Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 October	18 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl A. Barnowski[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources are primary or unreliable sources that do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, sources are primary relating to the company he formed, or insubstantial and not RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no clear-cut sign of notability; far from BLP standards. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 13:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:BIO and written as WP:PROMO --EC Racing (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional article. Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, fails BIO and PROMO. South Nashua (talk) 16:17, 22 October 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. No consensus on a redirect Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Amarnani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Life Is Beautiful (2014 film) which appears to currently be his only significant work. --Michig (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Person doesn't meet notability standards, and redirecting to the film page doesn't provide any reasonable benefit as it too is fairly bare bones. Maybe in time he will have a well-earned page, but not currently. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one film is not enough for either an actor or director to be shown as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 23 October 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator without opposition. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

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

Three other articles, Ulysses S. Grant and Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant and United States presidential election, 1872, already cover the inauguration at length. No need for a fourth article, esp since the article offers very little info and has remained a stub since it was created 8 years ago. The article only had one citation : (Ulysses S. Grant, 1873 | Twenty-Second Inaugural Ceremonies | Inauguration of the President) (removed) which gave an "access denied" result, while the 2nd half of the one paragraph in this article remains without a citation. Subsequently the article has no citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless we look at ever other article about a presidential inauguration. Despite WP:OSE, it seems perverse to get rid of one article when every inauguration has such an article. I don't actually think every inauguration needs an article, but neither do I think proposing them for deletion piecemeal is helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are basing your objection in relation to other articles and seem to be ignoring the valid reasons for deleting this article. No one want's to delete all inauguration articles, but only those articles that duplicate other articles that cover a given inauguration specifically, and at length. In this case there are already three articles that cover the inauguration at length, so it's not like anyone wants to get rid of the subject entirely here at Wikipedia. Also, the article has been a stub since it was created eight years ago, and is presently lacking citations. The article previously had one citation, but it yielded an "access denied" result. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that piecemeal deletion of one of a whole and complete series of articles is not helpful to Wikipedia. If you don't like the articles then nominate all the short inauguration articles for deletion at the same time, not just one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a consideration that effects virtually no one. Cases of redundancy are dealt with all the time via deletion or merging. Inaugurations should be covered with a section in the main article first. If the section should become very large in proportion to the rest of the article, then a separate article is practical.
Along with this article, created on January 22, 2009, at least two editors went around and created more than a dozen inauguration articles/stubs that same day, (I stopped checking after that) that have been generally neglected. Your concern here is that we should keep this article simply because similar articles exist, as some assumed convention. Editing conventions are practical in some cases -- in other cases they serve no practical purpose. There are three articles that cover Grant's Presidency, articles that are filled with dozens of notable events. All the events don't automatically warrant their own article. Main/General articles is where such information should be covered first because this is where thousands of readers every month go. Neglect, by readers and editors, and redundancy, were the general reasons for nominating to delete. Thought no one would notice, or mind. Having said that, since there are some editors who would like to keep the article, and an effort was made by someone willing to add more information, with sources, I will not argue any further to delete. Don't want to be the boggie man here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage given to the inauguration in those other articles about Grant amounts to a date, mention of the inaugural address, that Chase was Chief Justice, and the picture. Other information often provided at inauguration articles for other presidents includes information about the parade, the ball, and the other officials presiding. Another point that could be discussed is that the reception to the day was underwhelming, in part due to low attendance because of the weather. Also, an expensive building was custom built for the inaugural ball on Judiciary Square, I think it was the last time such a temporary structure was used for this purpose. So, in my opinion, the article passes WP:NEVENT and there is a lot more that could be said about the event. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main event is the second term of presidency, of which the actual inauguration is only but a fleeting episode, lasting only a few hours at best. Any notability this topic receives is in the context of the second term, of which there would be no inauguration without. Other than the things you mentioned little more can be said, and devoting a separate article for this subtopic of the major notable event is wholly redundant, esp since this information can go in any one of the three articles mentioned/linked above. Also, as mentioned, this article has remained a stub for eight years, while the other three articles are actively edited and frequently viewed (1, 2, 3), while this article is not nearly so. After the article was created it has only received a handful of minor tweaks over the last eight years. Given the activity on the other pages it is more than safe to assume this article will remain neglected. As there are three active other articles, 'Notability', by itself, doesn't amount to much. Keeping this redundant article serves no actual purpose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is just to let anyone interested know that for fun I've expanded the article along the lines I suggested. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the effort to make this article something more than a neglected stub, and for the leg work finding sources and adding citations. The inauguration involved three general phases: The ceremony and parade, which deliveredGrant & company to the inauguration, the inaugural ball, and the parade and ceremony after the inauguration. Since there is an interest, albeit all of the sudden, to keep and build on the article, I have no strong objection to keeping. Hope it turns into something that justifies making a separate article for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying so. I'm sorry that the interest seems to arrive all of the sudden, had I been watching the page I may have made an attempt to improve it earlier. One of my sub-interests in elite society in the United States from the mid-1800s to early-1900s, and while I cannot be everywhere at once, do let me know if there is an article along those lines needing cleanup that is needling you (WP:DINC). I've been trying to go through articles in my interest with notability tags, and can start looking at articles with unreferenced tags as well, but it isn't my first priority. Of course, if you think Wikipedia:Deletion policy is relevant, feel free to prod or AfD as you did here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep given that the nominator is now happy for it to be kept. Notable event in American political history. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:23, 20 October 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. A Train^talk 07:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012[edit]

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

I know there are several of these, so maybe I should have nominated them all, but I only managed to get this one, the John McCain one, and the two Barack Obama ones. I think it is telling we lack similar lists for George W. Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore, or any previous president. Any of these "endorsements", which is at times more than what was really involved, that are actually acts of some significance in and of themselves, can be included in the relevant articles on the relevant presidential campaigns. These long lists as they currently exist are just not worth having. The act of saying you support a particular candidate is easily done, and it is not in general of major impact to the person who says it or to the campaign of the person endorsed. There are exceptions, and as mentioned these exceptions that really mattered to the campaign can be covered on the articles on the campaign itself. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because because they share the same massive collection of trivial data issues:[reply]

Delete any and all endorsement lists. This is overkill bordering on WP:CRUFT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Key endorsements (if any) can be covered in their respective election articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all non-trivial well-sourced information. If it was a category, I'd say listify. It is right in the format that we need it. If accepted this would be a huge destruction of useful data further undermining WP. gidonb (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as valid subpages of the campaign articles. Endorsements are important and are too long to comfortably fit onto the parent page. We also recently had two, much better trafficked AFDs on the analogous pages for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,[1][2] and the result in both strongly favoured keeping this type of content. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- an indiscriminate collection of information, failing WP:NOT. The list is essentially original research and an assembly of primary sources: the actual endorsements. Fails WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think there are good and valid arguments made on both sides here. I can see the rationale for delete, but do wonder if the articles have the potential to be useful. However I do think if keep is agreed upon it might be worth weeding out some of the more trivial endorsements (eg I am not sure that the 'adult entertainment' section in the McCain list is of any serious value). Also there is a problem in that these lists only exist for more recent elections. This in itself is not a strong reason for deletion, but it might be worth considering whether any earlier elections would benefit from similar lists. Dunarc (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are these adult entertainers actors that were singled out in the press? We should not mirror sensationalism! Great point also on recentism. If we agree that these lists are encyclopedic, it would be great if historic articles were to be created! gidonb (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 as is norm. No need to have a separate article. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I'm sure Wikipedia can be salvaged after the "huge destruction" removing a list of namedrops loosely conjoined by original research will cause.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with TonyTheTiger delete all endorsement lists - I agree, more detail than an encyclopedia needs, it should be mentioned elsewhere. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all This is nothing but a partisan attempt to erase a record of campaign endorsements. There's a very clear reason that these pages were nominated after the Donald Trump page was nominated, if you look at the original nominator's profile. This is a well-sourced list of information and is an entirely valid subpage of the campaign articles. Ideologically fueled AfDs are a scourge upon this website. KingForPA (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly is this a partisan attempt, when I have nominated all the articles of candidates from both parties for the elections leading up to 2016. The only reason I did not include the 2016 pages is because they have been debated more recently, and do to their recent nature cause people to lob attacks of partisanship against those involved. The fact that we have no such pages for before the 2008 election is very telling. THe fact that some of the 2016 pages have at times been very heavily sourced to twitter shows that much of this information is not all that significant. These are the most indiscriminate lists I have ever seen in Wikipedia, and that is saying a lot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of notable endorsements for Mitt Romney - 2012 election, and drastically cull. This overly long list suggests we probably need a guideline as part of overall Wikipedia campaign reporting. It is much more interesting and relevant to list notable endorsements, but not notable people who endorsed a candidate. In other words, it's not newsworthy when a notable Republican endorses a mainstream Republican, nor when a notable Democrat endorses a Democrat, unless that endorsement is a momentum changer, such as swaying public opinion by giving legitimacy and/or seen as bringing a large block of voters into the fold. A Jerry Falwell endorsement for Trump is newsworthy, since a student of politics could see that as an inconsistency in religious principles. New England Patriots wide receiver Wes Welker endorsing Romney - not such a big deal. Patriots fans aren't going to care. Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton - very newsworthy. So the discussion shifts to what makes an endorsement notable, and that's where the guidelines have to be flushed out. An easy start would be to require that the endorsement get more than a passing mention - perhaps if the endorsement merits more than a line in the giver's personal life section, then it goes on the list? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:28, 24 October 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 Car dealership#Multibrand car dealers. It's a stretch to say there's an actual consensus for the redirect, but WP:ATD argues for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Car supermarket[edit]

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

Blatant advertising and promotion. This is a fork of car dealership using made-up term "car supermakret" for purposes of product differentiation and positioning. A dealership with a lot more cars is still a dealership, but by pretending it's qualitatively different, it provides the justification to give prominent mention to specific brands over others in a special separate Wikipedia article. This article was originally created by a promotional single-purpose account to highlight Carcraft, and later other brands have hopped on the bandwagon with more non-encyclopedic marketing and promotion. Independent sources don't justify the existence of any of this content or the terminology. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The rationale for keeping article in 2009 was that a car supermarket disrupted the local UK car market and led to changes in law. If there are any sources that verify this series of assertions and historical judgements, then a few sentences saying so can be added to car dealership. Sources saying this special category is notable are copiously lacking. Sadly, zero sources were cited in the first AfD discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All sections are heavily promotional. If all of them are removed, nothing worth keeping would be left. Delete for being a coatrack. Alexius08 (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with car dealership. While the concept of the huge car dealership is a real concept, and apparently has made competition with standard car dealerships, I did a quick search and doesn't seem to be much valid RS talking about to any degree, so it doesn't seem to warrant its own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no content worth keeping; the article is part a definition, and part promotional content such as "Top 50 Independent Car Dealers in 2013". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once removing all the promo content (which is most of the article) there is very little content of any notable value. None of which is properly sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a redirect to Car dealership. Nothing significant here. Nightfury 08:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little can be salvaged (mostly just the lede) and redirect to Car dealership#Multibrand car dealers. Seems to be the same general thing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:33, 24 October 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) 16:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Elishakoff[edit]

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

Article does not have enough sources for notability, and is written similar to a resume. SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search for potential sources failed to get enough pages for establishing the subject's notability. Alexius08 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF: #C1 (heavily cited publications on Google scholar), #C3 (fellow of multiple academic societies and national academies), and #C5 (the distinguished research professor job title) for a start. Probably with some searching we could also find enough reviews of his many books for him to pass WP:AUTHOR. The nomination does not show any evidence of understanding or checking the criteria for academic notability, and AfD should not be for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Passes WP:PROF in multiple ways. Reviews of his books (turned up in a rather superficial search) include [3] [4]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with XOR'easter Looking at Google scholar, he has many articles published, and his work is quite heavily cited. High profile positions held at a number of institutions. Passes WP:PROF easily. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Worcester Reed Warner Medal seems significant; late career academic who's a "Distinguished Professor". Meets WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein Passes WP:PROF but it needs a rewrite as it in the form of a resume.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:02, 23 October 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 Train^talk 07:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BANX & RANX[edit]

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

Mostly a procedural nom - this is a restored PROD that I'm not quite sure meets GNG / NMUSIC. On the whole I'm not sure there's enough coverage in reliable music publications to hit NMUSIC criteria 1. Noisey is reliable, but EDM Thrones has no editorial policy plus that source is an interview. Jamaica Observer looks ok although I'm not familiar with it. I'm not sure if JamaicansMusic is reliable (not familiar) but it is again an interview. Overall I'm not sure if that all adds up to a pass.

Criteria 8 is the only other one I can see that has a chance of applying, but I don't know that Latin Grammys count (assuming they are distinct from the Grammys), and I also don't know that a production credit on two songs on someone else's nominated album counts for their notability.

That being said this is mostly procedural so I will withdraw if people think this is for-sure notable, so as to not waste peoples' time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the notability criteria, I cited a whole bunch of sources on PMC's talk page ^[1].

According to the criteria, the artist only needs to meet one of the criteria to exist on this Wiki. So even without all the sources I provided, the page was erroneously deleted. Even PMC says Noisey is a reliable source. It only needs to meet 1 of the criteria.

From the criteria^[2]: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria."

So 1 of the criteria was met. Therefore, it should not have been deleted in the first place.

In my talk item to PMC linked above, I further provide sources such as Vice, NME and 3 articles from Wikipedia itself in which the subject is referenced. Not included there is the fact that the subject just won a SOCAN award for the remix of a Bob Marley tune. And they were named among the Top 10 for 2017 by SOCAN Magazine ^[3]. SOCAN is the publishing rights association for musicians in Canada. Short of winning a Juno Award, this subject could not get more notable in Canada in their industry.

sifr4 (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sifr4, you seem to be misunderstanding NMUSIC Criteria 1, as well as the content of my nomination. Crtieria 1 requires that the subject "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." It then goes on to clarify that "This criterion includes published works in all forms...except for the following: ...other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" (bold for emphasis). While I (and I think most other editors) generally accept Noisey as a reliable publication, it's only one source, and can't satisfy Criteria 1 on its own. The other sources in the article are in question. As noted above, some are interviews, which don't satisfy Criteria 1. Some, again as noted in my nomination, are of unknown reliability, which is what I put to the community to decide here.

Most of the sources you posted on my talk page were trivial mentions that don't satisfy Criteria 1, so I didn't make note of them here. The SOCAN article was not provided originally so I never mentioned it above, although IMO a single paragraph in a list of upcoming "breakthrough artists" is pushing it. I can't find anything about the SOCAN award on the SOCAN website, so at this point we can't verify the information; even if we could, a SOCAN award is not on the NMUSIC list for presumed notability under Criteria 8. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC they are upcoming but not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that there's not enough coverage to show notability, per nom. When I come across new article subjects, I make sure there are at least 8-9 decent mainstream media sources, and that the coverage is somewhat in depth, allowing me to create a decent narrative. The sources I see here don't let me do that. An easy gauge of notability is that the reporters see fit to include more than just passing biographical info, and that's not the case here. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON also applies. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:47, 24 October 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) 16:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret French Isaac[edit]

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

Apart from references 7&8 [5] [6] which are specialised and low quality sources, the subject has not attracted substantial coverage. I do not think that those sources are sufficient to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. As I noted here it's also likely that the article was created by an undisclosed paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low level background producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 24 October 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) 16:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tritech Research[edit]

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

Paid article .Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH and lacks indepth third party references..Upcoming company a case of WP:TOOSOON Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two of the cited sources focus more on their non-notable product. The rest are insufficient for establishing the company's notability. Alexius08 (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources include a patent and two citations of one contract award, which can be disregarded wrt notability. Which leaves exactly two articles in The Scientist. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH per the nominator. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two " awards" are actually relatively small research grants, and such grants have in the past not generally been thought to lead to notability.In this case the question of promotionalism is not need, in order to justify the deletion--but it cast some doubt on the judgement of a paid editor to have accepted a commission to write this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) ````
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 22 October 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Octoberon[edit]

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

Unreferenced article with no indication of notability, PROD reverted. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Barclay James Harvest. Zero logical reason for bringing this to AfD (or prodding, for that matter) when it's just going to get redirected per WP:ATD-R. A Train^talk 19:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources cited below and per WP:NALBUM (changed position). A Train^talk 10:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this reached no. 19 in the UK (their second highest charting album) and no. 40 in Germany... there are almost certainly reviews of the album in the UK's music press of the time (and yes, I will look up the reviews if someone challenges me on this). Richard3120 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not challenging you, exactly, Richard3120 but if you could produce sources that back that up then I'd change my position. A Train^talk 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem A Train, I'll try and do that in the next week – I just know that if I say "there must be reviews from the era" somebody is likely to say "prove it". Richard3120 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable album by a clearly notable band. Here's links to four reviews for starters, all trivially easy to find from a Google search: [7], [8], [9], [10]. --Michig (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note. It also charted in the US ([11]). --Michig (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few more links (and some of the same ones) on the articles talk page. Nominator once again failed to follow WP:BEFORE before taking article to AfD. Beginning to be a habit for him as he prefers to waste other people's time rather than his own. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above sources founding. These stupid nominations are getting disruptive again. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Unreferenced" does not equal "no sources exist". This is a charting album with coverage in reliable sources. I added a few references to the article; the subject meets WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 00:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Just requires a little TLC and patience. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:05, 18 October 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 Epitaxy#Liquid-phase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centifugually formed film growth[edit]

