial mentions only. PhilKnight (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I notice we've also got Draft:The Onyx Tavern which looks like a copy-paste of this, so I'm going to delete that too. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Onyx Tavern[edit]

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

Article was already speedily deleted as an A7 via a deletion discussion. The sources are self published (youtube and imdb) a blog written by Patrick Hessman a friend of the creator who has also cohosted the series and a thread on a forum about Powerrangers. The channel only has 2300 subscribers and this article is written by the web series creator himself. Fails WP:GNG WP:NWEB and WP:NOTPROMO Domdeparis (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It was already decided for speedy deletion, not sure why it's going through another deletion discussion. Alexf505 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete lack of secondary sources. PhilKnight (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2017 (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 MyLife. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Tinsley[edit]

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

Originally redirected to MyLife, which was reverted. Sources provided are not directly about the subject, except for the primary source, I performed WP:BEFORE and came up with nothing apart from articles about his company. The subject of this article is non-notable apart from his association with Reunion/Wink/MyLife, and is therefore WP:BLP1E. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any coverage of his underhanded advertising activities can be put in the Mylife article, there is nothing else of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MyLife per the status quo Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 23 November 2017 (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. Ignoring the extensive socking, unanimous agreement to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chantelle Lee[edit]

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

Subject does not appear sufficiently notable. Article created by a SPA (with very probable undisclosed COI), sources are either dead links, listings, her management's website, local press mentions, or tabloids. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy: You approved this via AfC. Any comments? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. When the possible COI in the edit history is taken into account, the page appears to be vanity marketing. Not inherently notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Emir of Wikipedia for inviting me to comment. I find it best that I remain neutral in AfDs of articles I've approved. First off it seems that there has been a lot of edits to the page after it was approve out of AfC, so keep that in mind before you pass judgement on me lol. The main reason I approved the article was because of the Sun article that was in the draft that I originally approved. It was a borderline case iirc, but I felt that the Sun article was enough to hold it up in AfD, but it seems the article has had a lot of additions with issues as pointed out by nom. Thanks and if you have any other questions ping me, just in case this gets lost in my watch list. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should remain considering that the subject has substantial amounts of following across social media and she has a lot of articles written regarding her as an artist. Her recent single is gaining attraction, therefore I feel it should remain for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganSmith222 (talk • contribs) Blocked sockpuppet of User:Designaccountforher. Yunshui ^雲 _水 20:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MorganSmith222: Social media following is not a criteria to keep an article or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep For as long as the content follows guidelines I support that the article should be kept, with of course contributions and settled agreements of all parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designaccountforher (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Designaccountforher: Does it meat the notability guidelines? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Emir of Wikipedia: I believe so. There is surely enough content online regarding the subject - being signed to Syco Records and verified on social media with popular music.~~

@Designaccountforher: Have you even read the guidelines as being verified on social media is irrelevant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In regards to the notability of the subject she received substantial coverage from reliable and several sources evaluating her as an artist and her music. Those of being secondary sources providing evidence of her released songs, charity awareness, career and fanbase following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designaccountforher (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC) striking duplicate vote. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If notability was based on beauty and being a slay queen, she would have qualified, but apparently it isn't. She hasn't been nominated for any notable music award, neither has any of her songs made any notable chart. I'm unconvinced that this meets WP:NMUSIC. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON, since her musical career is barely 2 years old. Darreg (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Designaccountforher: your Wikipedia account has solely been used to edit Chantelle Lee's page or to comment here (apart from one unconstructive edit to another page). In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest, please could you disclose your connection to the subject of this discussion? Thanks, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MorganSmith222: similarly, could you also disclose any Conflict of Interest? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't meet WP:MUSICBIO guideline for lack of wide coverage as well as lack of any major award. The article just seems effort for expansion of her "quickly gained following on social media", if I may quote from the lead section. But unfortunately Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA — Ammarpad (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC) {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]

Comment user Designaccountforher has been banned from editing for 72 hours (until 20:29, 19 November 2017 UTC) for sockpuppetry, and user MorganSmith222 has been banned indefinitely in connection with this activity ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC) {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]

Further comment: the former's account now has a permanent ban for continuing this behaviour ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs are paper thin - I checked them all, she doesn't pass gng or nmusic. Szzuk (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems to meet more than one of the music notability criterion (which is more than needed to meet notability guidelines). She has had published works (Newspaper articles, magazine articles, online media and has been on television interviews -Chrissy B show) Her music is released on major platforms such as VEVO, ITunes, Spotify - receiving broadcasting on radio and television. I am convinced the subject article should remain kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.143.57 (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove POV fluff. --American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To closing Admin: There are two incorrectly formatted SPA tags added under my comment and Dom Kaos comment that you'll see above. These were added by American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk · contribs) 8 minutes after his account creation. — Ammarpad (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per the preceding comment, it appears that American Canadian Expat In London 10404 is making a fairly crass attempt to discredit both Ammarpad and myself. As our editing histories demonstrate abundantly, neither of us remotely close to being an SPA. Rather than revert these unconstructive edits, I'm happy to let them stand: any half-competent user of Wikipedia can navigate their way around the site to see what edits have been made, and draw their own conclusions regarding motives ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps just too soon, but not notable at the moment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are trivial mentions in the local paper or gossip in the tabloids. Not good enough for a BLP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 23 November 2017 (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. So Why 08:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Arn[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources that support claims of radio airplay or use of music by airlines. No hits, no national tours, no major record contracts, no TV appearances. Rogermx (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - and per WP:BLP, as all content is unsourced ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 15 November 2017 (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. A redirect to the dab page can be done outside of the scope of this debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left/Right[edit]

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

Can find no actual coverage of the subject in reliable sources or otherwise. Massively fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I speedied this once, but the references have been improved in the current version. However, I'm concerned about a possible/likely conflict of interest and promotional intent. Deb (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created this page. Let me know how I can help. After seeing several flags and fumbling with creating my first page, I believe all info has been referenced and accounted for at this point. User:ZAYLAVIE (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ZAYLAVIE: Hi, can you please answer a couple of questions : 1 Do you have any connection to Left/Right and 2 Have any of his recordings been placed on any national music chart? (not spotify, soundcloud or itunes), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and create redirect to Left and right. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:29, 22 November 2017 (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) 16:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royalist Party USA[edit]

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

Not notable political party Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Half of GHits are to their Facebook page; the one or two Real News Source hits are passing mentions or slow news day stuff. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Mangoe and 'they only have a Wix site', which solidifies this deletion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable organization, however laudable their aims. Edison (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2017 (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) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manish K. Sethi[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:2601:483:4700:2e:d3e:8269:eb14:a4ae, whose rationale was "This wikipedia article is likely written by the subject himself as a press release and lacks notability. Propose to delete the article." Relevant criteria is probably WP:NPROF, since the main claim of notability is being lead author of a scholarly work. The other claim is that the subject is the director of a university-based institute, but the institute does not appear to have an article or otherwise to be notable. It's possible that the subject wrote the article, but there isn't any hard evidence to support that claim. I note also that the subject is early in his career, so WP:USUAL may apply. I'd likely !vote Delete if this came up in the log, so I'll recommend Delete on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looks like a LinkedIn entry rather than a Wikipedia article ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about notability, but if it's kept, it needs to be majorly rewritten. Natureium (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a solid, competent, professional, and they don't meet the notability guidelines. The prose is a train wreck - I've removed a bunch of it as a blatant copyvio. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:07, 23 November 2017 (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, deleted by Jimfbleak per WP:CSD G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 11:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelaroo[edit]

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

Falls short of WP:NCORP - searches for coverage turn up little other than affiliated sources and directory entries. Janet-O (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 15 November 2017 (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. -Just. The original nomination was sound, you just can't out-loud the crowd. On a serious note, after two weeks of lack of interest, the general view is that founding companies = notability; how big they have to be is another matter of course. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 06:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Nellesen[edit]

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

Unremarkable CEO Nightfury 09:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Co-founder of two significant companies is sufficient enough, but it would help to have more independent references. . DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He co-founded several major companies, including Vivint Solar, Vivint Home Automation, and NUVI. Likely to keep at it, as well. Not the usual CEO. 11/11/2017

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Whilst I appreciate the comments, my personal view would be a merge to the main Yeti article, I see I have been overruled No harm done anyhow. No need for a relist as clearly a keep. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 15:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Yeti Airlines Twin Otter Crash[edit]

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

Verging on ROTM, may benefit rather than its own article, possibly being merged with Yeti Airlines Nightfury 09:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator is suggesting deletion, keep. Scheduled airline crashes involving fatalities are usually considered non-WP:ROTM and worthy of their own articles provided sourcing is available to meet GNG, which this appears to have. If the nominator is suggesting merging, speedy keep per WP:SK1. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - scheduled airline flight crashes with loss of all on board. Notable enough event to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 15 November 2017 (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) 16:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goody's Burger House (restaurant)[edit]

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

Medium company that fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG, but given the claim 'Greece's largest fast food company' we might as well discuss it here (but do keep in mind that 'largest foo in fooland' is not a notability criteria). Overall, the sources I see are poor, but maybe someone can find something in Greek sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I can sympathise with the "yet ANOTHER food chain" feeling one gets when seeing these, a search of Google News surprised me. Even bearing in mind the regurgitation-of-press-release syndrome, and the fact that for a lot of the results "it's all Greek to me" is a very literal thing, I'm convinced there's sufficent depth of coverage to satisfy notability here - perhaps barely, but barely is good enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, Greece is no "fooland", or even comparable to such a place. Now to the point. There is wide coverage of Goody's, its history, and activities by the Greek media, and press; cf. [2], [3], [4] etc. Note that the company's dominant position in the Greek fast food market was not undermined by the McDonald's "invasion". ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Sandstein: Why relisted? There was clear concensus on keeping it. ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "Greece's largest fast food company" is a credible claim of significance; additional sources are likely to be available in Greek. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2017 (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) 15:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koogle TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - No reliable sources about what is notable about the site. It is just posting about Kpop artists and its one stat is a Alexa rank. Evaders99 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Website has not been subject to significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. ℯ xplicit 00:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable company and no sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP, — Ammarpad (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenzollern impostors[edit]