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

No evidence of notability or even existence. Unsourced since its creation almost 12 years ago, and I couldn't find any reliable sources (or even any non-WP mirrors) that discuss this subject. Everymorning (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge new content to Epitaxy#Liquid-phase, or keep. A ~~simple~~ WP:BEFORE style search, along with correction of the misspelled title, allowed me to expand the article with 4 books, 1 conference proceedings, and 1 news article as references. The use of centrifuges in liquid-phase expitaxy seems well-established, but there isn't a great deal in the literature because of all the trade secrecy surrounding semiconductor processing. Right now it is a well-reference short stub. The LPE topic may be marginally notable. I would be fine with a keep outcome, but the material is probably better merged into Epitaxy#Liquid-phase to place it in better context. As a side note, I can hardly believe that we don't have a standalone article on LPE. --Mark viking (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "Centrifugally formed film growth" on Google but came up with nothing. What title did you search for to find all these sources? Everymorning (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- From reading the article, I started with 'centrifugal solar cell' and learned a little. Then I refined it to 'centrifugal thin film growth', which returned some book refs and I learned some more. Then finally, I tried 'centrifugal LPE' as the most notable application of centrifuges in film growth. There is also centrifugal CVD for thin films (like diamond) but that didn't seem as notable. OK, maybe not such a simple search :-) --Mark viking (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per User:Mark viking's detective work. A Train^talk 19:41, 17 October 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 List of Forgotten Realms characters#Shandril Shessair. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spellfire (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

Not a notable fictional element. Only two references are primary sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters#Shandril Shessair. BOZ (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge per BOZ; I see no RS'es (other than a couple of mentions without detail) on a brief search. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Unclear whether it refers to the novel, card game, or the fictional power, which would imply different redirect targets. Best to delete to avoid confusion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were talking about "Spellfire" without qualifiers, I would agree. Are you saying that it's sufficiently confusing/convoluted that it'd be a poor redirect/merge even with the "(Forgotten Realms)" qualifier? Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. "Spellfire" is a novel that takes place in the Forgotten Realms universe. The Spellfire card game also contains Forgotten Realms cards. So even with the disambig, it's not obvious._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per BOZ. Having read the articles I'm not sure that the confusion Zxcvbnm is warning against is a really a problem. The redirect target is the first user of the spell in question and is the protagonist of a book named after the spell. Seems pretty cut and dried to me? (Caveat: I'm a nerd, but not a D&D nerd.) A Train^talk 20:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per BOZ;(caveat, I am a D&D nerd, but we don't need 1000 pages on every D & D creature/spell/+5 magical sword of Wikipedia editor Frustration on wikipedia!) Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:25, 19 October 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. A Train^talk 07:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Have a Saviour[edit]

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

Previously contested PROD. Album fails notability requirements. Did not chart well. No. 82 and on (some) chart for five weeks in Australia. Two entries without reviews at AllMusic: http://www.allmusic.com/album/we-have-a-saviour-christmas-music-mw0002427734 http://www.allmusic.com/album/we-have-a-savior-mw0002420121 Billboard entry is empty: http://www.billboard.com/album/1498513/we-have-a-saviour-christmas-music Not the Billboard 200, or Christian Albums, but hit 42 on Christmas Albums (or Holiday Albums) for one week. http://www.billboard.com/artist/303522/hillsong/chart?f=325 which is not a prominent chart and not likely to gain the notice of many. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the chart in Australia is the official ARIA chart... "bulion" on the Australiancharts.com forum is Gavin Ryan, who is an independent chart analyst who provides analysis of the Australian charts based on information supplied directly to him by ARIA, hence his being able to provide all those chart positions on the forum (here's his analysis of the current ARIA singles and albums charts [12]). He also produced a chart book for the ARIA charts, but it only covers the charts up to 2010 [13].

What I'm not sure about is that the ARIA chart is currently a top 50, so Ryan's placing of this album at no. 82 is presumably based on information supplied by ARIA of positions 51–100 on the album chart, which is not made available to the public. In that case, does it become OR? Richard3120 (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARIA publish a top 100, not 50. 51-100 is in their report which is made public and archived by the National Library of Australia [14]. This issue shows the albums entry at #88. This issue has it leaving the top 100 with a highest point of #82 with 5 weeks in the chart. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still low charting and it did not result in any press. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I googled for the supposed "editorial review" from Amazon.com that was just added and it appears to be a review supplied by the label as it's used all over the place: https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22This+Christmas%2C+our+friends+from+down+under%2C+Hillsong%2C+bring+us+an+album+full+of+inspiring+and+festive+songs+soon+to+become+Christmas+classics%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=bcbWWcaQIsfViAPvnLaoCA so not a RS Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: charting in both Australia and United States, hence passes WP:NALBUM#2 and subject of a radio broadcast to pass #7. As for Amazon.com can you prove that the other sites have not repeated its editorial review?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- NALBUMS states that the criteria may make the subject notable. It doesn't make the subject notable. I can't prove the review on Amazon is copied from another source or vice-versa, but then, neither can you. Since the review isn't signed by a reviewer's name, it's not a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  I dispute your claim that anonymity in Amazon.com's editorial reviews is grounds for it being non-RS. Furthermore you assert that it was "supplied by the label": can you substantiate such a claim?
  
  You also assert that "it did not result in any press", whereas I've supplied reviews from press sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was settled long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Amazon.com_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Survey_of_Amazon.com_reviews_with_comments Wikipedia does not consider them to be reliable sources. The additional press was not substantial. http://www.louderthanthemusic.com/product.php?id=1074 is the longest review and there is the breathecast entry. I would expect a lot more from this major group when they were at their peak. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per above comments, charting (and being the subject of a radio broadcast) "may" make something notable, and in this instance both would appear to do so in concert with each other. It would be handy perhaps if the wording in NALBUM were a bit clearer in terms of the album either being or not being notable, rather than maybe being so, but there we are. That said, we do seem to be at the lower reaches of notability with this particular album, given the relative paucity of the coverage. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant mainstream coverage - fails general notability. I'm noticing a lot of Hillsong Church-related album articles on Hillsong Music Australia#Hillsong Worship .28formerly known as Hillsong Live.29 - I wonder how many could withstand AfD versus being a single entry on a list. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TimTempleton: I have made these a weekend project in the past, but an anon from Brazil like re-adding them. I'll gladly comment on each AfD you create in the field. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 24 October 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 List of Sirius XM Radio channels. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Spectrum (Sirius XM)[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources cover this business segment of Sirius XM. Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG, CORPDEPTH, and ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion per WP:PROMO. Recommend delete or permanent redirect to parent company page: Sirius XM Holdings. There is essentially no content to merge. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels. WP:NMEDIA and WP:OUTCOMES both specify that satellite radio channels are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist — if they can't be referenced to reliable source coverage about the channel, but only to Sirius XM's own self-published content about itself, then they get redirects to the overall list of channels rather than standalone articles. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels; not independently notable and there's no need to preserve article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Sirius XM Radio channels as per above - there's nothing more than should be on a list of stations. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:49, 24 October 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. There seems to be a split right down the middle of whether we should have an article or not. If people think a merge / redirect to RISC-V is a suitable compromise, that can be done outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SiFive[edit]

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

Tagged by SwisterTwister as WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:PROMO. I initially deleted the article, but after it was contested by another editor here later, I have restored the article to submit here for more discussion. To me, this was another non-notable startup, as the coverage is only on the amount of funding and the list of products. Most of the sources appears to be either press release or unsubstantial coverage that do not establish notability (WP:CORPDEPTH). Alex Shih ^Talk 04:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I put "SiFive" into google, it returns "about 1,160,000 results". I'm amazingly amazed a deletion request was put on this article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbmeirow: With respect, searching without quotation marks is essentially meaningless. "SiFive" gives me 132/33 results after clicking the last page, which is 14. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked your Japanese link, and it returns 102,000 at the top of the page. English google.com without quotes returns 1,160,000 at the top of the page. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into RISC-V (eg., by expanding the first bullet point under Commercially available to 2 or 3 paragraphs). Technically, this article meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH but in both cases only barely, so I'm not convinced we need a separate article about the company. If SiFive does become a significant player in CPU design and/or manufacture, we can always recreate the article.
I would say that right now the relevance of SiFive is that it (1) provides open-source implementations of RISC-V (an open ISA) and (2) was founded by 3 of the guys from UCB who created RISC-V. That is, it currently is only important in relation to RISC-V and hence can and should be covered in that article. Cheers, CWC 06:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading JJMC89's comment and the sources, I agree that the VentureBeat sources are rewritten press releases, leaving only the AnandTech source, so the article does not really pass WP:CORPDEPTH. (OTOH, the AnandTech article is a serious, independent report from a respected source; the last line just credits SiFive for the diagrams.) So I now say the article should not be kept. CWC 09:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Furthermore, two subtantial articles with the reliable source VentureBeat.desmay (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (to RISC-V) per WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage is about RISC-V and/or is (redressed) press releases. Sources from the article: Bloomberg: directory entry; AnandTech: not independent per last line; VentureBeat 1: indiscriminate/PR coverage; Cadence: no in-depth coverage of SiFive; VentureBeat 2: routine; Fossbytes: no in-depth coverage of SiFive; fudzilla: no in-depth coverage of SiFive. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree that this article meets WP:CORPDEPTH. There are no in-depth profiles of the company, no discussion of its impact on its industry or wider society. All of the references read like WP:ROUTINE news coverage of announcements to me, so I am not convinced this meets any notability bar. A Train^talk 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a promo page on a private company with no indications of notability or significance. The content is 100% advertorial, as in:

In August 2017, SiFive hired Naveed Sherwani as CEO.[5] In October, SiFive did a limited release of the U54-MC, a 64-bit CPU SiFive claims can run Linux.[6][7]

A merge to a technology / standards page would not be appropriate. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company was reported to be the first to produce a chip that supports RISC-V ISA, as well as the first to support LINUX. I modified the article accordingly. There are also some other sources of coverage not yet integrated [15][16][17] are a few of the best. Passes WP:RS.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of those three, the first and third are just redressed press releases and the second is routine funding coverage. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redressed press releases are the sources for 90% of the corporate news that is reported. Funding implies notability since someone who did more homework than we did thinks they are notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:24, 25 October 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) 16:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Percolate - Let Your Best Self Filter Through[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Edwardx (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. WP:BOOKCRIT, first criterion wants at least two reviews or other works about the book in reliable sources. The article's sources at present are 1) a listing at "New Consciousness Review (doesn't seem like a WP:RS, 2) an English dictionary definition of the word "percolate" (how helpful), 3) a Publishers Weekly review (that's one good source), and 4) an interview with the author that isn't actually about the book. Not enough to meet BOOKCRIT, it appears. Maybe the author wants to hear my pitch for a sequel: Fine Grind: Espress-o Yourself. No? Anyone? Bueller? A Train^talk 20:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. gongshow talk 06:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure to locate sources that meet WP:BOOKCRIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 18 October 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) 16:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Kingwell[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a child actor, known mainly for guest roles rather than major ones. Every actor who exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article -- he must actually pass an WP:NACTOR criterion for an article to become earned. The only role here that is "major" enough to count toward NACTOR, however, is The Returned (U.S. TV series) -- but we require multiple major roles, not just one, before NACTOR is passed just for having had roles. And the award nomination criterion is not passed by the "Joey Awards", which are a non-notable PR stunt for young actors and not a top-level acting award on the order of the Oscars or the Emmys or the Canadian Screen Awards. So the only criterion we can evaluate this is whether there's enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG -- which there isn't, because apart from one routine casting announcement of the type that any actor could always show for any role, all of the other valid sources are "local boy shoots for the big time" pieces from his hometown local media. This is not enough sourcing to get an actor over NACTOR or GNG, and due to the potential for a Wikipedia article to cause harm, we have a standing practice of being especially vigilant about the notability of minors. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's a stronger claim of notability and better sourcing, but nothing here is enough to pass Wikipedia's notability standards yet. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure Had found sources and have added them. But does pay to have a look :) --TheDomain (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to co-lead on The Returned, Kingwell has key role as leads brother on ABCs The Good Doctor which has been confirmed for a second season following viewing figures of 16.9m for the season 1 premiere^[4]. Kingwell will also be featuring more prominently in the second season of A Series of Unfortunate Events as the TV series reflects the novels. Also, ALL award ceremonies are PR stunts, any reader of the article will be able to form an opinion as to the prestige of the Joey Awards by virtue of the name recognition.

Awards on the level of the Oscars or the Emmys or the CSAs, photo opportunities or not, are organized and recognized by the industry at large, and garner actual media coverage. The "Joey Awards" are organized by one woman and garner no media coverage at all, and exist primarily to help child actors be able to add "award-winning" or "award-nominated" to their PR bumf since a child actor getting an Oscar or Emmy or CSA nomination is rare. That's what I'm talking about: the question of whether an award is notable enough to make its winners or nominees notable for the honour is a question of whether the presentation of that award gets covered by the media as news or not. Oscars/Emmys/CSAs yes, because the media coverage is there — Joey Awards no, because the media coverage isn't there. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we have compelling evidence for notability, we should not have articles on people under age 18. The evidence here is in no way compelling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Agree, we should not have articles on minors as there is no compelling reason to do so in this case. --EC Racing (talk) 19:14, 19 October 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. Particularly per Chris Troutman - sources from the newspaper that the deceased worked for can't be said to be independent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument[edit]

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

I'm somewhat of two minds about this. First of all, it was created by the sock of a very prolific and very disruptive POV editor, and thus there is really no reason to not delete it stante pede per G5; on the other hand, I am loath to just delete articles. However, I do not see much evidence of this subject being notable per GNG, esp. since the best source was written before the monument was built and only spends four short sentences on it. And note that more sock expansion adds nothing that proves notability. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Cites sourced by major Turkish dailies. CeeGee 05:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5 and WP:DENY - any marginal notability is subordinate to the need to deny recognition. I acknowledge the additions by User:CeeGee but most of the editing has been carried out by four blocked socks namely User:TheWaves, User:TheWindInTheTrees, User:PrayForPuertoRico and User:Quinton Feldberg. Just Chilling (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two of the four citations are from Milliyet, which is the paper of the slain editor and therefore not independent. The remaining two citations aren't enough to convince me of GNG. I think making a case for DENY, even if we assume the subject is notable, is reasonable. Let some other editor start over from scratch. I don't want to reward ne'er-do-wells nor do I want to weaken our resolve to use G5 to remove these articles on sight. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Abdi İpekçi Park is also up for deletion.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 23 October 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) 16:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Haynes[edit]

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

A relative of the subject wrote to Wikimedia on behalf of the subject asking that this article be deleted for personal reasons. S Philbrick (Talk) 18:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strictly speaking, a person's desire to not have a Wikipedia article doesn't override Wikipedia's right to keep the article, if the person has a strong enough notability claim that an article could be deemed "necessary". But in this case, I'm not really seeing a notability claim like that — I'm seeing a notability claim that would be enough if the article were sourced better than this, but neither the claims nor the sourcing present here as written are compelling enough to overrule the request. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing in this article that proves notability, and most of it is simply quotations from sourced articles. A quick search on Google didn't really come up with much in the way of options to help improve the article, either. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is Wikipedia taking requests from relatives? That leaves the door open for deletions as a result of family feuds. A direct request from the subject should likely be the ony one honoured. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:ARTIST does not meet WP:BIO --EC Racing (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m not seeing the significant coverage in high-quality sources needed to write a biography. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 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. Sock vote has been disregarded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ECHLN[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER. Suboptimal sourcing (with relevant tags often removed by apparent COI editors) and lack of mentions or coverage in large papers or access to charts. —Paleo Neonate – 18:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 18:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 18:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find much else on this subject either. RelaxedTim (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is sufficient articles on ECHLN. There are other articles with even less sources that have not been deleted or have a warning of deletion. I have also added more sources and an interview. Iwantwarmfupa (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)— Iwantwarmfupa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Article seems sufficient enough because it is based on a recognized South African producer. The article should not be deleted. After reviewing this article, it has come to my realisation that reference 1 - ^[5], 5 - ^[6], 6 - ^[7] & 7 - ^[8] are clear references which make the subject the main subject or sub subject through the nature of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmcontributors2 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Esmcontributors2 (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Esmcontributors2 (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)— Iwantwarmfupa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: it would be useful to know which source or event was convincing to assess notability. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 17:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: I'm extremely sorry that I misinterpreted some searches. Thanks for the ping. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable third-party sources found to establish notability of the subject. My searches include Google, Google Books, Google Newspapers, and JSTOR. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#A_page_you_deleted
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)
^ https://www.socanmagazine.ca/features/top-10-for-2017/
^ http://deadline.com/2017/09/the-good-doctor-premiere-live3-ratings-young-sheldon-big-bang-theory-the-brave-1202179902/
^ ECHLN: Defining a new sound & breaking into international markets. Nusoulhub Radio January 18, 2017. Retrieved October 17, 2017.
^ In Studio: FonZo. Red Bull Jul7 27, 2017. Retrieved October 10, 2017.
^ Spotlight: Bazz & Victor Malaza. Red Bull March 6, 2017. Retrieved October 11, 2017.
^ ECHLN creates a laid back vibe for "Step" via Darker Than Wax. Artist Manifesto December 23, 2016. Retrieved October 11, 2017.

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) 16:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MB Salone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Speedy deletion requested but notice removed by WP:SPA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per references. RelaxedTim (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 00:21, 18 October 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) Greenbörg (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Dynamics[edit]

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

Certainly not notable for stand-alone article. No in-depth coverage found so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Greenbörg (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable UAV producer. some sources (not comprehensive): [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34].Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources and links provided by Icewhiz. Mar4d (talk) 03:57, 19 October 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) 16:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Munn[edit]

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

Biography of a writer, referenced only to archived copies of his own writings with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, every writer does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because his own work nominally verifies that he existed -- he needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people, not the bylined author of the references, to qualify. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete This Huautla Journal; The Place for Trips of the Mind-Bending Kind New York Times article is about the 60's psychedelic culture thing of going to Oaxaca to seek wisdom by getting high like the Mazatec people. Far from portraying Munn as a major figure, the Times menitons him as a kind of groupie, one of the thousands of Americans on psilocybin pilgrimages who followed the crowd. Here's the bit about him: "There were Beatles songs playing in the streets, remembers Henry Munn, an anthroplogist who first visited in 1965." That's all, and it's not enough. Feel free to flag me if you find sources to persuade me otherwise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO --EC Racing (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of sources, and nothing showing he was a major figure in anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 23 October 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) 16:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent K. Hubbard[edit]

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

Biography of a writer, "referenced" only to a deadlinked biography of him on the website of his own publisher with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all -- and the article has existed in this state of referencing since 2006. As always, every writer does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he existed -- he and his work need to be the subject of coverage in media to qualify. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO lacks WP:CS --EC Racing (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:15, 24 October 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) 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Barr McKay[edit]

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

Biography of a writer, referenced exclusively to the WorldCat directory entries for his book with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. And, for that matter, even the substance of the article itself just states that McKay existed and then goes on to be about the book rather than containing any further biographical detail about the person. While it's possible that the book may qualify for a proper article about the book, if it can be sourced to more than just Worldcat, that's not a reason why we would need a separate biography of its writer that was sourced this poorly and contained this little detail about him as a standalone topic. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:AUTHOR does not meet WP:BIO and lacks WP:CS --EC Racing (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If he has a worldcat entry, then it is an automatic keep. The article will develop as time goes on, and regarding the books, it is a old standard, which has been on the go for decades. scope_creep (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gbooks has about 10 books written by him, and they are still sold on Weathespoons and Amazon. scope_creep (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent a email to the Journal of Structural Engineers at the Institute of Structural Engineering which seems to have some info on him. scope_creep (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, a WorldCat entry is not an automatic keep for a writer in and of itself — if that were true, we would have to keep an article about every single writer who ever existed at all, because every published book always gets into WorldCat. A writer qualifies for an article by being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not by having directory entries on WorldCat or GoogleBooks or Amazon or by collecting unpublished information by private e-mail from a non-media organization he was directly affiliated with. Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:, I think I have to raise issue about Scope creep (talk · contribs) here as he has repeated his baseless argument and clear lack of understanding of core Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTABILITY, and this is not the first time. On 15 October, I declined an article at WP:AFC which was only sourced with a Worldcat entry. This user swiftly wrote on my talkpage in bossy tone that I should be careful, because having Worldcat entry is automatic notability on Wikipedia. He didn't even read my reason of declining (it wasn't even notability) because he was eager to warn me. I ignored most of his off topic remark and responded to the crux of the issue only: The chat can be seen here: User talk:Ammarpad#Carl Paul Pfleidererm. Uptill now 7 days later, Scope creep cannot adequately respond to the points I raised nor does he seem to fully understand what he wrote. And he is here repeating the same unfounded argument at AfD discussion. Since he cannot respond to the points on my talkpage, and he is repeating same thing here, it will surely be beneficial for all of us (and this discussion); if @Scope creep: can explain to us from which Wikipedia policy or guideline he derives this notion of Worldcat entry notability automation. Thanks all –Ammarpad (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can find more material from reliable sources to allow an article with more information than is in currently in the article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR as he is not subject of discussion in any reliable independent source –Ammarpad (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it looks like he is headed for the bin, unless I can find some info. scope_creep (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ammarpad, Fair enough I seem to have made a mistake about Worldcat entries. Somebody told me. It was wrong. Lets move on. scope_creep (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ammarpad, I have left a comment as a reply, which you are looking for, on your talk page. scope_creep (talk) 15:01, 22 October 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) 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YesCymru[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Apart from a few passing mentions and the poll mentioned in the article, I find only passing mentions. Relies solely on WP:PRIMARY sources (to wit: the party's website). Kleuske (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AdA&D 18:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. AdA&D 18:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improvement but sourcing is available. We should judge articles on their future potential not their current state as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. There is this and this from the Western Mail for a start. The first one is significant, in-depth coverage and the second one involves them as a representative group speaking for the Welsh independence movement. AusLondonder (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs improvement, not deletion. Most of those primary references should go. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:07, 23 October 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 and redirect to Chilembwe uprising#Later actions. Going ahead and closing this, as there's a clear redirect and it also meets speedy deletion criterion A10 (as well as being copied without attribution, to boot, so I have selected to 'delete before redirecting'). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mbombwe Ambush[edit]

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

Is written like an essay and should be deleted per WP:NOTESSAY. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also the topic is not notable as a WP:BEFORE search did not find any reliable sources to show notability. The one reference provided just links back to the nominated page which does not indicate notability per WP:CIRCULAR. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. W C M_email 12:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chilembwe uprising; source for the event is here. This page is just one sentence taken from the section, Chilembwe uprising#Later actions. I don't see enough coverage to provide for a WP:NOR encyclopedia article about the event. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per Smmurphy, I don't think the coverage warrants an individual article, but it seems noteworthy in the parent article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork, together with the other comparable sub-entries in Template:Campaignbox Chilembwe uprising. Clearly the uprising itself (as well as some of its participants) is notable - the individual engagements are not, however. They clearly fail WP:GNG (specifically the "trivial mention" criteria in reliable sources). —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chilembwe uprising, as other mention. This appears to have been a very small battle, if it could even be called a battle. I am not surprised that sources on it are limited. Dysklyver 12:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chilembwe uprising; not sure if there is anything to merge. I am far from sure what this is about, but this paragraph is meaningless without something more to contextualise it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 22 October 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) 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro De Marco[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. A series of minor roles, and citations indicating only local-interest coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article that still calls the subject "up and coming" translate as "not yet notable". However when the film the promotional creator of the articles feels like featuring involves the subject appearing as "Cable Car Attendant", I think it is safe to say the person is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything that starts with "is an up and coming x and y" is suggestive of promotional intent. Deb (talk) 15:16, 23 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher 2X[edit]

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

Local activist without any national or regional news coverage. Fails WP:BIO Rogermx (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Rather than diss the nominator for dissing Louisville media and The Courier-Journal, I want to mention the Dequante Hobbs Jr story, which is the story of a seven-year-old boy sitting at his kitchen table eating a meal when a stray bullet struck him fatally in the back of his head. We see in the WAVE-TV story that Christopher 2X was their source for the story of a sign put up on a Louisville road in October, for the death in May. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Soft delete, because this article needs a champion. Unscintillating (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- That story is about Dequante Hobbs, not Christopher 2X. Also do not see any sources that state Christopher 2X was featured (rather than just mentioned) on First 48, NPR, Dateline, and Frontline.Rogermx (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is on a living person and lacks any sources. Being a minor source in a TV report is not in any way a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why wasn't it deleted via BLPPROD? Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Durch removed Prod because he said that the article was asserting notability. We are saying there is no proof of notability.Rogermx (talk)
  - You meant User:Gurch, not "Durch". Who is this "we"? As for "proof", there is no requirement for "proof" in WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I meant Gurch as you so graciously reminded me. You need reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Suggest you read WP:NBIO. Rogermx (talk)

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) 16:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Erlichman[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of a television journalist, which is written more like a prosified résumé than an encyclopedia article. As always, television journalists are not granted an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist -- they must be reliably sourced as the subject of media coverage, in sources other than their own paycheque provider, to be eligible for an article. For added bonus, there's a conflict of interest here as the article was originally created by User:Clesley, which corresponds to the name of the subject's wife. Which is not that surprising, because this is one of the longest and most detailed articles I've ever seen without a single source present to actually support any of it. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. RelaxedTim (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable TV journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 23 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Al-Haidos[edit]

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

I'm sending this back to AFD since all 4 !voters in the previous AFD have been blocked as spammers or undisclosed paid editors. The rationale from before was:

"Article lacks credible citations, and also has a stream of blocked users in the history. It would seem elements of conflict of interest."

SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

@Billinghurst: as the previous nominator. SmartSE (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: same puff piece appeared at arWP ar:إبراهيم الهیدوس at the same time. Noting that being mentioned in the article as the spokesperson does not give you notability. I have asked an admin at arWP to look at their article to seek their opinion. To me that whole thing has a horrid smell to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
further Comment: On having the article identified to arWP they have put the article up for deletion as not notable person.
Comment: retrospective statement, the corresponding article was deleted at arWP as lacking notability. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looks like he has notability in Qatar for Fursan, a style brand more than other works. On social media he has 142k followers on Twitter and Instagram so that may be the source of the socks. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Most of the cited sources focus more on Qatar Foundation. I found this Huffington Post interview that can be used to bring the focus on the article's subject. If other sources could be found, the chances of this article being kept increases. Alexius08 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alexius08: That interview is not a reliable source: see "Copywriter & Sales Strategist, Webbee Inc." and "This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site.". SmartSE (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't notice until you pointed it out. I'm now in favor for deletion. Alexius08 (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and being a MEP projects engineer is not notable. His brand Fursan is not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP all of people who has Wikipedia page haven't verified twitter and face book but all of people who has verified account has Wikipedia page because verification services of social media is only for notable and famous people.this guy has verified Facebook twitter verified.his faceebook and his twitteralso i added new references.he is one of most famous engineer in Qatar.also references proof it to us.

http://www.value-eng.org/members/?id=42313580
http://www.hec.edu/News-Room/HEC-in-the-Press/An-Interview-With-Ibrahim-Al-Haidos-The-Founder-Of-Fursan
https://www.qf.org.qa/content/qf-telegraph/issue-147/contributing-to-the-building https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/an-interview-with-ibrahim-al-haidos-the-founder-of_us_59d938cce4b0cf2548b337bf 5.160.96.167 (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)— 5.160.96.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP While exploring Google against his name, I found quite notable pages are mentioning him. There is no need to explain the HuffPost notability which has his interview[35]. Qatar Foundation for Science, Education and Community Development is one of the largest non-profit organization in Qatar, founded in 1995 has shown his notability in [36][37]. HEC Paris has mentioned him in their press relase[38]. James.Richard (talk)
- Note this user is obviously yet another sock. See earlier ref spamming: [39] and promotional article: Ayman Fareed. SmartSE (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I checked the article and sources. sources is reliable and i got he has done a project with Qatar Foundation in Persian Gulf about solar system as a capital projects directorate which is related to several countries.and other his activities on Qatar makes him famous also guys noticed to good point that his social media is verified.i think he is notable.Lifeisstudyinghard (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deeply suspicious of User:Lifeisstudyinghard, a new account behaving oddly, very oddly, has made a series of slapdash iVotes at a random series of AfDs. and then this purposeful feeling edit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to find WP:SIGCOV in my searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notability of the engineer can be seen via reliable newspaper articles in qatar - Gulf Times , The Peninsula (newspaper) used as reference in the Wikipedia article Jibinkattunilam (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)— Jibinkattunilam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note that I have requested CU on the SPAs: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amirshahat. SmartSE (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am probing on this article. There is no way to proof this accusation. " it not morality". The second problem about notability, I have also investigated about the notability of the person two months ago, All we know is WP is for developing and extending informations about anything. The main refer always came out with search engines. Search engines like ( google , yahoo , ...) tell everyone about references. When I search the person in Google search engine, he appears in news agencies and his name is mentioned in famous projects. I concluded my arguement with The last thing about block user. It could happen for anybody while some JOHN DOEs editing and take a little time on his page and unfortunatly this folks are block users. So ? What's his / her fault if some immature editors tried to edit the article. This person is notable and deserve to be on Wikipedia as per All Wikipedia policies.46.51.85.103 (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have done my research on the personality in the article and I found out that most of the information in the article are referenced by reputable websites that are SSL certified and some news papers websites. Though it seems that there are some information are taken from the personality social media accounts and not well-referenced such as His high school name and children , clearly requires some clean up ; however I do believe that the article should stay because it meets notability guidelines.178.152.206.162 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article as not notable and block all the keep !voters because they're all WP:NOTHERE and probably all sockpuppets as well. Lepricavark (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasizing that every single keep !voter is patently WP:NOTHERE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 24 October 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 keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been advanced. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Sherinian[edit]

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

Hello everyone, I think this article should be deleted because this person is really well, average, I think someone like Lil Pump or RiceGum should have his own wikipedia page, not this guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENGRIFFEY24 (talk • contribs) 03:58, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--@KENGRIFFEY24: for future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. As for the matter at hand, the article's references look problematic--mainly PR fluff about a PR person, although the PR Week award could be construed as a credible claim of significance. On the other hand, the nominator hasn't really articulated a valid reason for deletion. --Finngall ^talk 14:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being Chief Communications and Marketing Officer of the United Nations Foundation (i.e., the head PR wonk at a significant international organization) and being the recipient of two significant industry awards is enough under WP:NBIO for notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Discussion created with no valid reason for deletion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. RelaxedTim (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets the notability criteria set forth. I think the nomination itself needs to be Deleted... - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:18, 18 October 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 Last Judgment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crack of doom[edit]

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

bog-standard dicdef, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Last Judgment, which is what it means, & does not mention the phrase at present. Didn't that occur to you, TPH? Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Last Judgement and create dabpage, since Mount Doom is also relevant here and probably better-known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To spell it out, Cracks of Doom goes to Mount Doom (which certainly wasn't better known to me), so maybe disam, with LJ as primary. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's primary depends on whether you're primarily a Biblical scholar or primarily a fantasy fan! As the latter, I would generally think of Crack of Doom as relating to LotR in the singular rather than the plural! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crack of Doom is not a biblical phrase at all, in terms of any actual translation, afaik, but a popular English term that Shakespeare has perpetuated in ordinary usage. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even more of a reason not to have a primary topic! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't see that at all. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's just a poetic reference as opposed to something that actually appears in the original source material. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's origin is not poetic, but just as a natural idiomatic term. It just seems poetic to us, as the meanings of the words have changed, and we associate it with Shakespeare (or even Tolkien). Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Last Judgment, as the target article that best places this in context. Necrothesp has a point, as the Mount Doom location is well-known. There is also a rock climbing area known as the Crack of Doom in Yosemite. --Mark viking (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one of many routes up an Elephant Rock that we don't have an article on, in Yosemite, so needn't worry us I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree: Merge it. I have made a different suggestion on another Shakespearean quote. If there are significant other uses, we can make the redirect left on merger into a dabpage. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 22 October 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. And improve article. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 13:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikram Kerwat[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. This was a contested PROD with the contention that she did meet the criteria but no that is not the case. The title bout was for a lesser nonworld title. More telling is the low number of actual bouts. PRehse (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- not because the article is any good, but because the subject "Has been ranked in the world top ten of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, or The Ring magazine." (from Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Boxing) The WBC said, "Ikram Kerwat needed only 98 seconds to stop Gina Chamie and claim the vacant WBC Female International Lightweight Championship in front of 3,000 fans at MBS Arena in Potsdam, Germany." Rhadow (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough if there is a source backing up the top 10 ranking. I have trouble finding it and the title she has is no guarantee of that ranking. Can you provide a source.PRehse (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish someone could explain the difference between International Champion and World Champion. Nevertheless, it appears that she is #8.[40] look in Lightweight. FWIW, the notability bar is as low in boxing as it is in cricket. A single first-class appearance, it seems, will qualify you in both places. Rhadow (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Ikram Kerwat is notable she is ranked in the top 10 by WBC see [41] [42]Dwanyewest (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 21 October 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. The consensus here is that the article be moved to Henry Voordecker or Henri Voordecker, but I will leave it to those with access to the relevant sources to decide which. A Train^talk 06:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter's Home[edit]