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

I find it hard to see how the article, in its current edition, is notable. First, the family called Fosse lacks more than limited national fame (within genealogical groups et cetera), virtually unknown elsewhere in Europe, cf. marginal press coverage internationally. Second, I understand that the family's good-faith assumption of Hohenzollern descent is based on a 100-year-old family tradition rather than being invented today. While not approached in a scientific manner, I can't find any indication that their quest for an answer involves any intent of ill-will or fraud, only a solid portion of inexperience with genealogical working methods. My stance is that it's impossible to have Wikipedia functioning as a dragnet catching and commenting every single individual or family who might ever happen to mention, suggest or even dare to investigate a possible family link to royalty. The article's title is notable per se, the article isn't, as its current edition has been created specifically to promote a family that doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Nick Domran— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Domran's very first edit was to create this page. He has made edits on no other topic. I don't think that I have ever seen this editing pattern before.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick Domran (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Nick Domran (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with probable rename. As it currently stands, this really is an article about the Fosse family, rather than anyone and everyone who has claimed Hohenzollern descent (compare the article on the various Romanov claimants, where there are several listed claiming connections to several different members of that family). That being said, the subject seems to pass GNG, per the sources in the article - which I'll admit to not having the precise language to read, but with a couple of related languages it looks eminently in-depth where coverage is concerned. Concerns regarding limited international coverage really don't amount to much, as sources don't have to be in English and frequently aren't. The fact that the family involved may not have understood genealogy is also neither here nor there, since the world is full of notable people who achieve that standard despite (or because of) not understanding how given fields operate. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~Book length treatment of the Fosse case mentioned in the body.~~ Passes GNG. Article needs to be renamed after this AfD closes, presuming a Keep. Carrite (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: Sorry, what is this book? I can only see two newspaper articles cited. —Kusma (t·c) 06:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. In reviewing this article, it appears I mistook the newspaper feature article for a book. I still believe that this article, appropriately renamed, passes GNG — although by a much more narrow margin than I previously thought. Carrite (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename → Hohenzollern illegitimate descendants, conditioning that WP:BLP violations remain under control. Nick Domran (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Domran: According to the article, they are not related to the Hohenzollerns at all. "Impostors", while possibly problematic from a BLP point of view, is not as clearly wrong as "illegitimate descendants". —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is this independently notable from House of Hohenzollern? Why wouldn't descendants, legitimate and illegitimate, be covered there summary style instead? It's not like two sources alone are enough to warrant a split. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:: It's independently notable when the claimants are actually not Hohenzollerns, despite having believed themselves to be, rather than simply being illegitimate descendants. Compare House of Romanov with Romanov impostors, for example. I may be in the minority, but I wouldn't suggest combining the latter into the former. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanov is a totally different case, though. Where are the other claimants to Hohenzollern heritage? If minor or non-existent, the coverage isn't significant enough by these two sources to warrant covering the Fosse case separately from Hohenzollern lineage. Essentially, this should get a sentence or two as an aside wherever Hohenzollern descendants are discussed. I'd support a merge to that effect but otherwise I don't see why keeping this separate is a good idea. czar 15:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Harry Domela. Nick Domran (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which was just added without sourcing? My point remains. Either this stuff is merged somewhere or deleted, but I see no standalone notability for "Hohenzollern illegitimate descendants". czar 20:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, news story that has made no impact outside Norway that does not make the Fosse family notable. —Kusma (t·c) 06:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International coverage and impact is not a requirement of notability, only that multiple independently-published sources of presumed reliability exist. Carrite (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: We do not write about everything that reliable sources write about. Any playground in a public park gets written about in reliable newspapers every time it is renovated or when too much broken glass is found there, but that is no reason for us to do so. We also deliberately exclude lots of sports events despite there being coverage in multiple reliable sources... —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I am concerned that I could not find anything about this case in German media at all, although there is a substantial interest in juicy stories about royalty in certain parts of the German press. A notable story connected to the Hohenzollerns should have someone writing about it in German. —Kusma (t·c) 14:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being "big in Germany" isn't the bar for coverage to be cleared here, being a subject of multiple pieces of coverage anywhere is. The story is significant on a national level in Norway. Admittedly, one more good story on the topic would be nice to find — the pretensions of this family to the throne are pretty extensively blogged about, which of course does not enter our source counting here. But this is not a "playground in a public park" sort of topic. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, most playgrounds are more interesting than "man claims to be related to dead royalty, but isn't". —Kusma (t·c) 20:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep and rename → Hohenzollern illegitimate descendants, conditioning that WP:BLP violations remain under control. When reading the essence of the article, I don't find anything notable. It's an exciting story, indeed, but hardly notable. Even though they aren't biological descendants, their ancestor Anders Fosse claimed to be one. This might defend inclusion, either in the article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. A problem is that Anders Fosse's alleged claim is known through his grandson only: the same person who initiated everything. I find it problematic that Anders Fosse's alleged claim lacks his own words, instead relying on a grandson who retrospectively has shown self-interest in claiming Hohenzollern descent. Without accusing anyone of anything, attributing a claim to a deceased person is not an historically unknown way of backing contemporary personal ambitions, and it's also easier to assert something uncomfortable or controversial via a proxy. This is not an obvious keep but a weakest possible keep, and if the article is deleted, it will probably not be missed by many, cf. a total lack of internal references on Wikipedia. Nick Domran (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is not about Hohenzollern descendants, neither about legitimate or illegitimate ones, why would you choose that title? —Kusma (t·c) 20:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I meant that because the Fosses aren't impostors, renaming the article is a condition for keeping it. Nick Domran (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In general, I dislike this type of repositories because they are duplicative, increasing the risk of erroneous information being reproduced and not being corrected (not least considering the already dubious nature of such articles plus sources), whereas I prefer to gather all such information in one place. Thus, there shouldn't be a Hohenzollern impostors article but a Hohenzollern impostors category to include independently notable articles like Harry Domela.—This brings about a new question: Are the Fosses notable enough for their own BLP article which could be included in Category:Hohenzollern impostors? The way I perceive it, the creator of this article has established a Fosse BLP under false name in order to avoid BLP criteria. If the Fosses are eligible for their own article, the contents should (promtly) be moved to Fosse family (Bergen, Norway), Fosse–Hohenzollern case or similar. If the Fosses are not eligible for their own article, they are perhaps not eligible for an article-length section. Nick Domran (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding secondary sources, WP:BASIC states that notability requires 'significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject'. My question is whether two is multiple. In order to substantiate a keep, there should perhaps be one more source, preferably in English or German. Nick Domran (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hopefully I don't violate rules on a technicality or anything now. I am German, and I have never heard about either the Fosse family case or other Hohenzollern impostors (=people who illegitimately and/or in bad faith that they are descended from/related to the Hohenzollern family). We in Germany don't even debate about Hohenzollern impostors except maybe for some remnant monarchists or nobility scientists, genealogists or enthusiasts who love to know who is of Hohenzollern descent and who isn't. But this is not a topic in German media. --ObersterGenosse (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. the question at issue here is not whether the Fosse family of Bergen, Norway is or is not descended from an illegitimate child of a Hohenzollern, it is whether this alleged illegitimate descent claim meets WP:GNG. If more sources exist, I can't find them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my questions and comments above czar 11:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I appreciate Cullen328's erring on the side of assuming Greek sources are acceptable, but it was challenged by a Greek editor, and no further comments were made. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MEDASSET[edit]

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

Highly promotional article on an organization that gets only incidental coverage (there's a mention on CNN somewhere). Not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMOTIONAL and fails WP:GNG Burley22 (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it got a significant mention by CNN and I see similar mentions in several books, and they all seem to be the sort of mentions that build, cumulatively, toward notabilty of a conservation group active in a niche area for decades. Then, I see several sources in Greek, and notice that the group is primarily active there and in eastern Europe. I do not have the capability to evaluate the reliability of the Greek sources, but I think the sources taken as a whole are sufficient to keep this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in depth coverage in Greek sources; mostly press-release-like articles, listings etc. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:28, 15 November 2017 (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) 16:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Yates (Culadasa)[edit]

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

A biography of someone of no objectively demonstrated significance, lacking reliable independent sources. No evidence of passing WP:GNG, or of WP:PROF or any other relevant subject specific notability guide. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is also rather suspicious that there is a distinguished neuroscientist named John Yates and no sources backing this one's academic claims. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MB 01:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringe theorist and bed and breakfast operator. Even on the off chance his B and B is notable, that would not make him notable. Also way overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just an advert for his B&B. Cabayi (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2017 (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 Edgar Cayce. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 06:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Harrington Ketchum[edit]

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

Not notable, except for connection with Edgar Cayce - about whom there is no article. Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No article about Edgar Cayce? Incredible. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I didn't find the article about Cayce. Why dont we merge the two? Rathfelder (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Only of interest due to his connection to Cayce. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2017 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cousins Subs[edit]

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

I am not impressed by this article on this medium company - I think it falls on the wrong side of notable, failing WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to regional media and is narrow, relying on a lot of marketing/PR materials. The article is clearly promotional (contributors include a bunch of WP:SPAs including a certain User:Cousinssubs and while we could clean it up to a factual stub-like entry, the notability issue still remain. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not every company is going to be Subway or Jimmy John's. Well-known regional sandwich chain and not seeing how it violates YP. Also the COI's contribs can be easily rectified with a simple SOFIXIT. Nate • (chatter) 09:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mrschimpf: "How it violates WP" - please read WP:N. The entry on this company IMHO violates this policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an insignificant regional chain and reads like a franchise ad:

"The company's products mainly utilize Wisconsin-sourced products, including Wisconsin cheesees, along with meat products from locally-based Badger Ham, Klement's and Johnsonville Foods, along with Best Maid cookies and soft drinks from Sprecher!"

Additional puffed up language includes "focus on quality" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying it it needs cleanup, not something AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "insignificant chain" I mean non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not for cleanup, so if there is a promotional tone that needs to be fixed with editing, not deletion. Potential sources: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] [15] [16], [17] [18], and more indicate there is enough here to pass WP:GNG. Companies are not evil and their Wikipedia pages are not automatically promotion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are WP:SPIP, such as HTR bearing this disclaimer: The Chamber of Manitowoc County, with its publishing of The Chamber Notebook, provides space for chamber members to present information about their business. The publishing of this information is not intended to show preference for that business by The Chamber.

These sources generally do not meet WP:AUD / SPIP. BizJournals, for example, is best known for republishing press release. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Bushranger. Royal broil 21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Bushranger. No one is trying to delete Culver's, why should Cousins be deleted? Seems to be in need of cleanup, not deletion. Evanash24 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:KEEPPER are poor arguments. Closing admin will hopefully remember AfDs are not a vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail GNG and WP:NCORP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not only must references be published by reliable third party sources (which is the bit most reviewers tend to focus on), the references must also be "intellectually independent" and contain in-depth information on the company. References that regurgitate company announcements or interviews or quotations without any independent analysis or opinion do *not* meet the criteria for establishing notability (although might very well meet the "reliability" requirement and include some of the information from the reference in the article). The references in the article and those put forward by The Bushranger fail (mainly) WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as follows:
- This htrnews.com article is derived from this press release and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The article itself also acknowledges the "author" as "By Press Releasee". In addition, there is no in-depth information in the article on the company itself and therefore also fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This onmilwaukee.com article is substantially derived from this press release and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This other onmilwaukee.com article is also derived from a Press Release and the article itself also acknowledges the "author" as "By Press Releasee". Is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This jsonline.com article is based on financial data produced by the company, information provided by the company and/or their officers including quotations from the VP marketing and the article does not contain any independent opinion or analysis. Reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This htrnews.com article is not intellectually independent as it relies on an interview with new franchisees. Reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
- This gmtoday.com article is entirely based on an interview with the CEO and president of the company and has published a verbatim transcript with no independent opinion and/or analysis. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- this bizjournals.com article is also entirely based on an interview with the CEO and president with no independent opinion or analysis. It is also not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This next omnilwaukee.com article is based on this press release and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The article itself also acknowledges the "author" as "By Press Releasee".
- this fox6now.com article is based on a company announcement, acknowledges the CEO and president as the source of the information and contains no indepth information. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This next jsonline.com article is based on this press release and uses information provided by the company with no independent analysis or opinion, therefore not intellectually independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This next jsonline.com article is essentially an article and profile on the CEO, contains no independent analysis or opinion, is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This cbs58.com article is based on an announcement of a van turned into a mobile shop by the VP of Marketing including a quotations. There is no independent opinion or analysis and the article does not contain any in-depth information on the company. Reference fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This nrn.com article is based on a company announcement made by the CEO (also reported here) that they were going to rebrand. The articles contain no independent analysis or opinion and are not intellectually independent. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
- Finally, this bizjournals.com article is entirely based on a company announcement - the same announcement is also covered in this biztimes.com article, this omnilwaukee.com article (credited to a Press Release) and this qsrmagazine.com article (also credited to a press release) and many others. Reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
I'm happy to revisit my !vote if two references can be found that are intellectually independent. But for now, while the references demonstrate an effective marketing department, they clearly do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note I'm very uncomfortable with the "it's an interview, it doesn't count" position (not just here, in general). It means somebody found it notable enough to cover, still. The "it's based on a press release" argument fails that, for me, even harder. The news source covered it; found it worthy of covering. There's a position in between primary and "intellectually independent" sources that, IMHO, should count torwards notability (secondary) but not to citing exceptional claims (primary), and I think a lot of babies get thrown out in the bathwater in that regard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a press release essentially reprinted is easy while someone taking the time to cover the company properly means a lot more. So there'd atleast need to be a lot more of that to mean the same as one proper piece of coverage. Also, perhaps an interview in the NYtimes means something, but lot of random people get interviewed in lower-tier newspapers who are not notable - pumpkin farmer with the largest pumpkin sort of thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC) If, say, there's a lot of text on the person apart from the interview in the same article then i'm lenient i'd count it, even though a lot of it will be based on the interview. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERVIEW discusses some problems with interviews. Yes, it is a good sign someone is interested in the topic, but they are still half-self-published as they offer the subject's opinion with little to no editorial oversight. And you can't be seriously saying that reprinting/rewriting press releases gives any air of notability, can you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 23 November 2017 (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. So Why 08:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops a Desi[edit]