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

This is a curiosity. Imo a howlingly dull painting, but not either dull or bad enough to confer notability. What should be done is to redirect this to the perp's biography; however this does not exist other than as a redirect to this thing. TheLongTone (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings don't have "perps" they have painters. Your personal opinion on what is "howlingly dull" is of no consequence here. This nomination is a curiosity. Either there are enough sources to support it's notability or there aren't? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some paintings have perps, and this is one of them. If it was given to me I'd junk it and re-use the stretchers.TheLongTone (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intended re-use of the stretchers is not a valid reason for deletion. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This would have been a successful deletion if it had dealt strictly with notability criteria and not subjective aesthetic response.96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'point is that the painting is not notable. Catalogue entries leave all mustard uncut. And the howlingly dull comment is certainly only my opinion, but would I think be4 substantiated by the tack of any substantial body of critical exegisis of the work. There should be a biog of this artist, altho I note that the BM's biog is limited to dates of birth and death.TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just take a few days off to enjoy this beauty. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark the train - that should be the visuals arts list, not the arts one. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly notable. The painting & its period & style are not very appealling to modern taste, which is why it is especially useful to have a rare decent article on a representative. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Henri Voordecker This particular painting is not of itself notable: the only reference to it I can find that doesn't derive from us is a book listing every painting in the Rijksmuseum. The article itself is the result of a move from Henry Voordecker, under which name I found essentially nothing; however, searching by "Henri" instead of "Henry" produces enough to justify the stubby bio we have here. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the Benezit Dictionary of Artists. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If by "it" you mean the painting, this is (apparently) still simply an entry in a list. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Would seem a sensible move anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be "sensible" about such a move? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of an article (an artist) that is likely to be more general and notable than a single work (one of his paintings)? It seems he painted more than one in his lifetime? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The artist is not more notable. The artist is barely notable, as has been pointed out by someone else on this page. But the painting, painted over one hundred years ago, hangs at this time in the Rijksmuseum. The notability of the painting easily exceeds the notability of the artist. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess "barely notable" is good enough for me... along the lines of "Henri Voordecker is generally seen as ntbale only for his 1826 painting Jagerswoning which hangs in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam...." etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is the AFD outcome appropriate for moving the article to "Henri Voordecker" (retaining the article). --do ncr am 16:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable. I would guess that what some are finding "howlingly dull" is what others would identify as domestic tranquility—damn those happy people—and the animals too—what right do the animals have to be happy? Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not notable; at least it isn't until someone can find some discussion of this painting. I don't know why someone moved the artist's article to the painting, but so far I've only found discussion of him, and not of it. He's (barely) notable, it is not. Howling boredom, or lack thereof, is beside the point. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Voordecker article. And trim. There are a few books that cite the painting, but it's not widely covered in a critical sense. Notability of the work is not established by sources. Not every work an artist makes is notable. For most artists one could say that hardly any work an artist makes is notable in and of itself.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done a study on the ratio of notable artworks to notable artists? If not how would you reach the conclusion that "[f]or most artists one could say that hardly any work an artist makes is notable in and of itself"? Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Also, let's not forget that there are notable works by unknown artists? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this line of argument supposed to be taking us somewhere? Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was offering an observation, not a line of argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that, given the totality of an artist's creative output, a very small percentage of their work is tytpically notable on its own. Anthony Gormley is well known for his Angel of the North, as is the work itself, but he has done many non-notable works like the sketch "under my skin" shown here at bottom left. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. Suddenly I feel all at sea. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Martinevans123, you made me think of Charlie Ray's Plank Piece. Now that is something that deserves an article.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

What are our notability requirements for works of art? I've raised this question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#notability requirements for works of art. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did find this 1834 "Notice of new works" where we learn that he had available a painting of chimneysweep, and another of 'a rooster, two chickens and their little ones".96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the preface, this is an exhibition catalogue. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by moving to Voordecker, and having the painting as its own section within, until the painting itself can be fully fleshed out via WP:GNG / WP:RS. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't have to have a section on the painting in the Voordecker article because you can simply talk about the artist in an article on the painting. For all intents and purposes the artist is long gone but the painting lives on. From our perspective the painting is more important than the artist. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of many notable artists who are not "long gone but the painting lives on." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? In the absence of notability requirements for works of art we are required to fall back on our own reasoning in reaching these decisions. It is obvious to me that an obscure life, long gone, is not the primary focus here, but rather an object that is displayed in an institution which houses "some masterpieces by Rembrandt, Frans Hals, and Johannes Vermeer." It is ridiculous that such a painting is thought not to meet our standards. The painting is notable. I don't know why this is up for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it is fine for there to exist fairly extensive discussion about individual works by an artist, in an article about the artist. This happens often for long-dead architects, where the list of their architectural works might be almost the entire content in cases where biographical details are not available. Here we have a situation where there doesn't seem to be enough justification for two separate articles, so cover the painting in the artist's article or vice versa. I somewhat prefer to have the article title to be explicitly about the artist, thereby logically allowing for coverage of other paintings by them which might emerge. --do ncr am 22:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there should be two articles. And from what I gather from this discussion this is the only known surviving painting by this artist. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that for most visual artists the fact that their work outlives them (in many cases by centuries) doesn't make them less notable. This painting would simply not exist without Voordecker having painted it. In my own mind this makes Voordecker more important than this one work. Sorry if this seems in some way bizarre to you, or contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't even have guidelines for the notability of works of art. Notability is roughly translatable, in my opinion, into "importance". Yes, the artist painted the painting. But what is the importance of a life after it is over? There aren't even living people who remember this person. But the painting is experienced every day. It has impact at the present time and in perpetuity, until its "life" is over, perhaps in a conflagration or nuclear war. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly don't remember that other Dutch painter guy. Not personally. Is that because his sunflowers are so famous? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally different situation. The life of van Gogh was extensively written about. Bus stop (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently seven billion people living on Earth - are you saying that since 99% of those have nothing written about them, they're also not notable or contributing to society as a whole? Alive or dead, the artist created the painting, so the painting should be in the discussion of the artist, in my opinion. I think the conversation has steered away from the focus of the article and the AfD. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about 99% of seven billion people not contributing to society as a whole. What we have is the painting, not the artist. The artist is not displayed in a museum. If we have information on him, it should be appended to the article on the painting. Unless the life of the artist has been sufficiently delved into they are assumed to be a person not unlike those who lived in their time and place. That which is known about Voordecker does not place him far outside of the group of people he circulated among. On the other hand, the fact that this one painting has survived a span of time from 1826 to 2017 and now hangs in the Rijksmuseum is a fact that sets it apart from most other paintings. The effort to prove notability for this painting is difficult because it is over 100 years old and its notoriety (apparently) never experienced an upsurge. He (the artist) nor it (the painting) were never "discovered" in the long trajectory from 1826 to 2017. This is more a fluke than anything meaningful. The fact that it has remained undiscovered says little about the painting (or the artist). The fact that it has remained undiscovered merely shows that our (collective) preoccupations have been elsewhere. We should not be passing commentary on the history of art. When we vastly cover Kazimir Malevich and Marcel Duchamp we are following the trail of human interest. But they are not all that has been eventful over the history of art. The great museums of the world know this and Wikipedia should be taking its cue from them. Yes, our rule of thumb and guiding principle is that we must see significant coverage in reliable sources before we grant notability to a subject for a freestanding article. But we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we stubbornly adhere to those rules when a painting is found in a great museum of art. We are merely bowing to the pressure of taste and human interest which has manifested itself in much spilled ink over a long period of time but most importantly in recent decades. We should have the common sense to understand that there are countertrends at all times. We have no criteria for notability that are tailored to address the particulars of works of art. If we did those guidelines would surely make allowances for indications of importance such as being in the collection of an important museum of art. This painting is clearly notable to a sufficient degree to have its own article on Wikipedia. It was not made during the digital age and it has not enjoyed an upswing in popularity. Hence its existence has been beneath the radar of sources that are easily accessible to us sitting at our computers. But those shortcomings should not mean that it is inappropriate for an article. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is simply not a notable painting, because there is no significant coverage of the painting in reliable sources. I really want to object to the notion that every single painting that hangs in a major museum is notable. I see no precedent and no basis in policies or guidelines for that claim. Comments such as "certainly notable" or "obviously notable" without further explanation should be discounted by the closing administrator. The nominator's critical assessment of the painting is irrelevant, and led to unproductive diversion. I do not much like the painting myself but if it was discussed extensively in reliable art history books, I would recommend keeping the article. If the painter is notable, then mention the non-notable painting in his biography, with an image to illustrate his style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not like the painting? Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed discussion of my taste in art is not relevant to this AfD debate, Bus stop. If you are curious, we can discuss it on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation to the closing administer is to WP:RELIST the discussion "in an attempt to determine consensus". Sticking to the letter of policy might result in an appending of an obviously important work of art to the name of an artist that is only slightly notable. As far as I can tell policy makes no allowance for works of art aside from WP:GNG. That is not entirely sensible because works of art are a distinct exception to WP:INHERIT in that we certainly should deduce their notability from factors such as the collection in which they reside. At least to some degree we should be relying on the connoisseurship that guides important collections such as the Rijksmuseum which owns this painting. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "obvious". If it were "obvious" then we would all be agreeing to it! Sorry, but simple ownership of a work of art by a major museum, or for that matter even exhibition, has never been held here to be sufficient. There needs to be notable discussion of it, and there isn't. There seems to be some consensus that the painter is notable, and it would help a great deal if people would talk recasting this back as his biography, but about the painting we have no discussion. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no guidelines for the notability of works of art. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have emailed the Rijksmuseum concerning any mentions in commentary over the years that they might know of concerning "The Home of a Hunter" by Henri Voordecker. My prediction is that they will mention more than one instance in which this painting is discussed by an art historian or someone else. But perhaps they will not even respond to my email. Time will tell. Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De romantische schilderkunst in Vlaanderen (1780-1850), Volume 2, by Friedrich Markus Huebner seems to cover him, as one would expect. Coverage is naturally more likely to be in Dutch/Flemish, French or German than English, though Voordecker has a painting in the Royal Collection. Their page also mentions Hunter's Home, which seems to have been his most significant work. There seems to be a number of different versions of the title in Dutch used over the years, not to mention the Henry/Henri issue - I found more hits for "Henry" than "Henri". The Dutch WP has a decent bio (under "Henry"). Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the vegetation is specifically identifiable. I think there are grape vines overhead and I think it is a geranium in the pot. The landing leading into the house seems especially solid and weighty as each stone is seemingly accurately rendered. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the Comment above: The Rijksmuseum has kindly sent me seven instances of references in literature to this painting dating back to 1828. Give me some time to post a more thorough response. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Henry Voordecker, or Henri Voordecker if that is more prevalent (formerly ~~Delete~~) Agree with Cullen328 that this is not a notable painting; I actually happen to like it, but that fact is just as irrelevant as the fact that many of you don't. Half of the already-short article is WP:COATRACKed with the information about Voordecker rather than the artwork itself (cf. The Night Watch, one of the truly notable pieces at the Rijksmuseum); in my opinion this is a pretty strong indication of the lack of depth of coverage. ~~I would also oppose renaming this article to Voordecker, as I can find no evidence that the artist is notable either.~~ The work does hang in one of the great museums of the world, this is true; but as someone who has spent some time at that museum, I would hardly that expect every one of the thousands of works I saw there, let alone their total collection of 1 million objects, would have its own article. They are all significant enough to be displayed there, but the overwhelming majority of them are not notable enough to be sufficiently covered in independent, reliable secondary sources to even warrant a mention on the Rijksmuseum page, let alone have their own article. I would absolutely welcome a discussion on specific notability criteria for works of art, but I am fairly certain that this particular one wouldn't meet them. CThomas³ (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your belief that the artist is not notable is so clearly wrong that it greatly detracts from your opinion about the painting! Probably none of the long list of sources given at the Dutch WP bio are in English and free on the web, but there are easily enough that are to demonstrate notability, and several are mentioned above. Plenty of period artists that didn't have entries in Benezit have survived AFD. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your refutation, but simply saying it is "clearly wrong" doesn't help. Neither does a mention in Benezit Dictionary of Artists; from the website itself, Benezit’s distinguishing features include its entries on obscure artists. Mentions, even a lot of them, don't establish notability, nor do the number of search engine hits you found. I read the (translated) bio you listed as well; there is exactly one reference on that page, which is unfortunately a dead link. The literature section entries, all 17 of them, are dictionary entries or catalog listings. I personally do not see anything that would lead me to believe that he passes WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST; if you think he does, I encourage you to prove me wrong, and if so I would be happy to change my !vote to Move. CThomas³ (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and then move and refocus this to be a biographical article about the artist with appropriate discussions of his artworks. Per the Dutch Wikipedia bio article and the sources listed there, this artist's work is collected in the Rijksmuseum, the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium [43], and the Belgian Royal Collection, and accordingly passes WP:ARTIST#4(d). He was notable when he was collected and per WP:NTEMP remains so. And I can't fathom any basis for concluding that Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of 19th century art would be improved by removing verifiable content about such an artist. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought about writing, after I claimed that I did not see passage of WP:ARTIST, that it would depend on your definition of "several". Some sources do claim "several" is three or more (or even two or more), but my personal rule of thumb is several is more than a few which is more than a couple, which would necessitate at least greater than three. If consensus is that "several" includes three, then I agree with you, but I would also say that we should replace an ambiguous word such as "several" with "at least 3". CThomas³ (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, he is also in the (British) Royal Collection. A birthday present from Victoria to Albert, no less. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Then I would agree he passes WP:ARTIST. CThomas³ (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to the Rijksmuseum the following:

I am wondering what other published commentary might exist on the painting in your collection by Henri Voordecker titled The Home of a Hunter, object number SK-A-1157.

I am inquiring because a discussion presently underway on the English Wikipedia concerns the availability of further commentary on the painting.

I feel that the painting is a great treasure and surely a worthy subject for an article on the English Wikipedia but others argue that there is scant information pertaining to commentary that might have transpired over the painting's lifetime for instance by writers on art history but actually by anyone of note.

My argument is that of course the painting would have been substantially mentioned over its long lifetime. Do you have any information on this that you could share with me that I could then pass along to others?

I received this as a response:

Thank you for your inquiry. I’m not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you looking for quotes from (prominent) art historians ‘proving’ this work is an important piece? Anyhow I’ve updated the list of literature references dating back to 1828. Hopefully this will be of a help to you. Please find the list below. Within a couple of days these titles will appear on our website too.

Ad van Pinxteren, Het Rijks op reis; Het Volk Verbeeld, Goltziusmuseum (Venlo), 1993, nr. 41.

Een eeuw apart: het Rijksmuseum en de Nederlandse schilderkunst in de 19de eeuw, Amsterdam 1993, p. 24, afb. 22.

All the paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam: a completely illustrated catalogue: first supplement: 1976-91, Amsterdam/ The Hague 1992, p. 91.

Friedrich Markus Huebner, De romantische schilderkunst in Vlaanderen (1780-1850), Den Haag, 1944, afb. 31.

Beschrijving der schilderijen in 's Rijks Verzameling van kunstwerken van moderne meesters in het Paviljoen Welgelegen te Haarlem, 's Gravenhage 1880. 'Jagers-huishouding'.

Lijst der kunstwerken van nog in leven zijnde Nederlandsche meesters, welke zijn toegelaten tot de tentoonstelling voor den jare 1828, Amsterdam, 1828. 'Een buitenhuis, waarvoor zich lieden met kippen en duiven vermaken'.

Beoordeelend overzigt der voornaamste, op de Amsterdamsche tentoonstelling van 1828, toegelaten kunstwerken, van nog in leven zijnde Nederlandsche meesters, Amsterdam: 1828, p. 28. "Van dit stuk zijn vele partijen fraai geschilderd, maar aan het geheel ontbreekt harmonie en eenheid".

Me again:

The above references may not be available for online inspection but I think we here at English Wikipedia have a suggestion that the painting has been the subject of commentary in sources that we would consider "reliable". Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to confirm notability. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree with Cthomas3 that "I would absolutely welcome a discussion on specific notability criteria for works of art". My stance would be that the onus is on an editor to present reasons why an artwork hanging in an important museum is not important. The default position should be that a work of art included in any important collection implies notability for our purposes. This is an important exception to WP:NOTINHERIT. As concerns works of art it is connoisseurship that is of ultimate importance. Inclusion in great collections of art by definition confers importance on works of art. Are connoisseurs and museums and important private collections infallible? No, but such inclusion is a good enough indicator for our purposes to consider the work notable. Age should be another factor. Preserving a work of art is not trivial. We have a good indication that a work of art is notable if it has been kept in good condition for one hundred years. There is expense involved. This is not a consumer item that is disposable and replaceable. Therefore old paintings in prestigious collections should by default be considered notable and the onus should be on an editor to present an argument that such an art object is not notable. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that would fly. Even the best museum collections have accreted some very odd or minor stuff. Would you restrict this to paintings? It certainly wouldn't work for other types of artwork. The main reason we don't need such a policy is that in fact very few people create articles on non-notable historic art in museums (as opposed to new contemporary art, where many do, often with some sort of COI). Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus should have veto power of the creation of articles. I don't think articles should be created if there are no sources saying anything about an art object. What would be the point of that? We would have an empty article with just the name of the artwork and the great museum of the world housing it. Therefore I think I agree with what you are saying that we should not create articles with no verifiable information on the artwork based solely on the argument that it is in a great museum. But once we have some information, the argument is that it fails notability should not be allowed, because that some information, plus the fact that it is in a great collection, and perhaps that it is quite old too—should rule out the argument that it is not notable. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we have a large number of articles "with just the name of the artwork and the great museum of the world housing it" - and a picture, measurements etc. These were created en masse years ago, most by the same couple of people. But all these are highly notable, often really famous, works. There are still plenty of very well-known works without articles at all, so naturally people normally concentrate on these. There is a huge amount of art history literature, much of it easy to find on the internet, if you know how to search. But some areas are rather ignored by international art history, and 19th-century genre painting is one of them; most or all extended coverage will be in the local languages only. Central and Eastern European art has similar problems at earlier dates. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to think any article on a work of art is unfortunate. I don't think editors want to create articles for the sake of creating articles. It may be hard to find reliable sources but I don't think articles with individual works of art as the subject are created by editors for no reason. There could be "conflict of interest" reasons and that I oppose. Promotion of artworks is counterproductive for most readers except those that stand to gain. But I find greater importance in the artwork than in the artist. In fact I find the two unrelated. An article on a work of art is a greater undertaking, in my opinion, than an article on an artist. Artists are people and we know what people are. But artworks defy full explication. This despite the fact that they are finite entities. They are actually very limited. Most works of art are silent and most works of art don't move. And yet they are discussed. People hailing from various walks of life weigh in with opinions and observations on something as simple as a sculpture or a painting. Many paintings, for instance, have a ton of commentary written about them. The inclusion of a selection of that commentary in an article on a work of art makes for a very worthwhile article, in my opinion. And I should add that I think images are super important. In my opinion ideally Wikipedia would benefit from giving editors a little slack on creating articles on individual works of art. To that end we should consider the inclusion in respectable collections, as well as the age of the object, to be criteria contributing to the notability of works of art. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are unfortunate when they take the top of google searches, displacing more useful sources for the reader, and giving WP articles a bad reputation. Fortunately few ones like this are created these days. But this is off-topic here, and this page is already much too long. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 23 October 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. There is no clear consensus on whether or not to merge the article to Unite the Right rally or to move the article to one of the titles proposed below. However there is a consensus here not to delete the article, so AfD is no longer the appropriate venue. Discussion on next steps can continue at Talk:DeAndre Harris. A Train^talk 06:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeAndre Harris[edit]

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

My understanding of WP:BLP1E is that this is precisely the type of article that that policy was written for. Subject is only covered in the course of one event, the Charlottesville assault and his own subsequent, and controversial, arrest. Those are not 2 events, they are a part of the same overarching Charlottesville/Unite the Right rally mess. He is a low-profile individual, and his part in the larger rally topic is minor, thus the subject meets all parts of BLP1E and should be deleted, or if deemed an acceptable search term, a redirect to Unite the Right rally. ValarianB (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The relevant material can be covered just fine in the Unite the Right rally article. Volunteer Marek 12:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete BLP1E. POVFORK issues. BLPCRIME issues on a number of BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Mod per comment below.Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Condition 3 of BLP1E is satisfied. This individual's role in a notable event is well documented. Therefore BLP1E cannot be used as juatification for deletion. Nof9 (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant passage is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. May I suggest you re-read that and take note of the "If X, or Y was either A or B" format, particularly the usage of "or" ?? Variable A (individual's role was not substantial) is true, thus criteria #3 is met. Further reasding can also be found at WP:1E, particularly When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. ValarianB (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 conditions separated by 2 'OR's. It is clearly a 3 input OR gate with each input being equal in status. The policy construction seems done in that manner to avoid redundancies of "if the individual's role was ..." . The true construction is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was not substantial or the individual's role was not well documented". Your WP:1E reference is extraneous. Nof9 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're not reading it correctly, at all, and the 1E example matches precisely with the person we're discussing here. DeAndre Harris' role in the Unite the Right rally is insignificant, he is one of many private citizens that were involved in altercations that day. If the Wikipedia went by your absurd interpretation, BLP1E could never be applied to any case. ValarianB (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading both the maths and the policy correctly. You are being illogical. (AUBUC) = AUBUC = (AUB)UC = AU(BUC) and so on. You seem to be confusing "or" and "and", a common enough mistake among beginners. Which of these is false ?? -> "The event was notable OR the media coverage was significant". So the significance of the individual himself in that event is irrelevant. Nof9 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're struggling, but assisting you further is really getting beyond the goals of this discussion forum, so this will be "Getting in the Last Word". Only one of the parts of BLP1E's Criteria #3 need to be true to satisfy Criteria #3. Either the event is not significant (False) or the individual's role was either not substantial (True) or not well documented (False). That one True is enough. Cheers. ValarianB (talk)

Delete WP:BLP1E applies; his role in Unite the Right rally was "not substantial". power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The event was significant and his role was well documented. That is 2 out of 3, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Nof9 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above, this is an incorrect interpretation of policy. ValarianB (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom is either confused or illogical. See above. Nof9 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
See above, indeed. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nof9 has been blocked for being disruptive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong keep DeAndre Harris' role is substantial as he is both a symbol and a flashpoint of ongoing and very heated issues in the United States, which have caught the attention of the United Nations. Stories that headline Harris, related to the August beating itself, the role of social media sleuths, the police response, the ongoing death threats, the court cases, the stories of his assailants, both the individual assailants and the groups to which they belong, the role of counterprotesters, the October warrant for his arrest, are very well documented. The New York Times alone has published over a dozen articles on Harris. In their role monitoring racial discrimination, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was concerned enough by the events that took place in Charlottesville, that they published an "Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedures" report in August which cited the name of only two of the many victims—DeAndre Harris and Heather D. Heyer. The report called on high-level American public officials to reject racially-motivated violent events in Charlottesville and throughout the United States.^[1]^[2]^[3] DeAndre Harris' story at this point, is not as large in scope as the Rodney King beating, but his story continues to draw attention in mainstream, local and regional media and in social media. This beating took place in broad daylight with people who did not hide their identities, captured by digital cameras large and small held by hundreds of participants and reporters. There were over a thousand people at the rally and coverage of this event is ongoing and mind-boggling. They continue to upload photos and videos as they debate his role. There will be trials related to the felony charges. There are heated online debates and peaceful demonstrations being held in his name. His story and these images are not going to fade away. As it stands now, there are no BLPCRIME issues in the article. If I am mistaken, inappropriate content can be deleted. The Unite the Right rally article, which has had 60,623 page views in the past month, already has 60 editors, 216,998 words and since August, has been listed as an article that needs to be split. Harris' story gets lost in Unite the Right rally article. That's why I created the article. I was curious about the October warrant stories and wanted the context. There was too much information generated from the reliable sources to fit appropriately into the Unite the Right rally article. As well, content about him is, by necessity, divided into different sections. Wikipedia has room for another article. There is room for articles on imaginary characters from fictional novels and video games. Don't rush to delete this article. It does no harm. It provides more in-depth context to very complex issues.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "UN rights experts criticize US failure to unequivocally reject racist violent events". UN News Centre. United Nations. August 23, 2017. Retrieved October 18, 2017.
^ Chan, Sewell; Cumming-Bruce, Nick (August 23, 2017). "U.N. Panel Condemns Trump's Response to Charlottesville Violence". Retrieved October 18, 2017.
^ Prevention of racial discrimination, including early warning and urgent action procedures (PDF) (Report). Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedures. Geneva. p. 2. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)

Sorry, but what your post says to me is that you're writing a piece on racial violence and using a purported biographical article of the subject as a platform from which to do so. Most telling is that in an approximately 4,000 word article, less than 50 (the opening sentence of the lead, and the opening sentence of the Aftermath section) discuss the subject personally, while approximately 3,950 are related to Charlottesville. This is a textbook case of the event being important - for which we already have Unite the Right rally - while the individual is not notable himself. Just to add, I don't see malice or bad behavior here, sorry if it comes out that way, I'm a little tetchy after dealing with a boor above. I think the aims of writing about political violence steeped in racism is a noble goal, I just don't think this man's biography is the place to do it in. ValarianB (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Wikipedia prefers not to retain a biographical article on one event, especially when that said event is sufficiently described in another article. The existence of this content fork is both entirely unnecessary and potentially damaging to the living person.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Keep but rename - I changed my !vote because there appears to be a plan to change the article to "Beating of DeAndre Harris", making my point about the biographical information null and void. As long as that obligation is fulfilled, I do not support deleting the content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in your statement that the separate article could be potentially more damaging to the living person that the section in the article Unite the Right. Could you elaborate? Thank you.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The disclosure of personal information like date of birth, birth place, and his occupation as highly sensitive. Recent events and the media tend to make incidents like these appear more significant than they truly are but we as editors need to dedicate ourselves to different standards than news journalists. This is an event within another event that can sufficiently be described within the context of the rally. I apologize but your talking through your hat with your comparison of Harris to Rodney King in any compacity; King's case resulted in a major city riot, legal and racial repercussions, and over 20 years of further analysis which continues even today. Maybe Harris's case will be evaluated in a similar way but my crystal ball doesn't see that far.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Unite the Right rally#DeAndre Harris. My original inclination was to rename to DeAndre Harris beating, as a single incident article, but since there's a section on Mr. Harris in the Unite the Right rally article, merging a bit more biographical info to that one should be sufficient. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the news coverage, he's BLP2E since he got arrested: crazy. Obviously with Shaun King helping out to find the his attackers this has generated widespread coverage (still ongoing!), and this is one of those cases where I think we need to at least merge some of the content and leave a redirect. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With crime victims and perps - we typically treat the crime and subsequent proceedings (arrest, trial) as 1 event. In this case we have someone who is also an alleged victim and also an alleged perp - for the same event (the scuffle that was captured on video) - it is still the same 1 event.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need you to tell me that, and I disagree. He's barely an "alleged" victim, BTW. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the event is significant. If it were just about the beating and the viral video, then I'd say "Redirect" to Unite_the_Right_rally#DeAndre_Harris. But the target article is already massive, so it's a legitimate WP:SPLIT. Three people have been arrested, while Harris has been charged himself. There's already enough coverage of this event for a stand-alone article, and there will be more sources. If the article is kept, I'd volunteer to edit it for NPOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Us the BLP notable or the incident/video? I could see how a beating of DeAndre Harris could be standalone notable, and this would mèet CRIME policy for BPL1E.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that Beating of DeAndre Harris is a good option. If the article is kept, I would support a move. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Unite the Right Car Park Fight (or to beating of... - might be issues with taking a sides here prior to legal proceedings ending seeing there are charges on both sides). The incident is notable (and in light of later legal proceedings - makes sense to spin out from Unite the Right. Harris is not. Per WP:NCRIME - the appropriate course of action is to create an article on the incident. Some bio information on Harris should probably be redacted, and some information of the other people involved should be added.Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From what I can tell all sources are good and of third party. Event is significant. User has volunteered to removed NPOV apparently.BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that having a >200K article on Unite the Right rally is excessive to the point of absurdity, but I'm clearly in the minority on that point. Having a sub-article based on this is reasonable if there's no consensus that the existing article is WP:UNDUE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I totally agree. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if redirected to a neutral title such as Unite the Right Car Park Fight, otherwise redirect to Unite the Right rally#Car park fight or similar. Reason is that there have now been a series of legal charges laid related to this fight, against both pro- and anti- participants. The videos of angry men shouting nasty epithets at each other is very reminiscent of an ANI discussion, except that in Charlottesville they were hitting each other with actual bludgeons. I would prefer to keep this at Unite the Right rally because more eyes on a page can produce NPOV pages. Failing that, we need to edit the page to reflect the reports in WP:RS, that describe this as a fight, not as " a teacher who was beaten by six men " as our lede now has it. I searched : "DeAndre Harris" full video. Here is a raw video: [44] Harris shows up at 4:25, with blue backpack. This: [45] alt-right version with strident voiceover has little arrows that follow Harris and the others when the fight starts, with stop-action. After watching, I'm amazed that so few people were injured. I've been to a lot of political protests, but none where this many guys threatened one another with baseball bats.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, well, it's about him. Don't play the whole equivalency game. I'm sure there were good people on both--no, I can't finish that sentence. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Beating of DeAndre Harris" or similar title. Event is notable, victim is not. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 22:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to larger article on the event. One event, one article is a good rule of thumb. Harris is not in any way notable as an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his role might not be that important, but the aftermath of the whole event overshadows his personal conribution massively. It sheds a harsh light on how violence is treated in the US. I still can´t wrap my head arund the fact, that his attackers are not prosecuted at all. This story even has arrived in Germany, where I live and wakes up some evil spirits of the past. It would be a shame for wikipedia to delete this article.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article cites multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, objectively meeting WP:GNG. The subject matter, while WP:CRIME, gives added context to the Unite the Right rally, which has historic significance with persistent coverage by reliable secondary sources and additional coverage devoting focus to this individual. Harris' article brings a net positive of reliable information to the encyclopedia and deepens the contextual coverage of the event overall. — GS ⋙ ☎ 22:11, 21 October 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen Pedersen[edit]

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

None of the references appear to relate to the subject - though they are all in German, and I might be wrong. Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first reference on the current article clearly references him and his theory on the first paragraph. The primary reference for his work from 1952 strongly appears to be this: http://www.eje-online.org/content/9/4/342.short, which needs to be added with proper formatting and maybe a permanent link (I'm not sure about this one). The incomplete citation is no reason to purge the article. Fbergo (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fbergo's 'keep' comment above does not directly address the subject satisfying the WP:PROF requirements. I did not have time to do a careful search but my initial impression is that the subject probably does pass WP:PROF. GScholar [46] shows at least one highly cited paper, with 907 hits, from 1977, which is quite good for pre-internet era. The the Diabetic Pregnancy Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes has an annual award lecture called The Joergen Pedersen Lecture, see [47]. The link also contains some biographical info about Pedersen and about his work. I added that ref to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite enough for me to withdraw the suggestion that we should delete it. Rathfelder (talk) 12:23, 18 October 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) 16:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuangru (software company)[edit]

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

This page clearly reads like an advert in its entirety (to the point at which a clean up would remove nearly everything) and I therefore struggle to see how it would pass WP:ORG. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Looks like an act of a sockpuppet. Tuangru was speedied under G5 criteria. I do agree with the nominator. There was an AfD earlier related to this topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuangru (company). I don't know why it was closed abruptly. Though the result was delete. I am pinging @Alex Shih:, the admin who closed previous AfD. Hitro talk 11:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly notable and it appears to match the description from the AFD of the Tuangru ((company)).Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is spam and the sources seem to come from public relations firm(s). FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for strong promotional tone. Alexius08 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per op, fails WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:06, 22 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mahasib[edit]

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

Local newspaper with no notability found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbörg, in the space of eight minutes you've nominated for deletion seven articles about Pakistani newspapers, with virtually identical deletion rationales. Can you divulge what checks you've performed to convince youreself that all these articles don't meet GNG? – Uanfala 08:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. I checked every article then I picked those who fail WP:GNG then I nominated them one by one. I think you thought, I just blindly done that. No worries. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! I'll just add that it might be a good idea to share what checks you've performed and where you've looked for sources so that any participants in the discussion don't duplicate the effort. – Uanfala 09:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the information in the lede, this newpsaper is published and circulated across three of Pakistan's provinces, so it really isn't a "local newspaper". – Uanfala 09:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of reliable sources to support notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 23 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Sham[edit]

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

Local newspaper with no notability found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per the utter lack of any evidence of WP:BEFORE having been done to back up the rationale for deletion. – Uanfala —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But why? burden is on the user who created this WP:PERMASTUB. Störm (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find any significance coverage about this newspaper with which to write an article or to show it meets WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Alakh[edit]