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

One source, no citations, poorly written, and unable to find anything of note from a Google search... TJH2018 talk 16:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable film, plus the only reference/source in the article is a YouTube link to the film's trailer. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2017 (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, deleted by Ymblanter per WP:CSD G4. (non-admin closure) bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobble Keyboard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. While the list of references is impressive, most are links and routine "coverage" in download stores, some routine company reporting, such as funding rounds which is neither encyclopaedic nor establishes notability. The rest of the refs are seemingly advertorials and a sprinkle of press releases. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Addendum. Noticed too late this has been AfD'd as delete in September. So I also tagged the article with G4._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:00, 15 November 2017 (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 Goldridge College. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goldridge Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school without indication of notability beyond routine coverage or non-independent coverage. Fram (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Goldridge+Primary+School/@-18.939056,29.819722,15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musaigwa (talk • contribs) 09:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just your average primary school. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment consider merging with Goldridge College, although I'm not convinced that school is notable, either. Pburka (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it is time we started applying the same source based studies to articles on secondary schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is verifiable and is of public interest.Egaoblai (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Goldridge College, of which this is a satellite institution as the usual outcome for primary schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD." No, the RfC doesn't count against me in this :D — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 07:00, 23 November 2017 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bangarang (band)[edit]

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

Notability has not been demonstrated. Fails at WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Hitro talk 08:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline CSD A7. Only "reference" is to a streaming site. No information in the article hints at passing WP:MUSIC. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: definitely doesn't meet WP:BAND, I'd err on the side of "no" for WP:CSD#A7 because however weak it is it does make a somewhat credible claim of significance which is that they've worked with notable musicians. Still fails WP:NOTINHERITED but that's not grounds for CSD. Janet-O (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out sockpuppet !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2017 (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 Carrie Fisher. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderwell[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. The sources say filming started, but none says it is completed (one says the director was not available to comment), and since Fisher died, it is questionable whether the film would ever be released. If it is not released, I do not see how it is notable (the info can be added as a paragraph to the article about Fisher). Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Carrie Fisher, as per nom..

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: if the film is ever released, a fresh standalone article can always be created ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2017 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Naim Beg[edit]

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

the subject managed to receive some minimal press coverage however in my opinion he doesn't seems to pass WP:AUTHOR. this bio looks promotional and contains OR. Saqib (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this source provides good coverage of the subject. Mar4d (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as minimal coverage is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Tripp[edit]

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

NOT TABLOID. Unless his wife is a public figure, this article has major BLP problems. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically a WP:BLP1E - the 1E in this case is that the guy said he liked big women. The top news hit is a Daily Mail piece titled "I love her curvy body!", which doesn't exactly get us off to a flying start, there are other reliably sourced hits in Daily Telegraph, Washington Post and New Statesman, but ultimately that's just saying the same thing over and over again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as the article states, he's best known for his connection with someone who has a red link. Not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As stated by Ritchie333^(talk) in the article's edit history when he removed first speedy deletion tag, the article has an overwhelming number of sources (30+ references) that speak to the notability of subject. Tripp is notable not only for the above mentioned viral post but also as an author, writer, and TEDx speaker. To deny a subject's credibility who has been discussed, cited, and featured in just about every major news source nationally and internationally is foolish. Clearly subject is notable on his own merits for more than one event and article discusses multiple notable works, thus not applicable to WP:BLP1E guidelines. Also, one could very easily reason that subject's wife is also a notable figure and deserves an article as well, thus strengthening this one. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too promotional as written. There's no real claim that he's known for anything other than being known, and many of the references are to Facebook, YouTube, Amazon and the like. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: The "promotional" aspect can easily be fixed by editors without deleting entire article. In response to power~enwiki, are you just selectively (and biasly) looking at the references to get this article deleted?? Among the 30+ sources on this article that include The New York Times, ABC, TODAY, and Daily Mail, there is just one YouTube reference to the subject's TEDx talk (another work which makes him notable), just one Amazon reference to his book (being a published author also makes you notable), and then Facebook references for two major celebrities--Adam Levine and Tia Mowry--that shared and commented on Tripp's viral story. All the points being made on this discussion simply warrant appropriate edits being made, not the entire article being deleted. By every guideline (and common sense), subject is well-known, notable, and well-covered in a variety of major sources. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Duplicate keep struck TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a TEDx talk certainly doesn't make one notable, and neither does having Adam Levine share a post on Facebook. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But having a TEDx talk in addition to being a published author and social media personality covered in every major news source nationally and internationally certainly does. Is anyone looking at the lengthy citation list of reputable sources on this subject? There are bonafide A-list movie stars with less sources than this. I say again, article should be kept and improved by editors, not deleted entirely. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is not a good argument. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, so keep the article and remove the reference. There is enough sources like BBC that are more than reputable. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails BLP1E and NOT TABLOID. Lepricavark (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As is being discussed above, there is nothing that definitively fails the BLP1E guidelines. Subject is clearly notable and for more than one event/work. Article should remain and be improved by editors. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article should be kept for same reason Ritchie333^(talk) removed speedy deletion tag when article was first created: "(plenty of sources, salvageable)." With this amount of references, it would be easy to reform any section with concerns. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Duplicate keep struck. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage about him and didn't meet SNG WP:AUTHOR — Ammarpad (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No significant coverage? Are you looking at the 30+ sources including The New York Times, BBC, TODAY, and ABC? Also, as mentioned above, there is nothing that definitively fails notability guidelines. Subject is clearly known and for more than one piece of work. WP:AUTHOR concerns aren't completely applicable here because subject is also social media personality. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So he is not author but you write he is Author and he is Writer in the most important, first line in the lead section? And you say they don't apply? This calls the factual accuracy of the entire article into question and it should be deleted. — Ammarpad (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re-read previous comment. Of course he is an author, what I'm saying is that he is not ONLY an author. He is also a social media figure, which should be taken into account as well. Subject is notable for more than just being an author. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since you now backtrack, and agree he is author, then WP:AUTHOR applies, and he fails it entirely. — Ammarpad (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe English is not your first language so I understand why you are confused. I am not "backtracking," I am telling you to re-read my comment because clearly you did not understand it. Obviously subject is an author, but he is not ONLY an author. Tripp is notable for more than just being an author so there are other guidelines/factors to take into account. 30+ references in major sources is more than enough to establish notability and shape article. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I broke this into pieces. I looked up the book and can't find any significant mainstream coverage. I read the coverage of the curvy post story and there's no corresponding biographical info that would suggest there's any interest in Robbie Tripp beyond his post. This article would actually have a better chance existing as Curvy wife post. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 23 November 2017 (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) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green Gas[edit]

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

no substantial references for this term in this context. Google finds only hobbyist blogs and advertisements.What it does find is several other meanings, including the general concept of a replacement for natural gas that is less environmentally damaging. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with possible selective merge (but no redirect) to Airsoft gun#Gas-powered. Note there are "black" and "red" gas canisters as well - [19]. If kept, this article at the very least needs to be renamed to something akin to "Airsoft Green Gas".Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I like Icewhiz' logic. One line of this article should be merged to Airsoft gun#Gas-powered, which already says about all there is to say. This article would unlikely ever expand. As to whether the title should change to "Airsoft Green Gas" as a REDIRECT, I am ambivalent. The most likely search term will be green gas. FWIW, every propellant gas has eventually been found to be problematic. See Aerosol_spray#Aerosol_propellants. Eventually green gas will fall under criticism, too, with the green part debunked (my editorializing). Rhadow (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rhadow - this is green because of the packing color - it is used to shoot an air gun - so I'm not sure this will be debunked, but its commercial name might change.Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2017 (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. So Why 08:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aygün Kazımova[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER and WP:ANYBIO. The sources are at best passing mentions fanclubs and tabloid press coverage Domdeparis (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC) For the same reasons I also nominate for deletion the following page.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The awards page is properly sourced and appears to confirm notability, at least at the national level. As for the tabloid press coverage, she is a pop singer, featured also by mainstream media articles (e.g. 1,2). 84.73.134.206 (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@84.73.134.206: WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". On the page concerning reliable sources the overview states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". Is the coverage significant and are the sources in the 2 articles reliable sources? I do not believe so hence my nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main article and merge the awards page into it. Google news search is showing many sources from Azerbaijan in addition to the 2 mentioned above including non- tabloids, enough to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two together and keep. I basically agree with what Atlantic306 said above. That being said, the article is low quality, and should be drastically rewritten by someone who understands English and what an Encyclopedia is. Dysklyver 10:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2017 (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) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Branko Babic[edit]

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

Delete: Article is complete copypaste in the purpose of promotion of self-promotion. Quis separabit? 05:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His invention is red linked: he's not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is apparently someone by the same name that did something related to... eyebrow waxing? Assuming those are not in fact the same person (seems like a safe assumption), I'm not really finding anything at all as far as sources go. Looks like someone who went out and made their own article to advance the notion that they were wronged out of getting paid for this invention. GMG ^talk 18:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources showing his work has been noted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2017 (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) 17:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mythware Solutions[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another non-notable company with no reliable sources anywhere. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 06:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt[edit]

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

There is no coup yet occurring in Zimbabwe. This is OR, Crystal, etc. The army directly states it is not taking over the government or deposing Mugabe. None of the sources say there is a coup. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - premature for sure, but by the time this AfD is scheduled to end, we may have a better picture on what to do with it. ansh 666 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems like the "better picture" is already arriving. GNG met, and I have little doubt it'll survive WP:NEVENT if it's ever nominated again. ansh 666 06:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per several RS there is a coup attempt (and yes, when the army moves to remove "criminals" around a very old leader and "safeguard" the leader it is a coup - despite the army saying its not (plotters almost always claim they are not performing a coup)). Determining lasting significance is difficult at this point, but most coups, even failed ones, are notable. Per WP:RAPID this should be kept at present.Icewhiz (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... for now. Let's see how this event plays out. GAB^gab 04:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is in fact speedy keep. It was declined CSD, and mistagged with inapplicable tags and now this.... All by one person. Whether coup succeed or not Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with unlimited space and it documents history for posterity. And we can't predict the amount of coverage this event will receive but it is more than obvious that all coup attempts draw immense public interest. This article started with 3 solid sources; BBC, ABC and FOX while Turkey 2016 coup started with only 1 source see how it was then and see it today. What if it were deleted as speculation then? — Ammarpad (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, but given the coverage I expect that this will likely be a 'keep' in the future as well. Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Several sources.Alhanuty (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coups and coup attempts are almost always notable, and this one's already well in advance of GNG standards and more than likely to grow beyond that per Ammarpad's analogy with the 2016 Turkish events. I'm also concerned with the earlier CSD tagging as a "hoax". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep SABC reporting within the last half hour Mugabe and family under house arrest. Sure sounds like a coup to me. DarkAudit (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I am genuinely concerned about this whole situation. At the time the page was created, there were absolutely no RS' saying that a coup was occurring, only that there was unrest and that the military denied it was a coup. What has happened since then is unimportant. The fact is a page was created before it was factually accurate. What is the proper action to take then? Wait under the hopes that it may become true in the future? The concern isn't that the event isn't occurring or that it isn't newsworthy, but that it isn't a coup, or at least that it was not a coup at the time. Saying something happened when it didn't happen seems like a hoax to me. I'm not sure what else to say. Maybe I was misunderstood or maybe there is just a consensus to keep factually inaccurate articles. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 06:28, 15 November 2017 (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) 16:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan McClure Fisher[edit]

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

An advertorially toned BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Part of a promotional walled garden that also includes Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MotorEasy and The Motor Ombudsman (the latter has been deleted as G11). Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is PR driven and / or not independent of the subject's businesses. PROD has been removed by the article's creator, Special:Contributions/Shamonioli, whose contributions are focused on these three related topics and appear to be promotional in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Because the article purports to be about a living person, but it is really about his product/company with 40 references. If it were really about a person, it would describe his life, not what he's selling. HATRACK. Rhadow (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and created by the same account behind the speedied The Motor Ombudsman. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese scientists[edit]

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

No content, unsourced. MaxPprem2 (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has valid content, you should've check the history. It was blanked by O1lI0 and I have restored it. And your claim it is unsourced is not correct, the entire list is linked to valid articles which have the sources. The list serve important function as an index to these articles much like category does. — Ammarpad (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without stating any opinion on the list article, the definition of "unsourced" is that there are no sources in the article. Wikilinks are not sources, and in any case Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what it means. Unsourced means the list is unverifiable because it is not cited and in this case it is not A plain unlinked list or redlink can be called unsourced without citation but not linked one. I know Wikipedia is not RS but this is not circular referencing because the list is made just for its own sake (thus provide index like categories do). Not as article to provide claim on the people. All these people are notable (as is evidenced by the fact all are blue linked) and once notability exists the absence of citation cannot make it not notable — Ammarpad (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally I don't think simple lists of names like this and List of German scientists are very useful, I prefer the more descriptive List of Russian scientists. However I see no reason to delete rather than improve.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it meets WP:LISTN. Science and technology in China is an obviously notable topic, and this is a list that would otherwise be part of that article; as it is already rather long, it makes sense to have it as a standalone list. --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Whatever its flaws, it should not have been blanked by that "semi-retired" editor, who I see has garnered a healthy assortment of user talk page warnings. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pontificalibus and Bonadea. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 15:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep along with all the other lists in Category:Lists of scientists by nationality. It is standard in such lists that a reference is not needed when the article is linked since articles about scientists will have references saying that they are scientists. References may be needed for a person in a list of people who lived in X or went to school at Y since the article about them may not mention the fact. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be a more useful list if it were sorted by specialty and had biographical blurbs, like the List of Russian scientists mentioned above, but "X should be improved" is not an argument that "X should not exist". XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - And save us the trouble. GMG ^talk 18:05, 15 November 2017 (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) 16:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexic Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Article doesn't have any sources either, and I wasn't able to find any reliable sources per the criterion listed at WP:GNG. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 02:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 02:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 02:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a one-sentence article, and the use of the past tense indicates that the record label is now defunct. I am willing to change this to a keep if the article gains more content. Vorbee (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks necessary coverage for corporations (WP:NCORP). I would have gone speedy delete but I see the page history has a declined CSD a few years back. Janet-O (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out sockpuppet !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. “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.” (WP:GNG) There is no evidence that this statement is true for this article. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2017 (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. While many contributors beoieve thatban article might be doable on this subject the clear consensus is that this one isn’t that. The advice to start a draft and not bring this back to mainspace until the text has been reviewed for SYNTH makes sense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western guilt (concept)[edit]

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

I strongly urge editors to read this discussion before voting. This is not a simple case of quickly voting "per sources, per GNG". The comments by Pincrete and Malik Shabazz summarized most of the issues with this essay (not an encyclopedic article) better than I could. In particular, I recommend these comments by Pincrete which help explain some of the most blatant forms of synth and original research I have seen. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; what we have here is not a notable concept but rather a crude selection of quotes that sometimes (surprisingly not always) happen to use "western" and "guilt" with no indication that they are related to one another. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There may be a notable encyclopaedic topic lurking here in the form of postcolonial guilt. Some of the references might also be salvaged for white guilt. But in its current form, this article consists entirely of politically-slanted original synthesis that needs to be blown up and started over. E.M.Gregory's approach to sourcing clearly leaves a lot to be desired―there's a lot of keyword-search cherry picking, misrepresentation of what the sources say, and poor citation practices (e.g. broken links, unnecessary links to paywalls, citations to books without page references) that make verification difficult―but he is often successful in producing a veneer of thorough research that passes a casual inspection. I'd therefore second TheGracefulSlick in urging editors to look closely at what the references actually say, and read the discussions on the talk page, before !voting. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF and do not fling unsubstantiated accusations at fellow editors, especially not accusations based on a nomination at AfD. I assure you that I have indeed read Pascal Bruckner's The Tears of the White Man, Christopher Caldwell's Stranger in a Strange Land, Richard Wolin's The New Republic, Michael Walzer article in Dissent, and the other sources that I cited in creating this article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack has Joe Roe supposedly flung at you? You consistently engage in poor citation practices and he is merely bringing it to this discussion because this is arguably your worst case yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I've offended you E.M.Gregory, but I think at this point I am far from the only person who has noticed the irregularities in your use of sources. I stopped short of giving diffs because I thought that it would be taken as combative and distract from the issue at hand, but if I'm not mistaken there has been more than one ANI thread about it. In any case, I am only giving it as a reason for !voters to take a close look at the sources, which surely can't be a bad thing. – Joe (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and the way to resolve a content dispute (which is what we have here) is not deleting the article. The concept itself - is clearly notable - it is the subject of books and journal papers - so clearly Wikipedia should have an entry on this political/cultural concept. As for the article quality - including alleged SYNTH and OR - this should be addressed by editing the article. If need be - this article could be stubbed down to a five line paragraph explaining the concept (without a long list of examples) without difficulty.Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If, as you assert, Icewhiz, the concept is the subject of books and journal papers, I have two questions. First, why is not a single one of those books or journal article cited as a source in the article or recommended as further reading? Second, could you please identify a few of those books and journal articles for me, because I'm too stupid to find them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  The epithet you chose does not describe you at all. Some sources:
  
  [20] Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion, Peter T. Bauer, 1981
  
  Bauer, Péter Tamás. "Western guilt and Third World poverty." Commentary 61.1 (1976): 31.
  
  Sanneh, Lamin. "Christian missions and the Western guilt complex." The Christian Century 104.11 (1987): 330-334.
  
  Leys, Ruth. From guilt to shame: Auschwitz and after. Princeton University Press, 2009.
  
  Diamond, Larry. "The democratic rollback: the resurgence of the predatory state." Foreign affairs (2008): 36-48.
  
  Akinade, Akintunde E. "The precarious agenda: Christian-Muslim relations in contemporary Nigeria." Journal of Islam and Christian Muslim Relations (2002).
  
  Ajami, Fouad. "The Global Logic of the Neoconservatives." World Politics 30.3 (1978): 450-468.
  
  [21] The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat, Bill Siegel
  
  [22] Western Christians in Global Mission: What's the Role of the North American, Paul Borthwick.
  
  [23] From Subsistence to Exchange and Other Essays, by Lord Peter Tamas Bauer
  
  [24] Writing Anthropology: A Call for Uninhibited Methods, F. Bouchetoux
  
  [25] War, Guilt, and World Politics after World War II, Thomas U. Berger.
  
  And of course google-news shows contemporary usage of this term in this context by many different people.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That the term is sometimes used is not disputed, but is it used in a coherent way, such that it has a defined, or definable meaning? The 3 or 4 sources above which I looked at, had no more than passing mentions, which never defined the term. Nor is it clear that the various users are using the term in the manner defined in the article. For example, the brief mention in the The Christian Century, basically says Christian missions should feel "western guilt" for past presumptiousness and cultural arrogance, but should nonetheless continue to "spread the gospel". Does this bear any relationship whatsoever to the definition and examples in our article? This example sounds to me like typical christian contrition, (let's repent and do better) and to have nothing to do with a political concept. Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed, Icewhiz. That's a classic bait and switch. You wrote that "Western guilt" "is the subject of books and journal papers", but you haven't identified a single book or peer-reviewed academic journal paper about "Western guilt". (Commentary and The Christian Century are not journals by any stretch of the imagination.) Instead, you provided books, magazine articles, and journal papers that mention the phrase "Western guilt". That demonstrates that the concept is not notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize I do not live up to your lofty expectations, but I wouldn't call the long tracts by lord Peter Thomas Bauer (e.g. chapter 6 of [26] which is a 2000 Princeton University Press reprint of the 1976 commentary magazine piece (which is, actually, cited by quite a bit)) - a mention. By extension, your characterization of some of the others sources is not comprehensive.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A patently notable topic, which is why I created the article. No SYNTH required. Clear and congruent definitions of "western guilt" by Richard Wolin, Pascal Bruckner, Douglas Murray, Shelby Steele, and Sohrab Ahmari are already on the page. If editors want to argue that these definitions are not properly summarized in the lede, that discussion belongs on the talk page. However, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I never nominated this essay for deletion for cleanup or because I don't like it. Those are straw man arguments. If any of the keep !voters cared to read it, my nom statement asserts this essay falls under what Wikipedia is not. Gregory created this personal essay by synthing together sources that sometimes use the term for different meaning and misrepresented others to push a POV. There is no established term known as "Western guilt" except in the mind of the essay's creator.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You both really should address content, not each other. Even if all you are saying about this article is true - the subject itself would still merit an article as it is clearly notable. It would be trivial to stub this down to a form that is not contestable.Icewhiz (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the term exists in any coherent form, it is clearly as a pejorative term used to denigrate the motives of those one disagrees with, rather than an objective phenomenon. I am not persuaded that it does have a commonly understood meaning, even in that limited pejorative sense. The article is simply a ragbag of uses, occasionally of the term, more often of related terms like "post-colonial guilt" which have been synthed together. Needless to say, none of the uses ever say "this is bunkum, the entirety of western liberal thinking and policies are NOT motivated by 'guilt' anymore than all conservative policies are motivated by racism and avarice". Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Performing a web search on a phrase and quoting the single occurrence of that phrase in a dozen books and articles is not a sound basis for an encyclopedia article. There has been no significant coverage of the concept of "Western guilt", which is why the subject fails the notability requirements. I recommend that editors read WP:NEO:
Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term . An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
Unfortunately, this is a compilation of sources that use the term "Western guilt" without a single source about "Western guilt". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The editor is an avid writer, who researches his material very well. His work is of great importance to this venue, IMHO. Naturally, whenever one conceives of an idea for a valid entry in this online encyclopedia, the first thing that he does is research the topic, perusing through the available sources that treat on the topic, and brings this information together by putting it into a readable form. There's nothing amiss in doing so. The sources cited are good; the subject-matter under discussion notable.Davidbena (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena I'm an avid writer too but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to create my own concept for an encyclopedic article. Can you explain what you meant by your comment? There is no established phenomenon called "Western guilt"; Wikipedia is not a publisher of personal essays. The sources were brought together by synth and misrepresentation. As I recommended in my nom statement, I strongly urge you to review the sources and the talk page discussion. The synth and OR is too blatant to ignore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Shame" culture and "Guilt" culture were articulated by Dodds (1951). Discussing ancient Greek epics and drama, he traced an increasing sophistication in their development, from a conception of the world and the moral order as arbitrary and subject to the whim of the gods, through to a later understanding of the limits of moral responsibility. You may also wish to see JSTOR on this subject. Better still, check the search engine for its notability. Our co-editor apparently only wished to discuss one aspect of this "guilt" culture, namely, that found in western societies. It's legitimate.Davidbena (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So any 'collective sense of guilt' found in, (or perceived by others to be 'found in') western societies, is, by definition 'Western guilt' is it? Regardless of cause? Jewish survivor guilt? People who feel UK and Europe should have done more in the 1930's to stop Nazism? German guilt over WWII? US citizens who don't feel good about the Vietnam war or UK citizens who are not proud of Bloody Sunday? Who decides what's in and what's out, because the sources don't seem to agree that this is a single defined, or definable entity. Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an essay comprised of original research, not an encyclopedic article. Lepricavark (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - icludes books as sources. meets wp:gng XavierItzm (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per TNT would need to be completely written to comply with NPOV and SOAP. From a policy perspective, what is wrong with this page is that it is completely and narrowly POV. It treats the notion of "western guilt" from a single perspective that "Western guilt" is some self-flagellating and self-destructive notion that exists only in the minds (and cultural products of minds) of left wingers in the West. The sources were cherry-picked to accomplish this, so of course that is all it does. There is almost nothing here about the actual substrate of racist/sexist/colonial/postcolonial abuse that is the basis for the "guilt", and actually nothing from the POV of objects of "the West"'s actions (where is for example the voice of people like Frantz Fanon in this "article"?) There is almost no POV from people in "the West" and in the ROW who seek constructive ways of engagement that acknowledge the past and don't abnegate it.

What is driving people to call this an "essay" and to discuss SYN is the stringing-together of a narrow range of sources to generate this POV content. This is useless to anybody trying to think about the whole of "western guilt" (including the POV here). This has no place in WP as it stands.

It is as wrong-headed from stem to stern as many of the pages created by that Environmental Justice class we had to deal with last spring, that came here with a resolutely anti-Trump "message" to sell. We ended up deleting a bunch of them as well. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, it is really a kind of POV fork of White privilege, Male privilege, Colonialism, Postcolonialism, etc all wrapped up in one POV package. Like I said, would need to be completely rewritten to be dialogue with the rest of WP instead of sticking out like a sore thumb. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the article can be improved, but Note that there is a great deal of serious scholarship cited in the article, and more can be added.