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

Local newspaper with no notability found. Creator just started the article.Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:V. Greenbörg (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no source to verify and the burden is on the user who created this WP:PERMASTUB. Störm (talk) 13:01, 24 October 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 Queen's University#Student life. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Engineering Society[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG. As noted on the talk page from 2009, "As it stands at this point this article is in despereate [sic] need of external secondary sources to establish notability." Nothing has improved since then and I cannot find enough WP:IS that justify its continued existence. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queen's University#Student life where I have merged in a mention. Not separately notable. Just Chilling (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep or redirect to Queen's University#Student life. This is actually avery old society (100+ yrs), but I cannot find many good sources. They are no doubt out there somewhere. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's University#Student life This is a society that has been around since the late 1800s, but it doesn't look like there is enough RS for an article, as far as I can see. I've checked Google, Google Scholar, Google books and Factiva. May be there is more in some commercial databases, but so far I couldn't see much that establishes it as notable, despite its age. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's University#Student life. It is quite rare for a university student society to qualify for a separate article from the university as a whole, because the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:ORGDEPTH is rarely available, and I'm not seeing any compelling evidence that this would be the exception to the rule. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 22 October 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. A Train^talk 06:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W. Douglas P. Hill[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:PROF. There is only one scholarly work attributed to him—his translation of the Bhagavad Gita—and according to Bhagavad Gita#Commentaries and translations these are two a penny. The claim that he was a "scholar" at Cambridge is sourced only to his own book, and doesn't sound like an academic position; it could well just refer to him having studied there. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books seems to suggest that he meets WP:AUTHOR as "widely cited by peers or successors". Hinduresci (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are at least 10 to 20 independent and reliable published sources that cite and/or discuss his works which also include his translation of the Ramcharitmanas. Hinduresci (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As I see it there are two problems here. One is that I don't think the many repetitions of "W. Douglas P. Hill published a translation" in other translations and commentaries of the Gita can be described as widely cited. It is routine to review previous efforts when writing a scholarly translation or commentary, and I'm not seeing any coverage that goes beyond that. Or put another way: where are the sources that would allow us to expand this article beyond a stub that says "Hill published a translation of the Bhagavad Gita"? Second, and I know this has come up in AfDs of translators before, it's not Hill's original work that is widely cited, it's the fact that he happened to translate a highly notable work, which automatically produces a lot of run-of-the-mill citations. But notability is not inherited, and as mentioned in Bhagavad Gita#Commentaries and translations, there are more than 40 translations of the Gita into English alone. It's not particularly noteworthy to have published one of them, even if it's amongst the more well-received of the bunch. – Joe (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon now there is strong evidence that the article could be expanded beyond a stub that says "Hill published a translation of the Bhagavad Gita". And I was actually well aware of the existence of that evidence before creating the article. I was even in the process of including it in the article before it was brought here. Hinduresci (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried and failed to find anything more to say about him than that he translated this one book. The long pull quote pointed to by Hinduresci doesn't add much. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, you seem to overlook the four distinct sources added in the Further reading section. I believe you are therefore mistaken. Hinduresci (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the aforementioned sources seems to suggest that Lionel Barnett published a review of Hill's book on the Gita in JRAS in 1929. Hinduresci (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for example, Arvind Sharma's treatment of Hill's work clearly appears substantial. Hinduresci (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no further reading section in the version you pointed to. But those four sources look to me like routine scholarly citations, nothing that indicate notability. Notable scholars have thousands of citations of this kind to their work. Four is too few, and these four are too far from in-depth, to provide any notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I please request you to take a very good look at the sources. The coverage in most of them, if not all, indeed looks substantial; or in other words, the coverage definitely does not seem trivial, or for that matter routine. Hinduresci (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, sorry, mate, but there indeed was the Further reading section before I referred to it earlier! Hinduresci (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your "strong evidence that the article could be expanded" link, which is the one I looked at, has no such section. Regardless, a handful of citations to Hill's work is unimpressive, uninteresting, and irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss the point that most of the sources cited in the article appear to discuss his work/s in substantial manners instead of merely citing them! Hinduresci (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. But to me those look like routine citations, not something we can build an article around. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David (if I may), we can definitely build a pretty substantial article from those sources. Most of the sources that have been cited look far from routine citations. Hinduresci (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David here. These sources might be useful for writing something like Translations of the Bhagavad Gita, in which Hill's book would definitely merit a section, but aren't very helpful when it comes to writing a biography of the author himself, and don't demonstrate his notability. – Joe (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds kind of disappointing, though you seem to make sense! How about this though? Let's keep and expand the article as much as reaonably possible from the reliable sources, and eventually merge it in the article you mention presuming it will come into being sometime in the future. Hinduresci (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe there could actually be an article here on his work on the Gita, given the seeming fact that his work has been substantially discussed in presumably independent and reliable published sources. Hinduresci (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduresci: You might find WP:BLUDGEON to be helpful reading. You have said your piece, repeatedly. Now give it a rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed for the suggestion! But to be perfectly honest with you, I find my comments to be neither recurrent nor redundant. In the previous comment of mine, for instance, I was only attempting to suggest that maybe we could have an article on his work instead of an article on him which, I believe, is the very subject of this discussion. Hinduresci (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that it's disappointing to have one's work nominated for deletion. If we're wrong and there is a substantial article hiding in these sources, the best way to prove it would be to go ahead and write it! Otherwise, like David said, I think it's best to just wait and see what other editors think. If the consensus is to delete, you can always ask for the content to be saved in your userspace if you want to try and rework it into another article on a more viable topic. – Joe (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of a number of pages Hinduresci built/rebuilt, such as The Mahābhārata (Smith book) and Kedar Joshi. I likewise can find no merit to keeping this particular article. The content itself is simply a quote extolling his accomplishment, which is not encyclopedic content. LordQwert (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of Hinduresci's recent edits seem to be to categorize authors which have translated the Bhagavad Gita, which seems to me to be a perfectly find list/category to have. I suspect this page was created in an attempt to be thorough, and not due to any particular agenda or maliciousness. LordQwert (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The basic reason I created the W. Douglas P. Hill article, or for that matter the Kedar Joshi or Ajaya: Roll of the Dice articles, is that I discerned the subject interesting as well as noteworthy (or important) to a fair degree. Hinduresci (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidence of notability is present in the article, including the Further reading section. Notability is not a content requirement. Adding material to an article "because it is a stub" is a bad idea. It is up to editors if they think the topic fits better merged elsewhere. Unscintillating (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And the sole content requirement is "reliability", though a blog written and self-published by an amateur may, in fact, be perfectly reliable and a book written by a renowned academic and published by a very established publisher may be unreliable, in part, if not on the whole. Please do consult my post "The questionable reliability of the subject".

Now, in regard to the notability of biographical topics, it is not essential that the coverage required in the independent and reliable published sources must include the subject's date of birth, is it? Place of birth? Nope. Father's name? Nope. Mother's name? Nope. Spouse' name? Nope. Education? Nope. Then what is it about the subject (or the topic), precisely, that must exist in the coverage of it by such sources? Work? Maybe, yeah!! And it's right there when it comes to Hill, isn't it? In point of fact, all that is basically required for notability to be established is the objective (not subjective) evidence that the topic is unusual to be recorded. What's the explicit definition of unusual though? Put differently, is there a mathematical formula or something to figure whether Hill, for instance, is indeed unusual? How about this! Is it usual for an Indologist to have their work/s independently cited as prominently as the work/s of Hill? I don't think so. And if you do, and if you are indeed true, I reckon it must be reasonably possible to corroborate the affirmation of yours via statistics and objective evidence. — Hinduresci (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone suggested otherwise, Unscintillating. @Hinduresci: The community's consensus for what constitutes unusual coverage for a scholar can be found at WP:PROF, and includes some very objective criteria. That is the guideline I based this nomination on. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hill passes criterion 1 then! And that is precisely the point I have actually been trying to make through different words; since significant in "significant impact" mentioned in that criterion is not really quantified, is it? In other words, (unfortunately) it's pretty vague, isn't it? — Hinduresci (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we are going round in circles. What myself and David have argued is that Hill does not meet criterion #1 of WP:PROF, because there are only a small number of citations to his work, of the type that are routinely made to any academic work. Put another way, where are the independent, reliable sources that describe Hill has making a significant impact on Indology?

If you read the explanatory notes for C1, there is considerable clarification of what "significant impact" means in this context. And while many editors are (rightly) sceptical about adding metrics to the guideline, some quantifiable rules of thumb that are commonly mentioned at academic AfDs are that a h-index greater than 20, a single publication cited more than 1000 times, or multiple publications cited more than 100 times, shows clear significant impact. Now these vary greatly by field and I wouldn't actually apply them in Hill's case, but since you asked I wanted to say that there are quantifiable standards we sometimes use, and Hill is very far from meeting them. – Joe (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said it, mate! these vary greatly by field, and let me subjoin that Hill is from Bhagavad Gita and stuff, not mathematics or for that matter physics. In short, the good essay of quantification does not appear exhaustive, leaving much to be desired when it comes to Hill. And as to your question "Where are the independent, reliable sources that describe Hill as making a significant impact on Indology?", would you not appreciate that it is obviously not necessary for the sources to say literally that he has had a significant impact? How about the UC Press source, for instance, which says, "W. Douglas P. Hill, who in 1928 gave us the most outstanding English rendering of the text..."! — Hinduresci (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it is plainly unusual (not usual) for a work of translation of the Gita to have been described in an independent reliable (or scholarly) source as the most outstanding rendering ever. And the refutal must possibly be justifiable via objective evidence, which I am sure does not exist, since the topic is not usual. — Hinduresci (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need something that says he is more noteworthy than the average Indologist. At the moment, I'm not convinced he stands out even amongst translators of this one work. There's one source that says "outstanding" – the rest are just passing mentions. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he had not been more noteworthy than the average Indologist, hardly any independent scholarly source would have even cared to cite him; having been mentioned as most outstanding is rather too outstanding as to the mere worth of being noticed (notability, I mean)! — 12:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

And needless to say perhaps, average is universal, and not restricted to the UK (since he is rather presumed to be British). — Hinduresci (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me now make it as simple as possible. How many Indologists actually exist on this planet? And how many Indologists have been cited and described the way Hill has been? It is fairly obvious that the percentage is too low for Hill to be usual and deemed unworthy of notice. — Hinduresci (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the snippet on Google scholar for the 1994 translation by F Edgerton, "To most Visnuites, and to most Hindus, the Bhagavad Glta is what the New Testament is to Christians." Any English translator of the New Testament prior to the computer era is a topic of interest to general readers as well as scholars. For example Noah Webster is well known for an early American translation. The idea that we must ration our pages and so consider Indologists on the curve is completely out of step with a paperless encyclopedia. The bottom line here is that we must work to preserve the value that others have added to the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: If anyone is at all trying to fathom the altitude of Hill's outstandingness by mounting already the hill of academics from notable institutions or even the most reputed ones like Oxford and Harvard, they are mistaken; for the altitude got to be measured from the ground. And let me tell you that Hill in fact looks (objectively) tall immensely even if you should place yourself onto the hill. — Hinduresci (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at it this way! Sooooo many mortals dwelling on our planet are authors of some sort; published, self-published, bloggers, etc. etc. How many of them would (or rather should) really ever expect even a single independent and reliable source to say that their work(s) are most outstanding from their discipline(s)? Very, very few; which suggests Hill is very, very notable! — Hinduresci (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Produced a well known translation ofThe Bhagavadgita. Nice to have some notes on old indologists. I have added references to two reviews of his translation by two authorities on the subject Lionel Barnett and Jarl Charpentier which convince me of notability. Barnett Mr Hill may be congratulated on having produced what is perhaps the best work on the Gita that has appeared for many years. And we also have Gelblum, Tuvia. [(1986). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 49(3), 594-595.] arguing that As early as 1928 W. Douglas P. Hill, one of the better known translators of the Bhagavadgita (BhG.), rather poignantly observed that it had become ' the playground of western pseudo-mystics (my bold)(Msrasnw (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep produced an annotated translation (i.e., a scholarly work of independent notability) that was for many years the most authoritative translation into English. His translation has been widely cited by scholars and writers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced many times in Google Books, seems to be notable, as per previous Editor's comments. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- does meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF --EC Racing (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant and notable contributions; annotated translations help meet WP:AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 23 October 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 Rename. The editors agree that such a list at national level is indeed useful to our readers. (non-admin closure) Kagundu Talk To Me 03:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Thailand[edit]

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

I can see no evidence of notability here . All the sources are directly related to the subject. No independent and reliable source has been provided. Searches yield only the same or similar . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article appears to be misnamed. There is no event that is referred to by the title "Mister Thailand". Instead, the article is actually a list of Thai representatives to various international male pageants. At the very least it needs to be renamed. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested by Paul_012. Keep as these articles are OK at the national level. gidonb (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition states will be reasonable for countries with populations of 100 million and more. gidonb (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Article is incorrectly named - needs to be renamed as suggested by Paul_012.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:14, 17 October 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) 16:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Griffin (musician)[edit]

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

Seems promotional, and I can find nothing to confirm WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Creator created only this and an article on Mark Alan Wade, which is a clear autobiography. Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems main claim to notability is his teaching, which doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria for music. Peaky76 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meets neither the notability criteria for academics or for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 23 October 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADMOS-Lite[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation, could not find sources indicating notability or significant coverage of any kind. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :Seemingly trivial and non-notable software. I could not find any reliable sources about this product, only reviews like "Fast file processing and a nice file manager." Delete.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage found to pass WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. gongshow talk 16:51, 24 October 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACORN machine[edit]

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

Not notable. No reliable sources discuss the subject in detail, despite the numerous references in the article. Pontificalibus (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable bank that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Yes, this company exists, but nothing sets it apart from other banks and thus the article should be deleted per WP:MILL. The current article also contains a fair amount of WP:PROMO violating language.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:15, 17 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Main[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of notability, lack of coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 10:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:MUSICBIO LibStar (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fail every criteria WP:MUSICBIO .Samat lib (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: great DJ, very well known name to anyone's who's been clubbing in Ibiza in the last 15 years, lots of good records released on her MAINroom label, but... it's the same problem that most DJs have on Wikipedia unless they produce their own chart hits – any decent coverage is likely to be found in dance magazines like Mixmag, DJ Mag, etc. and none of these magazines have much in the way of online content. So reliable sources are going to be hard to come by from an internet search, and to be honest she isn't well known outside the clubbing community, so she fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO as it stands. Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles where she is the primary focus are

"The main attraction", The Mercury, 10 August 2012

"Aussie DJ forever on the move", Shanghai Daily, 24 May 2007

McCabe, Kathy (21 December 2006), "McCabe", Daily Telegraph

Good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: could you add these sources to the article? I'd be willing to change my vote if there are sources, but as you seem to be the only person to have access to these sources, it rather falls on you to add them in order to keep the article. Richard3120 (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

could you show some text from these articles? LibStar (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1."INTERNATIONAL DJ Sarah Main, resident at one of the world's best clubs, Pacha in Ibiza, will be churning out top sounds in grand style at The Origin in Durban tonight as part of a three-city SA tour billed as That's What She Said."

2."Sydney native a resident at Pete Tong's Ibiza nightclub ". "The sexy spinner has been flying the green and gold at UK legend Pete Tong's playground Pacha nightclub since 2001 and has been in fine form doing so. An avid traveler, she is no stranger to crossing multiple time zones in one tour, taking off from Singapore one day and waking up in Paris en route to a gig in Belgium. So much so that her ties to the land "Down Under" have been diminished somewhat recently. Before a gig late last month at south Bund super club Attica she admitted to forgetting when the ANZAC Day national remembrance holiday fell. "

3."Sydney DJ Sarah Main left Australia to conquer the world's dance headquarters and returns this summer as Ibiza's queen. Main, a resident disc spinner at the legendary Pacha club for the past five years, was recently named Best Ibiza DJ at the island's annual awards." duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the added refs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added two extra references. International DJ of some 20 years, with enough references (Daily Telegraph, In The Mix, Shanghai Daily etc) to substantiate her notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while assuming good faith that the supplied references are actually about the subject and do not simply mention the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per duffbeerforme & Deathlibrarian. Article now passes WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:50, 24 October 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 keep as a withdrawn nomination (see below). Hut 8.5 06:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italki[edit]

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

This has been rewritten after last AfD but while it now has plenty of refs, it still fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP and is a WP:CORPSPAM like entry. Reliable sources (Guardian, BBC, etc.) mention this entity in passing, anything more in depth comes from press releases or their rewritten business-as-usual republishers. PS. The fact that the original creator was blocked for socking and the new one is a WP:SPA doesn't lend much credence to this, either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

Analysis of article and two strong sources

Here are two strong sources:
1. The Teaching English with Technology journal article at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1140656.pdf mentions italki 109 times.
2. This Chinese article from Sina Corp extensively profiles italki.
Editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italki specifically said that the article was "poorly referenced WP:CORPSPAM" and "corporate spam on a private company with no indications of notability or significance". The rewritten article addresses the promotional concerns. The two sources I provided above address the notability concerns.

Analysis of sources

italki was studied and written about extensively in the peer-reviewed journal Teaching English with Technology, which is published by International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language Poland. italki received a substantial profile in a Sina Corp article written in Chinese. It received significant coverage in the Harmony Books–published book Fluent Forever: How to Learn Any Language Fast and Never Forget It and the John Wiley & Sons–published book Social Networking for the Older and Wiser: Connect with Family and Friends, Old and New. GeekDad's Luke Nailer reviewed italki.