For example, Imperialism, Marxism and the Western Sense of Guilt, a subsection in Philosophy, politics and conservatism in the thought of Elie Kedourie, in which political philosopher Noël O'Sullivan unpacks Elie Kedourie's an analysis of the impact of western guilt on decolonization in the post-WWII era. (Kedourie thought empire had some positive aspects, and that nationalism and Marxism were radically dangerous.) He regarded Franz Fanon as representing a "fusion of nationalism and Marxism," But he was very specifically critical not of the fact of the end of empire, but of the fact that the then new phenomenon of western guilt over imperialism led France and Britain to wrap up their Empires in a "hasty and irresponsible" manner that led to bloodshed, economic collapse, and enormous suffering for the colonized peoples (in Algeria and elsewhere) that might have been averted.

The assertion that the concept of Western guilt lacks sources is simply mistaken. Nor can it be subsumed under white guilt; the two concepts intersect, but western guilt is broader, and, often as in O'Sullivan's analysis of Kedourie, about guilt as a driver of colonial and foreign policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for example is a discussion of Frantz Fanon's thought on western guilt (the topic is the exploitation of the bodies of brown and black women and boys,) "According to Fanon, it was not enough to assign guilt to monstrous racism in Europe and North America, it was also necessary to face the shame of bourgeois barbarism in Africa and Asia..." p. 52, Sex Shame and the Single Life," Daniel McNeill, a chapter in American Shame: Stigma and the Body Politic, Myra Mendible, editor, Indiana University Press, 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that my !vote did not call into question whether an article could be written on this. It could. This page would have to be completely rewritten to make it encyclopedic, specifically with regard to NPOV and SOAP. As it stands it is an essay that makes an argument that should be called "Why Western Guilt is a Bad Thing" and it should be deleted.

Perhaps you would be willing to draftify it and submit it through AfC when you think you have made it actually something approaching neutral? Perhaps the nominator would then agree to withdraw the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Do note that Frantz Fanon and Elie Kedourie - the sources I brought just above - are on opposite sides of this debate. The sources now in the article, distinguished academics with whom you disagree, are valid sources. The topic meets WP:SIGCOV. A content dispute is NOT an argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying deletion is cleanup. If you will not comprehend what Jytdog is discussing, that is fine. Wikipedia will be better off without this POV essay.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is a pig's ear and we cannot make a purse out if it. This is not like a stub that needs building out. It needs a teardown and rebuild. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's far from clear to me that there is significant coverage. What the keep !voters have presented is a disparate collection of sources that use the term in passing (and some that don't use the term at all), and a few works by fringe, conservative authors that cover it as a coherent concept. I think it would be difficult to write an article that conformed to WP:NPOV unless additional, mainstream sources were found. – Joe (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa The article and my comment above cite to SIGCOV by Fritz Stern, Richard Wolin, Pascal Bruckner, Douglas Murray, Shelby Steele, Elie Kedourie, Sohrab Ahmari, Noël O'Sullivan, Bruce Thornton, Frantz Fanon, Bernhard Schlink, Paul Collier, Colin Kidd. This is more than "a few" sources, and they are not "fringe".E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources are myriad and include:

Lewis Samuel Feuer, Imperialism and the Anti-Imperialist Mind, Chapter IV: "The Imperialist Spirit and the Anti-Imperialist Mind", subhead "The Ideology of Imperialist Guilt", First section of chapter IV, p, 104 "Western peoples, it has been noted, have been peculiarly susceptible to feelings of guilt concerning their imperialist role. The guilt, it has sometimes been suggested, derives form the Christian myth of guilt and sin..." An entire chapter on imperialism and western guilt ensues. 1989, Routledge.
John Hobson, The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics; Western International Theory, 1760-2010 discusses "the West's 'colonial-racism guilt syndrome,' or what has been termed, 'post-imperial cringe.' In turn, the emergence of this syndrome was due in part to a series of intra-Western developments, which comprised the internalist critique of scientific racism within the academy." and more analysis of the "Western-racist imperialist guilt complex." p. 320, Cambridge University Press 2012.
Sarah Maddison, Postcolonial guilt and national identity: historical injustice and the Australian settler state, Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, Volume 18, 2012 - Issue 6
Post-colonial guilt has changed how European history is being taught January 2017 Hindustan Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derrr .... almost none of these refer to 'Western guilt', and when they do, it is merely in passing. None of them tells us what it supposedly is, except of course it's a Very Very BAD thing. As M Shabazz says, these are sources USING the term not ABOUT the term.Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here Pincrete concretely insists that if a source such as Lewis Samuel Feuer's detailed 12-page section on "The Ideology of Imperialist Guilt" (in a book on The Imperialist Spirit and the Anti-Imperialist Mind, varies his language, sometimes using phrases like "Western peoples," or just plain "guilt" to discuss this concept in the course of a complex, scholarly discussion of Western guilt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT / WP:ADVOCACY. The page, as written, is not about the concept of Western guilt, but seems instead to innumerate types and instances of “Western guilt” without a coherent structure. The concept itself is multi-faceted, as it appears, referring at varying times to perceptions relating to colonialism, Holocaust, Christian missions, current migrant crisis, etc. The article is a mish-mash of these concepts and examples, resulting in WP:SYNTH. This leads me to conclude that it’s best deleted at this time, until it can be completely rewritten.

Separately, the argument “includes books as sources” is not convincing; I could probably find any combination of words in a book and synthesise an article out of them, or, alternatively, write an article about "Post-colonial guilt", based on the same sources. There’s also some fringe element to the subject, as in: The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat - Page 94 by Bill Siegel – 2012: “White or Western Guilt usually involves large wealth transfers. Whether it is directed at Great Society programs or aid for lesser-developed countries, much of the game of guilt revolves around extracting money.” Etc.

So, I would be especially careful when developing such an article. In summary, there may be a notable topic here somewhere, but this article ain’t it. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Siegel is not cite din the article, and that fringe thinkers can be removed from articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffman, Far from being SYNTH, the concept of Western guilt was articulated by Pascal Bruckner in two books (both have been translated into English), The Tears of the White Man (1983) and The Tyranny of Guilt, 2006. The Definitions of Western guilt subhead begins with a 2010 essay exploring this topic by Richard Wolin, in The New Republic. Wolin is Distinguished Professor of History and Political Science at the CUNY Graduate Center. While the definitions that follow vary, they all follow Bruckner's concept of a Western culture of remorse within which historic events, including Western imperialism, black slavery and the Holocaust, produce an emotional response of guilt requiring self-abnegation, penitence, and acts of penance or reparation that can affect political and policy outcomes. Do Note that all complex political concepts have complex definitions, which is why this article follows the standard pattern set on such topics inhaving a "definitions" section (sc.f.: Social class#Theoretical models, or Postcolonialism#Purpose and basic concepts#Difficulty of definition. Bruckner and those who like the concept are, of course, not fans of postcolonial theory. Nevertheless, this article has had a subhead Western guilt (concept)#Types of Western guilt#Postcolonial guilt from the time it was created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still SYNTH. For example, this belongs on the article about the book, The Tears of the White Man:

Writing in Foreign Affairs in 1987, Fritz Stern described "the rise of a guilty conscience in Europe" as a "major topic".^[1]

References

^ Stern, Fritz (Spring 1987). "The Tears of the White Man". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 27 June 2017.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Scholar search of "Western guilt" -"western guilt culture" (which brings up too many false positives which refer to works following Ruth Benedict's classification schema), brings up 900 academic papers which use the term, and from a quick perusal of some of them, many of them do use in a cohesive way, which would point towards this meeting WP:GNG (e.g. [27][28]. Problems with articles on notable topics should be kept and the problems resolved through talk page discussion/editing, and if the synthesis is really that big of issue, cutting it down..---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as noted above, this is potentially a useful topic. The current article though is unsalvageable WP:SYNTH. If deleted, there should explicitly be no prejudice against the creation of a new article on the topic that follows the reliable sources on the subject more closely. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Looking at the books and other RS retrieved by "western guilt culture" Google searches convince me that the subject does exist and can be properly developed. The concept has been discussed in a number of books, like here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But My very best wishes how can it possibly be developed from this POV essay? All this is is a synthed collection of white guilt, German collective guilt, postcolonialism, Australian guilt, and environmental guilt. You had it right the first time -- this article is just a coat rack, and, even if the term exists, it is not being appropriately described here; a total restart is required and this current essay is just damaging to the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that deleting a page is the way to improve it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't call completely rewriting pages "improving" them. Again this would be need to be completely rewritten and restructured to meet NPOV. Right now it is just an essay filling a hijacked page in the encyclopedia. "Improvement" is not relevant here. This not like a stub that can built on. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, My very best wishes your response doesn't address the concerns. This isn't a stub with a minor issue; the essay as a whole needs to be completely rewritten so it can be considered an article. We can't simply "improve" a POV essay that isn't even clear on what it is trying to describe and often synths material. As I said before, your original assessment was correct and it is unfortunate you stepped away from it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after looking at the books on the subject in general (like here), it appears they do describe some content that is currently included on the page, for example German collective guilt (see pages 73-77 of the book). so, annihilating the page does not seem to be the best option to me. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by article creator. This discussion has been useful. I wrote the article focusing on this topic as it has developed in the post WWII period as Pascal Bruckner and others have written extensively about "Western guilt" as a unique cultural phenomenon with impact on government policy. Revisiting this body of writing, I can see that major contemporary thinkers support the idea of this modern phenomenon as resulting from and old and uniquely Western guilt culture with deep roots in Christianity. Whereas I had separated the contemporary concept form the historic Christian thought tradition. See: The Emergence of a Western Guilt Culture, 13th-18th Centuries, Jean Delumeau , translated into English 1990, St. Martin's Press for the depth of scholarship on the concept of "Western guilt culture." Certainly I can expand the article to inculde this sort of scholarly historical depth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree that the only way this article can be improved is to nuke it, and start over. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An essay, and one with the focused clarity of a cloud of squid ink. Anmccaff (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2017 (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 close. Blank category, not an article. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monika Korra[edit]

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

incorrect spelling Jcard30 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Christmas[edit]

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

no indication of passing WP:NOTFILM Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The original article was poorly written, sourced, and verified. I have cleaned up the page to include independent and reliable sources, including Variety, awards and nominations for the film, and it's distribution details by notable distributor. The film has been mentioned on multiple major horror film sites including Dread Central, and as of November 28, the film will be available to the public on VOD (video on demand). Amandadoyle543 (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per th eproject meetng WP:N. IE: [29] Hats off to Amandadoyle543 for doing the improvements. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 15 November 2017 (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 think Cthomas3 and Syrenka V are just not going to see eye-to-eye on this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krista White[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Lack of GNG and has dubious sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Background: tagged for WP:PROD by the nominator (Sportsfan 1234) with the comment:

non-notable person

Proposed deletion contested by me (Syrenka V) with the comment:

Presumptively notable as having "received a well-known and significant award or honor" (America's Next Top Model winner) per section WP:ANYBIO within guideline WP:BIO

Whatever any one person thinks of America's Next Top Model, it is, without reasonable doubt, a "well-known and significant award or honor" from the point of view of the general culture. And the General notability guideline (WP:GNG) is only one section of the guideline WP:Notability (WP:N), which unequivocally states that the GNG is not the only way of showing presumptive notability (emphasis added):

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

The guideline WP:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) is one of those listed in that box. Contrary to popular deletionist opinion, a topic need not necessarily meet WP:GNG in order to have a presumption of notability. Does Krista White meet WP:GNG? We don't even need to know.

Likewise, the section WP:NEXIST within the guideline WP:N states as its title:

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

Deletionists frequently cite "dubious sources", but that is not a valid basis for deletion according to guidelines. I'm aware that there are essays that make claims to the contrary. They're simply wrong.

This nomination for deletion was contrary to guidelines and should be rejected out of hand, without any need to improve the article beforehand, or to investigate its sourcing, or to evaluate whether its topic meets the GNG. Doubtless as a recognized stub the article does need improvement to make a better encyclopedia—but not to justify keeping the article.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that winning this title is the type of honour envisaged by the "well-known and significant" wording of WP:ANYBIO, or used in practice at AfD in evaluating notability. And, as for WP:NEXIST, there has to be some reasonable prospect that notability-granting coverage exists for it to be invoked. For an American subject involved in popular culture whose purported notability was achieved in recent years such significant coverage in independent reliable sources should be easily findable online. Have you found any such coverage? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Past AfDs that contradict the plain meaning of the guidelines are irrelevant. As explained in the policy WP:CONSENSUS, there are varying levels of consensus, and that of policies and guidelines is the most rigorous standard. It may not be overridden by the marginal consensus of AfDs, which barely counts as consensus at all by the standards of WP:CONSENSUS. Any one AfD draws a negligible fraction of the community, nor do most editors habitually frequent AFDs. AfDs are answerable to policies and guidelines, not the other way around.

The whole point of having notability guidelines other than WP:GNG is that "reasonable prospect" can be demonstrated in other ways than by actually exhibiting sources. In cases where the conditions of one of the special notability guidelines are met, any demand that sources be exhibited to justify a keep amounts to an attempt to reduce all notability guidelines to the GNG, an approach which is explicitly rejected by the guideline WP:N, of which WP:GNG is merely one section.

There can be no reasonable doubt that ANTM is well known. And if the significance referenced in "well known and significant" is to be judged by the same general culture whose state of knowledge determines what is well known—and not by AfD participants—then that significance cannot be doubted either.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I doubt it, and I'm a pretty reasonable person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of what you (or I) consider to be significant. Whatever you or I may think, the general culture has made its own judgment that winning ANTM is significant. If you still doubt that, try doing searches, not on Krista White, but on ANTM itself. You'll get an eyeful.

—Syrenka V (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so stuck in an ivory tower as not to know what America's Next Top Model is, and I don't doubt that there are loads of web sites that write about it, but I have seen no evidence that its winners are covered to such an extent in reliable sources to mean that they can automatically be considered notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent for readability; still replying to 86.17.222.157]

According to WP:ANYBIO, having "received a well-known and significant award or honor" like ANTM is presumptive evidence of notability. Without a specific and cogent rebuttal to that presumption, no further evidence is needed before making a keep decision, which is the whole point of having a guideline like WP:ANYBIO. Any demand to produce such further evidence before making a keep decision is contrary to the guidelines unless it is accompanied by strong and specific evidence to rebut the presumption of notability. (Such rebuttal evidence might consist in reporting of thorough WP:BEFORE searches with negative results. Have you done this? If so, you haven't mentioned it.)

Similarly, it would defeat the purpose of WP:ANYBIO if we judged "significance" in "well-known and significant" by the opinions of AfD participants as to what characteristics make it likely that suitable sources exist. Such opinions could be argued on their own merits, as direct applications of WP:NEXIST, and WP:ANYBIO would add nothing. The point of WP:ANYBIO is that an award that the public knows well, and sees as significant, confers a presumption of notability independently of any arguments that could be made from WP:GNG and even WP:NEXIST. The only reason the guideline needs to add "significant" to "well-known" at all is that there could be well-known awards that the public does not see as significant. What AfD participants, as opposed to the public, see as "significant" is beside the point. Applying WP:ANYBIO involves judging public opinion—not polling our own opinions about the significance of an award.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sufficient reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the above. The GNG is not the only way to show notability. For the winner of a well-known award or honor, a presumption of notability is already present. —Syrenka V (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG takes precedence over anything else. In this case the subject in question does not have 'enough' GNG to warrant an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the guideline is WP:N, not GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Nothing in any policy or guideline supports the idea that "GNG takes precedence over anything else." And as discussed and documented above, the guideline WP:N, of which WP:GNG is merely one section, explicitly rejects the idea that satisfying GNG is the only path to a presumption of notability.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote is based on looking in the article, so is not a valid notability argument. Further the !vote is WP:IGNORINGATD, where WP:ATD is a policy that all editors should normally follow. Unscintillating (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep NPASR No arguments for deletion. The WP:IGNORINGATD of the nomination is unambiguous. Further, WP:BEFORE D1 Google news shows sources not mentioned by the nominator. While the absence of the WP:BEFORE D1 remains unexplained, I think these sources are sufficiently strong (NYT and articles in Vietnamese) that the explanation is that the nomination was made without using the WP:BEFORE checklist. Unscintillating (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this New York Times article supports notability, or have I missed another NYT piece? The message that I get from the brief quote from White there is that winning this competition did not lead to any sort of notability in the modelling world. And I don't understand Vietnamese, but the sources in that language all appear to include her in a list of winners of the competition, rather that say any more than a few words specifically about White. Or can you use your knowledge of that language to point to a source that has significant coverage of her? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I see from the snippet is that the MYT article's URL calls the title, "americas-next-top-model-finale-where-are-the-winners-now". I can also see that the article is capable of sourcing one of the "citation needed" tags in the article regarding "Rip the Runway". I can't imagine how this doesn't support notability, but I'm not arguing to notability, I'm arguing that this source should have been discovered as part of WP:BEFORE D1 to prepare the community for this nomination. I also don't speak Vietnamese, but again, I can see enough of the snippet to see that it should have been discovered during WP:BEFORE D1. The fact that you have questions about these sources shows that you could have used better preparation. Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comment. With all due respect, I can not see in the "sources" currently provided on the page any proof of notability. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of sourcing isn't used to define notability. Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indeed, quick check shows a number of additional sources. Moreover, checking America's Next Top Model shows that winners are probably sufficiently notable to satisfy criteria for a person. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My apologies, but I am not convinced that winning a reality show competition qualifies as a "well-known and significant award or honor". The claim that winning ANTM is, without reasonable doubt, a "well-known and significant award or honor" from the point of view of the general culture, needs some sort of source, as there is plenty of room for interpretation of the word "significant". In order to claim that "consensus is overridden" by the policy itself, it must be crystal-clear what "significant" means; I would argue to the point of actually stating in the policy itself that winning a reality show competition qualifies. Failing that, we must fall back to either a reliable source actually documenting the "significance" of winning a reality competition (and not just claiming that "public opinion says it is significant"), or using tried-and-true consensus to determine what "significant" really does mean specifically in this context. Two people here have already come to opposite conclusions, so clearly there is ambiguity in the term. Furthermore there has yet to be anything approaching a consensus (that I can find) that reality show winners have any special notability on WT:Notability itself where WP:ANYBIO actually lives ([30], [31], [32], [33]), let alone on any of the AfDs for ANTM contestants ([34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]). WP:REALITY attempted to codify such a stance but failed; WP:NMODEL (and WP:NACTOR, etc.) don't mention anything about winning a competition of any kind.
And honestly, what makes winning a reality show significant in the first place? The Scripps National Spelling Bee is much harder with far more contestants, fewer winners per year (1 vs 2), viewed by nearly as many people, and clearly doesn't impart notability. Winning the Jeopardy! College Championship has approximately the same number of contestants, also takes place over a series of episodes, and typically watched by more than three times as many people as ANTM. So what makes ANTM, the 142nd-rated television show of 2011-12, and the 30th-rated reality show of that same season, worthy of being called a "significant" award? Even Survivor, a much higher-rated and longer-running series, doesn't have articles for all its winners. So let's just set WP:ANYBIO aside for a moment, as I don't think this qualifies. (never mind declaring that passing WP:ANYBIO prima facie entitles someone to an article is patently false; all of these additional criteria come with the caveat meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.)
So now we are back to WP:GNG. Yes, this is not the only way to pass notability, but as we've already addressed WP:ANYBIO, and she doesn't pass WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTOR, that's really all that's left. So what kind of coverage does Ms. White have?
I can find a number of sources that were published within a few days of her winning ([59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]), but I would argue that these merely support WP:BLP1E. So what about significant WP:SUSTAINED coverage? That's a bit harder to find, but these are what I located that weren't passing mentions: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. Notice how every one of these articles discusses the whole group of winners (or contestants in one case). They clearly establish the notability of the group as a whole (and would qualify for a standalone list, if it weren't already an integral part of the ANTM page itself), but I don't believe they establish the notability of the individual members of the list. Clearly all of the models merit inclusion in the list, and they are indeed all mentioned on the ANTM page. But I don't see them as individually notable as a result. CThomas³ (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your thoughtful contribution. These are interesting arguments on interpretation of guidelines like WP:ANYBIO. And some serious WP:BEFORE work has been done. Accordingly, I'm listing Krista White at the rescue list of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS), which I hadn't done before. Until now, I didn't think any of the arguments for deletion warranted a search for sources. Since your arguments are on a number of separate points, I'll be replying to them piecemeal.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on wider categories to which ANTM belongs: no one advocating a keep here has claimed that all reality shows, or even just all televised modeling competitions, are so culturally iconic as that winning any one of them counts as a "well-known and significant award or honor". There are some other individual shows (like American Idol) that would qualify, but probably not broad categories. As some of the notability guideline talk-page discussion quoted by Cthomas3 indicates, the differences within these categories are more significant than the similarities.

—Syrenka V (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate comparing American Idol, the number-one show on television for a number of years in two separate time slots, with America's next top model, which never had high viewership and was out of the top 100 for all but its first few seasons. American Idol and Survivor may not have invented the reality TV competition show, but they are the two franchises primarily responsible for popularizing it, and were both ratings juggernauts for over a decade. ANTM could probably be considered a WP:MILL copy, to be honest. It received less than a tenth of the viewership of those two franchises, and significantly less than probably 30 or 40 others as well. And its winners have simply not parlayed their turn on the show into any kind of lasting significance like the winners of American Idol largely have (with a couple of exceptions, who would be notable under WP:GNG). Are we also saying that receiving the winning rose on the Bachelor/Bachelorette is a "significant and well-known award"? Those shows have been far more popular than ANTM, and the winners receive equal or greater coverage.
I am not doubting the "well-known" part of winning a reality TV competition, just the "significant" part. Awards like the Nobel and Fields medal are ones that recognize a global and historic career accomplishment; similarly, Academy awards and such indicate high achievement against the best of the best in their own fields. Reality shows like ANTM find unknowns to compete against each other in order to give one of them the chance to begin a career in that industry. It's like saying we should give significance to winning the Pacific Coast League MVP when it specifically excludes all of the best players (who are all in the majors). CThomas³ (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On viewership numbers: being the number-one-rated show surely does contribute strongly toward notability, but lesser ratings are not at all strong evidence against it. Most indicators of notability are sufficient conditions, not necessary conditions; "OR", not "AND". Think of Star Trek: The Original Series, which had its first run canceled after three low-rated seasons. Statistics for name recognition over a period of time might be more compelling, if available; if not, remember that the things that are easiest to quantify need not be most important. I don't think it's an accident that I recognized the name of America's Next Top Model instantly, but had no idea that the Pacific Coast League even existed. (For that matter, does any specific minor-league baseball team have good name recognition?) How many people watch a show live is less important than how many still know or care a decade later. (This is one reason why I draw the opposite conclusion to yours from "where are they now" articles.)

On "award or honor" versus merely "winner": despite the uncontested fame and notability of Survivor, it sounds odd to me to call winning Survivor an "award or honor" at all, let alone a significant one. Ditto for getting the rose on Bachelor/Bachelorette. An extreme case would be winning a particular lottery, which is clearly not an award or honor no matter how notable the lottery itself might have become. I think you're onto something about the distinction between victories that are merely victories, versus those that convey some form of commendation that makes them awards or honors. But, returning to one of my original points, it's public opinion and the general culture that determine which victories count as significant awards or honors. WP:ANYBIO cannot possibly mean "significant award or honor" by some objective criterion (no such exists), nor by the personal understanding of "significance" on the part of the few people who show up at a given AfD. If there were a consensus at, for example, WikiProject Biography (or in this case, at WikiProject Fashion) as to a specific understanding of "significant award or honor", I would defer to that. But without such a consensus, the understanding of "significance" that is most in line with the purpose of WP:ANYBIO is that status as a "significant award or honor" is determined by the same public opinion that determines what is or is not "well-known". And the public is under no obligation to be fair or objective. Are spelling bees, Jeopardy!, minor-league baseball, and even Survivor more demanding than ANTM? It doesn't matter, if it's ANTM winners that the public tracks for years, and not the others.