Sources
1. Turula, Anna (2017). "Learner Autonomy as a Social Construct in the Context of "Italki"". Teaching English with Technology. 17 (2). International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language Poland: 3–28. ISSN 1642-1027. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2017-09-28 – via Education Resources Information Center.
  From the abstract:
  The article looks at language learner autonomy as a social construct in relation to the context and its user based on the example of "Italki", a social networking site for tandem language learning. Considering the two foci--the context and the learner--the study is divided into two parts, both carried out from the perspective of online ethnography, each utilising different techniques and tools. Part 1, based on participatory observation and user experience of the author, was aimed at investigating the context of "Italki" as a language learning environment. Its affordances, noted in the course of the study, are analysed against the three aspects of social learner autonomy (Murray 2014): emotional, political, and spatial, in order to investigate the potential of Italki for interdependent learning. In Part 2 of the study, with its focus on the learner, the data were gathered by means of semi-structured open-ended interviews with "Italki" users (N = 10).
  The article notes:
  Italki – along with lang8, Buusu, MyLanguageExchange, eToM (electronic Tandem on Moodle), Speaky and many others – is a social networking site designed for tandem language learning. Such learning is based on one-to-one exchanges between speakers of different languages, who partner up to teach each other their mother tongue (or a language in which they are proficient) and to learn the target language from one another (Cziko, 2004). Apart from such language-for-language barter exchanges, portals like Italki offer their users an opportunity to learn with professional teachers for a tuition fee.
  ...
  Italki is an informal service in the sense that it is not part of any institutionalized schooling system. Enrolment and participation are a matter of choice for any user and so is the agenda, which may range from mere exploration through socializing in a foreign language to informal (peer-to-peer) or formal (tutored) language education.
2. 刘琳 (2017-07-13). "italki Kevin Chen：做语言学习的"淘宝"" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. Retrieved 2017-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  住在伊利诺伊州附近的小城埃尔金(Elgin)的芭芭拉·莱内(Barbara Laane) 的丈夫是德国人，她想学习德语；而德语是出了名的难，如果没有老师指导学习难度更甚。一个偶然的机会，她知道了一个叫italki的网站，在众多母语教师中选择了一位，预约了线上一对一付费课程，然后就此爱上了这样的线上学习方式。
  目前在italki上像芭芭拉这样的注册用户在全球范围内超过400万，在线母语教师则有5000多名，可以选择的语种多达75种，除了大语种外，还有一些十分稀少的小语种。除了付费线上一对一课程，在italki学生还可以获得免费的写作修改、语言知识问答服务，同时，用户也可以在italki寻找世界各地的母语语伴，进行语言交换。
  这家起步于2006年底的公司如今已经成长为行业佼佼者，通过Skype在线链接全球的母语教师，为全世界的语言学习者提供一对一课程。
  From Google Translate:
  The husband of Barbara Laane, a small town near Elgin in Elgin, is a German, and she wants to learn German; and German is notoriously difficult, if there is no teacher to guide the difficulty of learning Even more By chance, she knew a website called italki, chose one of the many mother tongue teachers, made an online one-on-one paid course, and then fell in love with such online learning.
  At present, there are more than 4 million registered users in the world, such as Barbara, there are more than 5,000 native language teachers, and up to 75 languages can be selected. In addition to the big language, there are some very rare Language. In addition to paying online one-on-one courses, italki students can also get free writing changes, language knowledge quiz, while users can also find their language counterparts around the world in italki for language exchange.
  The company, which started at the end of 2006, has now grown to be a leader in the industry, providing a one-to-one course for language learners around the world through Skype's global language teacher.
  This article is an extensive profile of italki.
3. Wyner, Gabriel (2014). Fluent Forever: How to Learn Any Language Fast and Never Forget It. New York: Harmony Books. ISBN 038534810X. Retrieved 2017-09-28.
  The book notes:
  
  Italki
  A language exchange community with a well-thought-out payment system. You can use italki to find a professional teacher or untrained tutor in your target language and work with him through email or video chat for extremely low prices. There are free options on the site, which can help you find language exchange partners, but I mostly recommend italki for its paid services.
  The book also notes:
  italki.com can get you in touch with native speakers, who will talk with you or train you for very small amounts of money or in exchange for an equal amount of time speaking in English. You can spend an hour going through words with them and asking them to correct your pronunciation, which can help immensely.
  The book notes:
  italki.com brings money to the table, which changes the game dramatically. It can connect you with native speakers and professional teachers, who are willing to chat with you exclusively in your target language. This cuts the English out of your practice sessions and makes them much more efficient. Since these teachers get to work in the comfort of their own homes, they usually charge very little.
4. McManus, Sean (2010). Social Networking for the Older and Wiser: Connect with Family and Friends, Old and New. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. p. 236. ISBN 0470970685. Retrieved 2017-09-28.
  The book notes:
  
  Italki.com
  Practising with a native speaker is the best way to keep your fluency up in a foreign language, and can also be a friendly way to improve your language skills if you're not yet fluent. Italki makes it easy for you to find study partners who are native speakers of the language you're learning, and who would benefit from your native language (probably English, if you're reading this).
  Whatever you want to learn, you're bound to find a partner here: The site has over 450,000 members from 212 countries, who speak over 100 languages.
  As well as finding language partners, you can join or start discussion forums (in English, or a foreign language) and can pose or answer questions about language study. There's a wiki for learning languages too, which is an encyclopaedia that anybody (including you) can edit. The ratings will help you to find the well researched and accurate entries. Don't forget the contributions mostly come from other students and might occasionally include errors – don't let their mistakes rub off on you!
5. Riley, Jeffery A. (2011). 2011 Social Media Directory: The Ultimate Guide to Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana: Pearson Education. ISBN 0132601117. Retrieved 2017-09-28.
  The book notes:
  
  italki.com
  The goal of this social network is to create a community where people can learn languages by finding language partners and language resources and develop their language skills by participating in chats, groups, and forums. Dozens of languages are represented on this lively site.
6. Nailer, Luke (2015-05-16). "How Italki Got Me Speaking Mandarin". GeekDad. Archived from the original on 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2017-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Visiting the italki website and looking through the teachers seems a bit like looking at a Craigslist of language learning. There is a section for language exchange partners that don’t charge anything, but this is something that I am yet to explore. Teachers set their own rates. Depending on the language and where your instructor lives the price could
  ...
  It is possible to go through other channels to find a Skype-based language teacher, but italki does a good job of having many in one place. I also feel like there is a degree of vetting and auditing going on, so I’m confident my teacher is who they say they are. In a few years time I might use italki to find a language tutor for my daughter if she’s enthusiastic about her language class at school.
  One thing I found challenging with italki was that, after buying a batch of lessons, when I wanted to book a new lesson I kept getting redirected to buy new batches. This was annoying; I just wanted to book times for the lessons I’d already paid for. Ultimately I was able to navigate my way around this, but I have found the UI for the booking system to be not very intuitive.
  Here is GeekDad's masthead:
  Owner/Publisher, Editor-at-Large
  Ken Denmead
  
  Editor-in-Chief
  Matt Blum
  
  Managing Editor
  Z
  
  Senior Editors
  Jonathan H. Liu, Jenny Bristol, Corrina Lawson, Patricia Vollmer
  
  Gaming Editor
  Dave Banks
  The editorial oversight establishes that GeekDad passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
7. Aune, Sean P. (2008-05-05). "Italki Launches Socially Built Language Textbooks". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2017-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  The site [Italki] launched in December 2006 with the goal of bringing free language learning to every part of the world, and thus far the site has been translated into 14 languages with more to come. Taking a look at the portions of the the Knowledge system they provided us with, it looks good, and seems it will teach words with easy visual recognition. The only thing that worries me, as with any wiki based system is the accuracy. For all you know, you could think you were learning "Where is the closest ATM?" in Japanese, and actually be saying, "Were is a good place to get mugged?"
8. So, Sherman (2008-08-08). "Social networking sites take language learning out of classroom". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2017-09-28.
  The article notes:
  
  That is the idea behind Shanghai-based italki.com, a free social networking website focused on language learning, and Beijing-headquartered Idapted.com, which supports professional language training.
  ...
  Launched last December after receiving its first round of funding in July, italki has joined a nascent group of social networking sites integrated with language-learning services.
  Competitors include United States-based Livemocha.com, established in September, and VoxSwap.com, set up in Britain in January.
  ...
  So far, italki has attracted 250,000 registered users. In April alone, the site attracted 45,000 new users. About 20 per cent of its users are from the mainland and the rest spread across the globe, including 7 per cent from the United States, 4 per cent in India and 2 per cent in France.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow italki to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italki participants: Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 26#italki participants: Kshanghai (talk · contribs), RoySmith (talk · contribs), Unscintillating (talk · contribs), TonyBallioni (talk · contribs), Jclemens (talk · contribs), Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), and filelakeshoe (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Cunard, I really don't see the argument for this failing GNG now. The teaching English with technology journal article above is about as in-depth as you can get, and the others have enough to base an article off. I think we can clean up and expand the article based on the sources above rather than delete it. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  07:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Recusing myself from voting) @Piotrus - I apologize for being both representing a corp and for SPA -- my other account has my edits on my personal interests, and I didn't want to mix those. I know lacking other references hurts this account's credibility. I believe I am editing in good faith, and I do think the company is at a notable scale that warrants a Wikipedia page. I'd request that you look at pages of other companies in the industry, and ask if all of those pages would also be justified for an AfD. Smaller company examples: Verbling, Preply, Memrise. Larger or comparably-sized companies: Duolingo, Wyzant, VIPKID. Their pages are generally worse in both neutrality and in notable non-PR references. I believe italki is notable enough (at least as much as those other pages). Kshanghai (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources identified by Cunard seem to be well above the GNG. I'd like to hear the nom's thoughts on those sources. But keep for now. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how you can argue this doesn't meet the GNG, [48] is a 26 page article published in an academic journal and exclusively about the subject. Hut 8.5 17:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. One reliable academic casestudy and some other less in-depth sources... but I guess the case study suffices, when sprinkled with others, to show this passes GNG. Thx, User:Cunard. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 18 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonraw Road[edit]

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

The article was PRODded, deleted after PROD expired, and immediately recreated. Unsourced, I was not able to easily find sources different from maps/GeoNames. Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails basic notability guidelines as the PRODer of this article. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a 55 miles (89 km) long road, and asserted to be the most important road in a not-insubstantial area of Myanmar, so it is in effect a highway probably equivalent to a state or interstate highway in the United States. Avoid U.S./U.K. bias. --do ncr am 04:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram:, I am perfectly fine with what you write, but do you have non-map sources to confirm this? I was looking exactly for these sources and was not able to find any.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failure of WP:V. I'd vote weak keep per Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Roadways and User:doncram's argument, but I couldn't find any source that would allow even so little as confirm this is not a WP:HOAX. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 23 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amasai Levin[edit]

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

Very little evidence of notability. Only two mentions in Google Books, [49] [50] neither of which is in any kind of depth and thus does not establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. No other reliable sources that I could find on Google: the few sources I could find are mostly WP mirrors. Everymorning (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this seems like a translation of the Hebrew wikipedia - [51]. There are some sources in Hebrew, e.g. - [52]. He also might have grounds to notability as WP:AUTHOR (both for his extremely well known song, and his translation work (which complicates sourcing, as he translated quite a bit)) - but I'm undecided here as of yet. In doing a BEFORE here, his Hebrew name "עמשי לוין" is key, sources in English seem to be nonexistent.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the first thing I did when I saw this article was check the Hebrew one which is sourced. I don't see any big name Hebrew sources, so I am really not sure about the quality of the ones included, but there are some out there such as the one you included. I am as well unsure about a vote, but I think there is merit to the argument that it meets WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 17:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can get some editors to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is the case Levin's notability derives from having written the lyrics for "Alone", it is a bit odd that there is no article about the song, nor any mention of Levin in the article on the performer who made the song famous, Zohar Argov. https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%96%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A8_%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%95%D7%91 gives a mere mention. The other sources aren't any better: "translated by Amami Levin", as in http://kulmosnet.co.il/articles/eshed/eili/eili.htm is not significant coverage. Mduvekot (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:CREATIVE and no SIGCOV available nor found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 20 October 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.

This AfD is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 October 29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. A Train^talk 06:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holography in fiction[edit]

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

This article was split off from holography but it has still in 4 years not evolved beyond complete unreferenced WP:POPCULTURE cruft. I have added examples to Holography#In fiction that are notable and referenced, most of these are not notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back and trim appropriately, which may end up looking more like a redirect... Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging would ultimately just induce cruft that was removed in the first place for being non notable. I am of the opinion that any future content in the section should be researched anew from reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what? Trim it out, then, and leave it in the history for editors who care to source it to find. Split->delete is not how we handle IPC content. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The majority of the content is already "preserved" in the history of holography from before the split here. Ergo, there should be nothing wrong with split-> delete if the split was ill-considered._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some splits go back years. I see no harm in adding content to the more recent history, for ease of location by anyone who wants to find and fix the problems. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of information, fails WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a sci-fi fan. The extent to which this plot device has been used throughout popular culture, as evidenced by the long list of well-known titles here (many of which I'm familiar with and all of which are Wiki-linked), suggests that this is a notable thing. Given that, the list is too long to put back into the holography article - this seems to be exactly what lists were created for. The sourcing in my opinion doesn't need to be more than linking to each work's main article, assuming the plot synopses mentions the holography info. We just have to rely on people who have read the books or watched the shows/films to police this. BTW - Prometheus (2012 film) is missing. ;-) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this is that, technically, the vast majority of depictions of holograms in sci-fi is so unrelated to real holograms that it might as well be magic. There's no encyclopedic value in listing every instance of these holograms, because they are mere window dressing. If an *actual* hologram was discussed in a fictional work, it would make sense to list them, but the amount of sci-fi that use real holograms would likely easily fit inside the main article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tim. I love SF as well, and know holography is as staple as air and fire. The list is far from being filled with generic cruft, as long as the entries are notable it is allright. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

exile to TV Tropes, er, delete In a few short years this has degenerated to a stock device, particularly in visual media (into which I would lump gaming). there are perhaps a few cases which justify mention in the main article but for the most part holograms fall somewhere between visual gee-whiz and directorial laziness. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 17 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Brewster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much has changed since this article was deleted five months ago. Brewster has since played a post friendly for Liverpool, but he's still not appeared in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a classic case of WP:TOOSOON, article can easily be re-created when subject of the article meets WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. However as the nominator correctly mentions nothing much has changed since the last time this article was nominated to improve notability. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate if he actually does play a first team game for Liverpool. Govvy (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know it is a long shot but can't you say that because he has had significant covergae due to the under 17 world cup and is one of England's main/best players so far he has become notable. User:Rickyc123 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the reasons put forward by Inter&anthro above. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still does not meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, TOOSOON, NFOOTBALL and ANYBIO. ClubOranje^T 11:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless someone chops his legs off he is going to play professionally at a high level. What's the point of deleting the article on a technicality when it will have to be re-created in about three months time? Tigerboy1966 21:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Until he actually plays a senior fixture, he does not meet notability requirements like any other non-notable youth player. If he does play professionally, his article can be easily restored by an admin. Kosack (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added content from the FIFA site, The Guardian and Liverpool Echo. Looks awfully like GNG to me. Tigerboy1966 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks somewhat WP:ROUTINE to me. ClubOranje^T 22:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with ClubOranje, the Guardian and FIFA links are just match reports for youth matches so WP:ROUTINE. The Liverpool Echo source is a start but nowhere near enough on its own. Kosack (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON and the sourcing looks routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 08:48, 24 October 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. I can certainly admit when I'm wrong and it looks like one of those times. No point in keeping this open when the result is obvious. Thanks everyone. (non-admin closure) Majora (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame residence halls[edit]

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

Seems to be a pretty clear violation of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Pretty much every source is directly from the Notre Dame website so it doesn't even meet independence requirements. So it fails WP:GNG as well. Seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Parts of schools and school-related organizations Majora (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG for sure; WP:NOT. -- Dane ^talk 03:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after reading the below !votes and researching policy, the argument about the national register of historic places determining importance seems to line up with longstanding policy for how these articles are handled. I have been swayed by the argument that these meet WP:GNG in light of that. -- Dane ^talk 23:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many list-articles of university dormitories and/or other buildings split out from the universities' articles (see Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States). Having list-articles heads off cycles of article creation for the lesser individual buildings and AFDs and recreation of the articles etc. It is very appropriate to allow this to be split out from the main Notre Dame university page. The article notes that several/many of the halls are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. There exists plenty of independent sourcing on those at least; i am not checking otherwise. How on earth is this not notable? --do ncr am 16:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I see that many of the halls have separate articles, which are not questioned as to their notability. It is 100% fine to have a list-article summarizing about them. Per wp:CLN, it is fine to have a list-article complementing Category:University of Notre Dame residence halls. --do ncr am 16:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also "pretty much every source is directly from the Notre Dame website" is pretty weak reasoning. What about the sources used that are not from there? What about all the independent sources not used yet? I note that in one or more of the separate articles about NRHP-listed ones, that the great NRHP nomination document is not used as a source, but it exists and that's all that matters, AFD-wise.