—Syrenka V (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "where are they now" articles that feature Krista White (like those linked above, from BuzzFeed, the New York Times, In Touch Weekly, E! Online, PopSugar, and Entertainment Weekly): the significance of these articles is quite opposite to what Cthomas3 attributes to them. "Where are they now" articles exist on a variety of competitions, and they do not automatically feature capsule biographies of all the winners, as these on ANTM do. (The one from PopSugar even gives individual capsule biographies for all 204 contestants!) For comparison, I searched for "where are they now" articles on the Scripps National Spelling Bee, introduced above by Cthomas3 as a term of comparison. I found a couple of "where are they now" articles from Slate and Inverse Culture, but their structure was very different from the ANTM articles. There was no attempt at capsule biographies of all winners, or even of all recent winners for some definition of "recent". Instead, they gave broad generalizations about the winners as a class, with more detailed information about a very few winners selected as examples. This kind of article supports the notability of the competition itself and of the specific winners given detailed coverage (Rebecca Sealfon in particular clearly needs her own article, not just a redirect as she has at present!), but it does not present the competition as conferring notability on all its winners. By contrast, six different publications giving capsule biographies of all ANTM winners for the competition's entire history are making a very strong statement that all ANTM winners are worthy of coverage (and thus notable!) as individuals simply because they won a cycle of ANTM. (PopSugar even votes to extend that to all contestants, but it appears to be alone in that.) Note that WP:SIGCOV within WP:N specifically states that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". So these articles not only support the notability under WP:GNG of ANTM itself, and of every one of the individual winners they cover, including Krista White—they also support the status of winning ANTM as a "well-known and significant award or honor", conferring notability via WP:ANYBIO even on winners in cycles after their publication.

—Syrenka V (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't equate the inclusion of a couple of lines of bio with significance of the award in question. As an example, I couldn't find an article with bios for the list of Nobel laureates for economics, but I don't think you would find anyone who would say that is less well-known or prestigious than ANTM. CThomas³ (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that in order to establish notability, the subject need not be the primary topic of the article, but the coverage does need to be significant. A large image and a single paragraph of bio is not, in my opinion, significant (remove the image from the article and then give it a more honest assessment of the depth of coverage). The articles are merely expanded lists, giving notability to the entirety of the contents but not to any individual entry. CThomas³ (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Where are they now" articles with capsule bios are one way of showing notability of those covered, and of showing an award's power to confer notability; there are many, many others, and this particular form of evidence of notability is not to be expected in every case, nor does it trump all other evidence in deciding which awards are well-known or prestigious. The power of the Nobel to confer notability was never in doubt. And there are publications about Nobelists that attempt comprehensive individual coverage, at least within a subfield; they just don't (to my knowledge) take the form of online news stories. I actually read, not too long ago, a short book entitled The Nobel Prize winning discoveries in infectious diseases (Rifkind and Freeman 2005, Elsevier, ISBN 978-0-12369353-2). It wasn't exactly a "where are they now"; it was more a matter of recounting their discoveries, setting them in historical context, and drawing out their implications for the present. What matters is what level of coverage the audience expects, and that expectation is likely to be quite different for scientists than for fashion models.

The audience's expectations also make a great deal of difference to what counts as significant coverage. The bar set by WP:SIGCOV is not particularly high: merely that "no original research is needed to extract the content" and it is not a "trivial mention"—essentially, an aside, irrelevant to the principal point, as shown by WP:SIGCOV's example of mentioning that Bill Clinton belonged to a particular band in high school. None of these capsule biographies are asides, nor do any require original research to extract their content. If these six publications had not felt that these capsule bios would be seen as significant by their readers, they would not have included them at all—as the "where are they now" articles on the spelling bee did not, except for a few examples singled out. And in no case would a mere list, without the biographies, have been an acceptable substitute from the point of view of the audience; there is a qualitative difference between a series of capsule biographies and a simple list. (Nor would a gallery of photos without text, or a sequence of text biographies without photos, have been acceptable—the separation of text from photography for purposes of determining significance is not legitimate.) Unlike the case of the spelling bee, omitting any of the capsule biographies of ANTM winners would have impaired the impact of the article.

—Syrenka V (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the points you are making, but you are basing many of them on claims about the publishers’ motives and their readers’ expectations that are simply not possible to know. It is also not possible to know what the general public thinks about anything without some kind of reliable source (and ideally sources), which is the original point I was trying to make. If you can direct me to a source that clearly and explicitly asserts that winning ANTM is “significant” (which is problematic on its face because that word is itself subjective), then I would accept it. But without that, the only thing we can use is consensus of Wikipedia editors to determine if it is or isn’t. That is how we both create and interpret policy when it is even slightly ambiguous, which this most definitely is. You clearly have an opinion, as do I, but that’s just the (dissenting) opinions of two editors. A number of other people have also inconclusively weighed in on the topic elsewhere, as I pointed out in my WP:BEFORE, which clearly indicates that this isn’t a case of WP:BLUE. So as of now, we don’t have a consensus that reality show winners meet the WP:ANYBIO requirement, which I would argue means it isn’t a valid notability test at this time. CThomas³ (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of absolute certainty does not equate with "impossible to know". Both the guideline WP:N and the policy WP:CONSENSUS are full of implicit—and, in some cases, explicit—appeals to judgment (in deciding what is notable or what the consensus of a discussion is, respectively).

While WP:N does ask for "objective evidence" of notability, it is equally clear that interpretation and judgment will be required in deciding what qualifies. The evidence required by WP:N doesn't take the form of explicit assertions that a topic is notable ("worthy of note")—it takes the form of sources that have treated the topic as notable, by taking note of it. We still have to judge whether those sources are reliable, and whether their decision to cover the topic was motivated by its journalistic or scholarly interest to their audience, or might have been influenced by promotional factors. Similarly, even if a source did state explicitly that winning ANTM is "significant", that would merely give us that one source's opinion, and would be less telling than what we actually have—the publication of multiple sources that treat the victory as significant by tracking all the winners over time. The relevant judgments about the psychology of the publishers and their audiences are no more uncertain than those typically made in most evaluations of sources.

If I might play devil's advocate against my own position, what comes closest to creating real, rather than theoretical, doubt about these sources is the possibility that the impetus to publish them might somehow be traceable to ANTM's PR department. In rejecting this possibility, I see the number of sources as significant—as well as the fact that one of them is the New York Times.

More about ambiguity in consensus later.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On ambiguity in consensus: a notability criterion like WP:ANYBIO, which is supported by long-term and broad-based consensus, does not cease to be "valid" in cases "when it is even slightly ambiguous". In the context of legal theory, that kind of claim would be called textualism or strict constructionism, and WP:CONSENSUS does not encourage such narrow approaches. Instead, it makes sense to refer to the purpose of WP:ANYBIO—why those who participated in the creation of that consensus reached the conclusion they did—and to avoid excessively narrow interpretations that would defeat that purpose. WP:ANYBIO largely loses its point if its intentionally vague language is interpreted as inapplicable whenever its application would require judgment—that's almost every case. Instead, WP:ANYBIO should be interpreted as an extension of WP:GNG—a way to judge that something is "worthy of note" in a slightly less direct way than WP:GNG dictates, by leveraging public opinion—and source coverage—of an award rather than an individual.

Indeed, this kind of process of reasoning is largely what achievement of consensus is, at least at levels below that of policies and guidelines. It is not a separate source of information that makes interpretation of ambiguity unnecessary. According to WP:TALKDONTREVERT with WP:CONSENSUS:

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.

At the policy and guideline level, pure numbers (across the whole community) may have to carry some weight. There are a few policies that come down from Jimbo and the Foundation and are "non-negotiable", like WP:NPOV, but pure reasoning from them isn't likely to determine what the other policies and guidelines should be; in cases of disagreement, it may be necessary to fall back on "This is what the majority of Wikipedians want Wikipedia to be". But at lower levels of consensus—particularly that of AfDs, the lowest, shortest-term, and smallest-scale consensus there is—consensus is just a matter of interpreting what our best reasoning can derive from higher-level consensus, and that remains true when the higher level is ambiguous.

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I appreciate your arguments, but I have to disagree. You are mixing arguments for notability of an award versus significance of that award. You are claiming that awards are significant merely because published sources seem to take notice of them; I would argue that makes them notable, but not necessarily significant in the WP:ANYBIO sense of the word. The Golden Raspberries are notable, certainly, and garner significant reader curiosity, but I doubt that anyone would consider winning one to be a significant achievement (most winners are too embarrassed to accept them). If significant were intended to be a synonym of notable, the policy would have used that word (which has a much more specific meaning at Wikipedia) and “well known” would be redundant and unnecessary. Clearly the intent was that the award be both notable and separately significant, which therefore must have a different meaning.
Also: I didn’t say that policy becomes invalid when it is ambiguous: I said it requires interpretation in that case. You mention the law, which follows the exact same process. If a law is clear in its meaning and everyone agrees that it means the same thing (i.e. it is never challenged), then consensus has been achieved. However, if a law is challenged, it is up to a court to interpret how the law applies in that specific circumstance. It is no different here, except we are our own court: it is up to us as editors to weigh in and decide what the appropriate definition is. And while I do agree that AfD is the most temporary form of consensus due to lack of participation (very low on the precedent scale), it still can be applied if there is no higher consensus to draw upon. And the only higher discussions to date (linked above) are inconclusive. So of course you are welcome to start an AFC to build a higher consensus, but as of now one does not exist. And until a consensus does exist, I don’t believe you can apply the policy in this way. CThomas³ (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also point out one other thing: I am not saying that reality show winners (or even winners of this particular reality show) can’t be notable. I am merely saying that there has yet to be a consensus at any level of discussion that winning this reality show (or any reality show) meets the criteria set in WP:ANYBIO. And as I noted before, I have found many attempts at such a consensus, so it isn’t that there simply hasn’t been a previous discussion. Clearly you feel they should meet the criteria. Just as clearly I feel they shouldn’t (at least automatically). So we haven’t achieved consensus here either, either way. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think you have some reasonable arguments for notability of Krista White specifically under GNG (you do, though I think I have some equally reasonable arguments the other way :) ). And I would be interested to hear more on that front, but I think we’ve just about beaten WP:ANYBIO to death without accomplishing much. CThomas³ (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Without accomplishing much"? On the contrary; however this particular AfD is decided, we're getting at some fundamental issues underlying Wikipedia's understanding of consensus; I'm considering incorporating some of this material into a userspace essay—or even into policy-level arguments at places like the Village Pump and the talk page for WP:CONSENSUS.

It's true that arguments for significance of an award or honor have a slightly different and more complex form from those for notability. But the difference isn't that arguments for notability avoid judgments about the psychology and sociology of authors and audiences, while arguments for significance of an award or honor require them. Both types of argument require such judgments, and neither is rendered questionable by the need to do so.

The court analogy also merits further analysis. It's true that when there is ambiguity in the law, courts must use judgment in interpreting it. The question is how they use their judgment. Unless the law gives no indication either way, they generally do not feel free to decide on the basis of what they personally feel is appropriate. And ambiguity is not the same thing as "no indication"; "not clearly applicable" is not the same thing as "clearly not applicable"; and a consensus that is less than "crystal-clear" is not the same as no consensus, and should not be treated the same. Ambiguity in a law is not treated as a delegation of authority to the court, but as an invitation to consider the history and purpose of the law. You evidently feel that unless it is "crystal-clear" that WP:ANYBIO applies in a given case, then it doesn't apply and the decision must be made on other ground, like WP:GNG (whose applicability in this case is also not entirely clear!) or our own preferences. That is a textualist or strict constructionist approach, and as I have argued above, it would not make sense to interpret WP:ANYBIO that way, since it would render this special notability guideline effectively useless, and force us to fall back on WP:GNG.

—Syrenka V (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2017 (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. ansh 666 09:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cotes d'Armor (True Rebels)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. The artist is notable, but not all of his works are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviews found from jesusfreakhideout ([75]) and Cross Rhythms ([76]), and an article from Christian Today which unfortunately doesn't display properly for me ([77]). I'm not really up on which Christian sources are considered reliable so just putting these here for consideration. --Michig (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article makes no claim of notability. Ifnord (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the source given by Michig above are reliable and the review content is not trivial. The first jesusfreakhideout.com is used on hundreds pages on Wikipedia to support Christian music review while the second though not heavily used but it is listed as reliable in Wiki project Music. (Both results via XL link search). I can't access the third either, but I think these sources can make this pass WP:GNG vis a vis the artist is notable, hence his fans both search for him and his work — Ammarpad (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2017 (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. So Why 08:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sen[edit]

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

a few human interest stories about you tube videos is not notability DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable and has enough coverage to warrant a Wikipedia article from reliable sources such as the BBC. I'm the creator of this article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minimal references, all of which appear to be "slow news day" articles, and only four Wikipedia articles (excluding project or talk pages) link to it, so it's a near-orphan as well as a stub. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E; nn Youtuber with only passing coverage. Wikipedia is not a tabloid; no lasting significance or notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2017 (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. Poor article, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 07:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Noise (game show)[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No game show is unimportant here. Besides, I found some sources; I just hope it's enough to keep it from being deleted. [78] [79] Knowledgeman800 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TV show on a national cable network. Has only had a couple episodes, but improvement, not deletion, is what's needed here. Nate • (chatter) 04:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 15 November 2017 (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. Except for one editor, whose interpretation ("does not have an article" = "not notable") does not match the actual guidelines, specifically WP:LISTCRITERIA, no one argues that the entries on the list are not notable. A merge can always still be considered and proposed on the talk page(s) if this does not meet the WP:SPINOUT rules but even the nominator admits that this content might be included in the main article,

As for the other "arguments", WP:VAGUEWAVE is that way. So Why 08:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pathfinder books[edit]

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

NOTz INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not sure this would be suitable for content anywhere, but it certainly shouldn't be a separate article DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to fix a few typos there...anyway, why is this not a valid WP:SPINOUT of Pathfinder Roleplaying Game? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

excessivedetail, and unencycopedic content. Conceivably the main article might have a list of books, without other details. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this festival of WP:NOTDIR. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. This list-based article graduated from AfC into mainspace. This is obviously not indiscriminate, as there are clear inclusion criteria. Excessive detail is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Unencyclopedic is a vague term that is often a synonym for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (DGG, I know you can craft a better AfD rationale than this.) Anyway, it's good that the lists have some references, albeit they are mostly primary refs. I wasn't able to find in-depth independent sources discussing these books as a set. It likely fails notability criteria like WP:GNG. But given than the game is largely based on these books, it makes perfect sense to merge this content into the main Pathfinder article. Excessive information and catalogue-like info, such as the Code and Link columns, can be trimmed as a matter of routine editing. Per WP:ATD, a merge of content is preferred over deletion when there is verifiable material. --Mark viking (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Really folks? You do realize we can find reviews in the mainstream press (not that mainstream is required) of these books in places like Forbes [80]. Even the obscure ones have mainstream reviews [81]. This isn't a close call. It's much better to have a page listing these than to have 20+ articles covering the individual books. And yes, the series as a whole has plenty of reviews too. And even coverage of _sales_ of groups of these books ([82]. Again, this isn't close. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are literally hundreds of reviews in reliable sources of these books. The 3 I linked to I found just by doing a quick news search. *Throws hands in the air in frustration* Hobit (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit, or merge per Mark viking. BOZ (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Vorbee (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Given that many of the books have enough coverage to have their own articles, do you feel that having those articles (which clearly would meet WP:N) is somehow better than having them all in a merged list? Hobit (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:NOTCATALOGUE; an indiscriminate listing of non notable titles. I don't see any reason to merge this to the suggested target; that would be indiscriminate clutter and WP:UNDUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: Looks like this may end up deleted or merged, but I'd really like to know why you think these are non-notable. The books have tons of reviews (I've listed a few above) including mainstream press reviews. Could you explain your thought process on calling them non-notable? Hobit (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list would be more viable if the books had articles, i.e. were considered "Wiki-notable". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but they don't yet. And I'd argue they probably shouldn't. But many, probably most, meet the requirements of WP:N. Again, I've provided a handful of sources, but a news search for these books turns up plenty more. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobit, though prose should be added to the article using those sources so it is not just a directory like the delete !voters find problematic. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or (selective) Merge into new Pathfinder Roleplaying Game#Books section. The excessive detail of things like ISBN and Code (whatever that means) should be dropped, and maybe some of the other columns too. The sources found by Hobit seem to satisfy WP:GNG. One thing I find really curious is why so many of the books are exactly 256 or 320 pages. I'm guessing there's something about the printing/binding process that favors those page counts? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Books are cheaper to offset print if they are multiples of 8, 16, or 32 pages. Basically, print big sheets, fold each sheet a 3, 4 or 5 times, glue or sew them together, and you have a book. --Mark viking (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It's a little tricky to decide where game review ends and book review begins, but Hobit makes a good case that there are reviews out there that contribute to notability. In the interest of consensus, I could support a keep outcome as an alternative to merge. --Mark viking (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with selective trimming as is felt necessary). This isn't a proper stand-alone article, but it's obviously entirely relevant, not indiscriminate, info pertaining to the notable franchise. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 08:16, 23 November 2017 (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. So Why 08:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanuk Games[edit]

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

No evidence of independent notability as a studio. The article doesn't mention anything besides the games they developed and a search didn't turn up much in the way of significant mentions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete. It's WP:REFBOMB'ed, but there's nothing substantial about the company. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete As per nomination.PRehse (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2017 (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. All the !delete votes after the nom relied on the unsourced nature of the article, which has since been resolved by the addition of multiple references. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PayBack 2[edit]

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

Non-notable app. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources show up in the CSE, including dedicated critic reviews and a developer article. JOE BRO 64 01:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I've removed the unsourced and dubious claims about player statistics, made the lead comprehensible and added a bunch of reliable sources in a hidden note, see diff. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, creator Nashdelacruz (talk · contribs) is making it really hard to keep supporting the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator blocked for incompetence or trolling. No opinion on this AFD, but this should at least make it easier to try to save it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, no indication of any notability. No objection to any editor who disagrees and can get it to a savable state, but what's there right now isn't enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Andy Dingley, despite the edit war with the creator, I do believe the game is notable enough. Did you see the sources listed at the talk page? Yesterday I quickly found these five sources by four different outlets, considered reliable sources by WP:VG/RS. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per all sorts of sourcing on talk page and linked above. Delete arguments are s complete failure of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forget notability, an article with zero references in it fails WP:V. If nobody can be bothered to add any that exist to the article, we don't need it. Sandstein 11:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're listed in the talk. I added some of them to the article now. It is a surmountable problem, so it doesn't seem a like a valid reason to delete to me. Galobtter (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to me there is plenty available to work with, and I spent all of 30 seconds searching. Besides what seems to be a general lack of BEFORE, I'm not sure V is a valid deletion rationale, and its a bit concerning seeing it being argued like it is. GMG ^talk 17:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since "look at the talk page" or "look at all the hits on Google" continues to be too much to ask of some editors, I've gone and implemented many into the article, and am listing below, so we can cut down on this but I don't see any sources time-wasting. Every source is a dedicated article to the subject by sources with a consensus for being reliable per WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/9/21/3368884/payback-2-developer-explains-changes-to-multiplayer-and-controls
https://www.polygon.com/2013/4/10/4210712/payback-2-the-battle-sandbox-now-free-to-play-from-itunes
https://www.engadget.com/2013/04/10/payback-2-goes-free-to-play/
https://kotaku.com/5948933/the-original-grand-theft-auto-iphone-clone-returns-with-payback-2
http://toucharcade.com/2012/09/11/new-screens-for-payback-2-sequel-to-ioss-first-open-world-sandbox-game/
http://toucharcade.com/2012/10/15/payback-2-review-%E2%80%93-its-payback-time/
http://www.slidetoplay.com/payback-2-hd-review/ Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think V is really a valid deletion rationale because if there are enough sources for notability there are enough to write a verifiable article. And anyways many sources have been added to the article now. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 03:22, 16 November 2017 (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. bd2412 T 03:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaid Ali[edit]

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

I'm not sure how this was kept last time. This person easily fails WP:GNG as the majority of the coverage in the article is about his purported "Hollywood" movie offer which fails to explain its significance or its scope within the industry. He hasn't uploaded videos to his main channel in over three years, so there isn't anything he's done recently that can be added to save this page. A search of his name on Google finds questionable tabloid-like "reporting" of his actions in relation to his wife (aka WP:GOSSIP) and nothing else. Nihlus 14:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reasons as mentioned in the last Afd. Qualifies on WP:BASIC. Referred to in multiple RS as an internet sensation, the subject has been covered – or rather, headlined – in a plethora of reliable sources. Keeping up with Zaid Ali T, Zaid Ali T set to tie the knot, Zaid Ali T vs Hollywood, Zaid Ali says no to Hollywood and innumerable more. Celebs of course will get their own fair share of gossip; but one can't thereby ignore the notable material within the news coverage. Ranked amongst the top 7 must-follow Pakistani social media stars by ProPakistani news,[83] this is presumably a keep. Lourdes 15:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Please explain how each of those tabloid journalism examples are reliable sources. They're all written under "News Desk" or "Entertainment Desk" and show signs of unreliable/biased sourcing for the material. One article is essentially a regurgitation of his social media. This page was also created by a paid editor (now banned), and his social media displays patterns of purchasing followers. See the trend? Nihlus 15:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nihlus. Hope you're doing well. I understand what you're saying. However, in my opinion, newspapers like The News on Sunday, The Nation, Dawn, Tribune et al are significantly reliable sources. If you read WP:CREATIVE ("The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [...] such work must have been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."), the subject's youtube channel and his various videos have been the primary subject of multiple independent articles, a very few which I have documented above. As an example, for your benefit, from the The News on Sunday, I have taken out all material that the source has covered on the subject and listed it at User:Lourdes/ZaidAli. I see close to 600 words in six paragraphs. This is significant. You'll find at least two or three paragraphs of significant coverage in all the other sources too. Celebrities might purchase followers and have paid editors creating their pages; I don't debate that. But that doesn't take away this subject's notability. Hope this provides the clarity of my stand. Warmly, Lourdes 01:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Unfortunately, telling me that they are "significantly reliable" does nothing to explain how they are reliable. Nihlus 05:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nihlus, hello again. It is my opinion that they are reliable, based on my reading of the content and the overall positioning of the publications. If you believe that the sources I have quoted belonging to The News (claims to be the largest English language newspaper in Pakistan), The Nation (printed apparently since 1996), The Dawn (claims to be Pakistan's oldest newspaper), The Tribune (claims to be Pakistan's only internationally affiliated newspaper) etc are unreliable, I would suggest you take this up at the reliable sources noticeboard. I would however understand if you might continue to differ from my point of view. Warmly. Lourdes 12:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still non notable. WP:CREATIVE is not passed as well. Capitals00 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch Fitness[edit]

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

Written in a blatantly promotional style. That could be fixed, but I can't find any WP:RS. With the exception of one (routine coverage of a real-estate transaction), all of the references in the article are to the company's own website, and I can't find anything better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is weird. If you go back to the very first version of this article, there's actually some semi-decent references. They're all just routine coverage of a financial nature (bankruptcy filing, etc), so I still don't think we've got WP:CORPDEPTH covered. They're also not flattering to the company. I haven't done an extensive search of the history, but this sure looks like a case of a deliberate rewrite to give the company a promotional boost. Be that as it may, I don't see how this meets WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, if somebody could identify a version in the history which is non-promotional and has good sourcing, I would have no objection to reverting back to that. But, I haven't been able to find one that meets both criteria. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this passes the "I've heard of it" test, but I can say little else in its favor. I'll do a full check for sources before !voting, but don't see any reason to keep it right now; RoySmith is spot on regarding the two versions in the article history. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to keep it; it compares well to a lot of the chains on List of Health club chains and there is WP:MILL coverage of some individual locations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - obviously meets notability guideline. However, about three years ago a spam account replaced its content and removed all the reliable sources.[84] If the current article doesn't meet sourcing guidelines, it ought to be reverted to the viable version. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to Wikidemon for finding a decent version. I've reverted the article back to that version, which we should keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2017 (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.

[SternTears-1] Stern, Fritz (Spring 1987). "The Tears of the White Man". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 27 June 2017.

[1]