Also, the info at the "common outcomes" link provided needs to be updated: there have been numerous AFDs about lists of dormitories, etc., generally ending "Keep". --do ncr am 16:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of the content (such as the table of "Hall of the Year") may fall under WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, but the article as a whole is fine. Many of the dorms are on the National Register of Historic Places or meet WP:GEOFEAT; having a page on the collection as a whole is the right thing to do, even if a few of the entrants don't individually meet notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several of the halls are historic national registered locations and therefor meet WP:GNG, the overall topic does meet WP:CLN as per previous discussions on university lists particularly with respect to frequently noted institutions like the University of Notre Dame. It does need more secondary sources to provide balance. However, as an aside I think the list should be moved to University of Notre Dame residence halls per WP:UNIGUIDE as there are other institutions and locations also called 'Notre Dame'. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the move/rename suggestion. I think it would be fine for anyone to implement that, even without a formal wp:RM, after this AFD is closed, assuming Keep decision. --do ncr am 22:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a discussion in the past where most of these dorms had individual pages but of course they failed notability. Yet, all taken together, they are indeed notable. Notre Dame has a residential college type system, where students must reside in on of the dorms for three years. Every dorm has its own traditions, mascot, teams, events etc... Hence they are not just simply buildings. Additionally, many of them have architectural and historical value. A number of them were built by famous architects, such as Maginnis & Walsh. Many of the halls were inserted in 1973 on the National Register of Historic Places.^[1]^[2]

References

^ "Welcome to SHAARD". Secure.in.gov. Retrieved 2015-12-23.
^ https://secure.in.gov/apps/dnr/shaard/r/1c9d1/N/University_of_Notre_Dame_Campus_Main_and_South_Quadrangles_St._Joseph_CO_Nom.pdf

Eccekevin (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the argument re National Register certifying their importance is decisive for me. Rjensen (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram, Power~enwiki, Randomeditor1000, Eccekevin, and Rjensen: Please excuse my ignorance but the National Register entry on the matter lists it as the "Main and South Quadrangles" not as individual buildings within those areas. Also individual searches for buildings within those quads are not listed at all. So since it isn't the buildings themselves that are registered but the area why would these particular buildings be automatically notable? The area is, sure, but every building within that area is also considered notable by descent? Wouldn't that be a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED? Am I missing something here? Also, 10 buildings are within those areas. The others ones certainly aren't notable either? --Majora (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list https://secure.in.gov/apps/dnr/shaard/r/1c9d1/N/University_of_Notre_Dame_Campus_Main_and_South_Quadrangles_St._Joseph_CO_Nom.pdf of contributing properties, including many dorms. Buy your point is fair, they would not be notable on an article on their own. Indeed, they used to all have their own page, but it was decided that it made more sense to organize them all together. Moreover, here the point is that there is a system of dormitories, and they're not just buildings, but in the residential college system. Much alike the Residential colleges of Rice University, Residential colleges of Yale University, List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology undergraduate dormitories and many others. Each hall/dorm/college is not notable, but together they form a system which is notable. In many cases, as for Notre Dame, alumni of the University often refer to themselves as alumni as a specific college/hall/house. All of the Halls had an individual page (for example:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisher_Hall_(University_of_Notre_Dame)&oldid=416513072:, but it was decided to pool them together. Eccekevin (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You pdf link doesn't actually prove anything. That same exact form is also listed on the actual Registry search page that I put above. In the very first line on that form it lists the name as the quad. Not the dorms. The quad is historic. The other university residence hall pages are classic OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Another thing that doesn't work at AfD. At least it didn't used to.
In any case, your admission that they would not be notable on their own but together they are is confusing. If they aren't notable they aren't notable. Slapping them all together doesn't change that. --Majora (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my not retrieving NRHP documents confused matters. Maybe there is just one NRHP document which provides some information about several buildings. It doesn't matter whether they are NRHP-listed separately or not (and by the way many not-separately-NRHP-listed buildings do have articles in wikipedia); it matters that there is some documentation somewhere about any of them, sufficient to have an article about the collection of them. There exists 14 or so apparently-wikipedia-notable ones (I know because there exist articles about them), namely:

And I gather there are 15 or so more not having articles. Certainly amongst all of these articles and the unused NRHP nomination document(s) there must exist some coverage of the topic of dormitories or residential colleges or whatever they are, at Notre Dame. --do ncr am 22:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the official document they are listed as contributing buildings. Each building has an individual description. You can notice this also because there is a list of non-contributing buildings in it, which would make them non-notable. It explicitly states a list o strucutres of lesser or no significance, like the laundry building item33. But many of the dorms are listed tougher with all the other notable contributing buildings, like the Main Administration Building (University of Notre Dame) or the Basilica of the Sacred Heart, Notre Dame. Eccekevin (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, all that is fine. There do exist many separate Wikipedia articles about buildings that are merely contributing buildings in a NRHP historic district. Sometimes there are separate articles about non-contributing buildings (but usually for other reasons than their historic significance in the district). There are many articles in wikipedia about buildings not at all associated with the NRHP, too. It is fine to have one article which covers all of them, too. List-articles often have a mix of article-worthy, marginal, and not-worthy-of-a-separate article items. --do ncr am 22:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Slapping together" several/many items into a list can in fact make the collection notable, even if some or all of the items are not notable. List-item-notability is different than individual notability. There is guidance about lists somewhere, perhaps wp:SALAT. If some/many of the items are individually notable, then almost certainly the collection as a whole is notable too, as long as there is some basic coherence about the topic, as here.

P.P.S. If someone is really on a tear about this topic area, they can choose to take aim at one or two of the lesser individual residence hall articles. Please notify me if you start an AFD about one of them. However, outright deletion would not be appropriate for any one of them, because merger/redirection to the common list-article would be superior. While AFD could be used, it will likely go badly. Perhaps better to sneak through an effective deletion by a merger proposal at the Talk page of the targeted article(s). Just hope no one is watching! (hardly likely) --do ncr am 22:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main thing is, if you think there's too much coverage about dorms at ND, you've taken aim at the wrong thing. The list-article includes, by {{main}} links, all the other articles. You can't get rid of the collection as a whole, unless you get rid of each of the component articles first or at the same time. In any event you need to be arguing for merger back to the next highest level (the list-article or the main ND article). And surely all of this is too much to merge into the main ND article, while much of it would be valid for the ND article, so why on earth not let it be split out. Pruning some around the edges, like if some components are merely laundry rooms with no architectural merit, is fine to do however. --do ncr am 22:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My post was in response to Major, not you you. Sorry for the confusion. The point is that the NRHP lists the contributing and non-contributing buildings in a specific listing. And many of the dorms are among the former.Eccekevin (talk) 22:34, 17 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Chatziathanassiou[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - She obviously has competed at the highest level of figure skating. Flawed nom by the way with no explanation for the nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this biography suffers from systematic bias. Trying to find English sources for an accomplished Greek athlete is very difficult. I choose to rely on this source, which became available via Greek Wikipedia [53]. It seems she has won several National Championships as a Novice, Junior and Senior. It appears, in her field, she was the Greek representative in three European Championships and four World Championships. She has participated in a number of other international competitions. If anyone is interested in her biography on Greek Wikipedia, here is the url: Χατζηαθανασίου. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no available evidence that she passes WP:NSKATE; greek champion does not help (some years there is not a champion at all), did not skate a long program at the european championships, and never advanced past the preliminary round in the worlds. As for the assertion that greek wikipedia has more information, it may, but contains no more useful sources that establish a case for WP:GNG.18abruce (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source is not enough to pass GNG, and we have sports-specific criteria because name dropping in sports articles is so common that we need something higher than GNG for reasonable article maitenance. Her actual accomplishments fall far below the relevant sports guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with 18abruce that she does not pass WP:NSKATE, though she does come close. It, plus the companion WP:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability, list very specific criteria for passage: compete at the Olympics (no); compete in at least the short program the ISU World Championships (did not qualify for the short program in her 2 appearances: 1998, 1999—if she competed two other times I could not find them); compete in the free skate at world junior, European, or four continent championships (did not qualify for the short program in her 2 European championship appearances: 1999, 2001—I could not find a third appearance); win the country's senior championship, unless the country does not regularly send multiple skaters to the Olympics (no Greek skater has competed at the Olympics to date); compete at a Grand Prix event (no); medal at a non-Grand Prix international event (best finish was 19th at Piruetten in 1998); or win a Junior Grand Prix event (no). Serving as an ISU judge unfortunately does not qualify her for NSKATE as a non-skater. So the relevant question is whether she passes WP:GNG. All I could find for references online using the WP:BEFORE links (other than Wikipedia mirrors) was routine mentions of her participating in various competitions as a skater or a judge.
By the way, the above Greek-Wikipedia link just took me to a disambiguation page for Anna (name). I was able to find the correct link here: el:Άννα Χατζηαθανασίου. That translates to "Anna Hadjiathanassiou" per Google, so I tried that in WP:BEFORE as well and got basically nothing. I also tried her Greek name and got essentially the same result; it wasn't that I couldn't read any of the references, it was that almost none were coming up at all. Unfortunately I just don't think sufficient coverage exists for her. CThomas³ (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cthomas3: Sorry about the link. I see what you mean that it goes to a disambiguation page. This, somehow, seems to be the correct link: [54] - I didn't think it would work, but it does. I doubt this will be helpful for sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It seems you found the correct link. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, and thank you, Steve Quinn, for the correct link. I didn't understand how it was broken at first, but I just searched on the name you provided and that worked just fine. As I look now it appears you were just missing an underscore between the first and last name. CThomas³ (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has competed at the highest level of her sport. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this comment by Smartyllama is false. She has not competed at the Worlds or the Olympics, which are the pinnacle events of the sport. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She did compete at the worlds, but only in the prelim stage, which WP:NSKATE indicates is not sufficient. By current standards (no preiim round) she would not have achieved the minimum standards to compete in the worlds. This has been discussed at the relevant project page and is clearly discussed earlier in this AFD so I do not understand not qualifying the Keep vote here. As Cthomas3 indicates GNG is the relevant question, maybe there is more coverage of her story competing for greece, but I doubt it when the Greek wikipedia does not have anything substantial to offer.18abruce (talk) 15:57, 21 October 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shirly Brener[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. A search on the web threw up nothing much for this person. The tone is highly promotional and full of phrases such as "She quickly became a household name" " She has completed dozens of projects working with a slew of A list actors" "Shirly and her family, hubby Bruce" "Responsible for the much talked about comeback of Comedian Andrew Dice Clay" "Shirly was always destined to business savvy and success" "Brener is committed to the art world and her hubby’s career and is often a fixture at galleries and museums local and international." "The artistic happy family resides in the Hollywood Hills in a gorgeous home" "Brener has graced covers, fashion shoots and editorial". Nothing is supported by in-line citations. The filmography is a mix of bit roles (blond ambition, employee of the month) non notable films (hit list) and adr work (GI Joe). The article is full of "worked with (notable actors)" and unsupported claims such as "Recruited by MTV to host the popular teen dating show Singled Out". Domdeparis (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - She passes GNG (and I believe NACTOR - though I usually stay out of acting) on the Hebrew sourcing e.g. google news in Hebrew- [55].Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the sources and it seems difficult to judge whether they are reliable or not. If the decision is keep then this article needs to be totally rewritten to remove the promo fluff or stubified. I really don't think she meets WP:NACTOR as there is no proof that she has had "significant roles" or has a large fan base or has made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to acting. Domdeparis (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of it is "gossipy" - but that is typical with celebrities - however it is in fairly reliable outlets (e.g. Maariv, Ynet, Channel 10, Channel 2, etc. - which are good sources in general). I don't think she would've been notable as an American actress with the roles she played in the states. She has however been covered widely in the Israeli press for those roles / her life (motivated by parochial "see the Israeli success story" motivation), as well as being in some more significant roles in Israeli productions.Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an overly promotional article on an actor / producer of unclear notability. The article tries too hard and has an appearance of having been written by someone with a close connection to the subject. Sample copy includes:

...She has completed dozens of projects working with a slew of A list actors and directors such as alongside Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in Righteous Kill directed by Jon Avnet for Overture, Sharon Stone and Val Kilmer in Streets of Blood, directed by Charles Winkler and produced by Irwin Winkler - one of the highest grossing video/DVD of all times. Jessica Simpson and Dane Cook in Employee of the Month, for Lions Gate Entertainment, John Cusack and Hilary Duff in War Inc., Aaron Eckhart..." This goes on and on.

Notability is not inherited from the notable movies and filmmakers, and it appears that there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I got here, but take it from a random internet man: This article was paid for or created by a giant narcissist. 2602:30A:2E6F:8E20:C060:AA3E:D40:1D0E (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing the GNG. I looked into it myself and Icewhiz's analysis is above is basically correct, including the downsides of the coverage. gidonb (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article and without any clear indication of roles meeting notability requirements for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PROMO/CV Agricola44 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an Israeli I would keep just because of her non trivial Israeli acting career (admittedly hard to find if you aren't a Hebrew speaker). Add the US resume and she is certainly notable in my POV. DGtal (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet GNG Lifeisstudyinghard (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind expanding on that? I see that for the moment your only contributions to Wikipedia are to !vote on AFD s so I want to be sure that you understand what GNG really means. Domdeparis (talk) 15:38, 22 October 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. Sandstein 15:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triptych (Frey novel)[edit]

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

PROMO article that has been tagged with multiple issues for 5 years, ORPHAN, SPA-created. Some minor awards and was reviewed in Publishers Weekly, but that is pretty weak, since this is a trade publication that reviews around 10,000 books per year (much of what is published). Author article, J.M. Frey, is at AfD because of similar issues. Agricola44 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verified awards via clicking through what's already listed in the article: GNG is met, notability established via awards from The Advocate, Lambda Literary, and others. I fail to see what the problem with the article is that can't be fixed by conscientiously editing it. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to J.M. Frey; the book is not independently notable. The article is a mess of mostly WP:OR plus copy-pasted reviews, presumably from the subject's web site. One article to cover both subjects is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage/notice to be included. --Michig (talk) 10:31, 24 October 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. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 13:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Nerve (1990 film)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:MOVIE requirements. Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise it's a short entry - I was hoping someone else would help out! I will try to improve. Dutchy85 (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a review in the Canberra Times currently referenced in the article, and a further one in The Age on 14 September 1990 according to newspapers.com. And a segment on the SBS Movie Show. That's enough to pass already. Boneymau (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's already been some expansion work/sourcing, and there's more coverage in sources such as these [56], [57] and [58] for starters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources from 1990 are going to be relatively hard to find, but there seems to be enough. --Michig (talk) 10:26, 24 October 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) 18:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LabInApp[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. AT least two of the sources are very clearly regurgitated press releases - they even share the same title. The others convey no notability and may also be based on press releases. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, none of the references meet meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per delete arguments, having marginal notability. Orientls (talk) 06:18, 22 October 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 15:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non Professional Swiss Romande American Football League[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur sports league. This article's sole citation refers to an article about the other Swiss football league (Nationalliga A (American football)). The subject of this article is unrelated to that league and, by its very name, is an amateur league of no particular notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I (power~enwiki (π, ν)) am also nominating the following related pages because they are clearly less notable than the league as a whole:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should the team pages ( Morges Bandits, Fribourg Cardinals, and La Côte Centurions ) also be included here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably, yes. If the league is not notable, the teams playing in the league are not either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - 2017 NSFL season should probably be included as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that five articles are now nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on Nonprofessional Swiss Romande American league - the very title of this article informs us that this is a non-professional league. Vorbee (talk) 18:42, 17 October 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) 16:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de Rosenzweig[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a junior civil servant. Holding an appointed role as undersecretatary for one particular policy area within a broader government ministry is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass -- it would be enough if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but the only reference here is a deadlinked primary source profile on the self-published website of the government ministry he works for. A person's staff profile on the website of his own employer is not a notability-assisting source, however -- he needs to be the subject of coverage in media to qualify for an article, not just to be nominally verifiable as existing. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added a link confirming the subject's current job, but I am not seeing anything to indicate more than a career job summary here: neither working in a ministry nor subsequently working for a law firm is indicative of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:32, 24 October 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 15:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allied College[edit]

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

Apparently defunct, for-profit college. Not included in Missouri Department of Higher Education list of institutions in Missouri. Fails general WP:Notability requirements. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 16 October 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, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, per nom. Article is effectively entirely unreferenced and makes no claim to notability. A Train^talk 19:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn, for-profit college. Significant RS coverage not found. Wikipedia is not a directory. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 23 October 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 Multi-touch. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10/GUI[edit]

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

Google search doesn't seem to indicate any lasting notability, either under 10/GUI or Con10uum. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found 1 article from 2009. Only one in-depth article means it fails WP:GNG Rockypedia (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is a interesting concept and has notability, just search "10/GUI Clayton Miller":

https://gizmodo.com/5382585/10gui-fascinating-multitouch-user-interface-design
https://techcrunch.com/2009/10/13/10gui-one-very-slick-desktop-multi-touch-concept-video/
http://newatlas.com/10gui-multi-touch-interface/13104/
https://everything2.com/title/10%252FGUI
http://appculture.net/exclusive-clayton-on-interface-design/
https://books.google.com/books?id=ym0HujqtEXMC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=10/GUI+Clayton+Miller&source=bl&ots=p-RA5RTJe1&sig=N9nPcEGJYz06wORaZXmi-fOjIUs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq0Oa6kebWAhWIaRQKHbb3CGo4ChDoAQg4MAY
https://www.onsip.com/blog/10gui-and-changing-interaction-paradigms

Editor-1 (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone address the sources found?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it looks like this never went anywhere in the 8 years after its proposal, the references in TechCruch, Gizmodo, and engadget are significant, independent, and reliable. That passes WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into the history section of Multi-touch. None of the sources reflect notability beyond the industry sector. I'm honestly not sure if this meets WP:TOOSOON or is simply just WP:TOOLATE (yes, I know that guideline doesn't exist). All the tech sources make it clear this was a 'concept' - just a 2009 proposal by Clayton Miller, and now seemingly overtaken by the iPad etc. So this article fails to establish a notable product or application as in WP:NSOFT. It seems to be more WP:PROMO, but maybe there's just enough to make it worthy of retention in the multi-touch technology article, but not as a standalone one. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:50, 22 October 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makin' This Boy Go Crazy[edit]

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

No sourcing found for the EP proper, as it was digital-only. The song has at least one review which may suggest notability for the song, but I have found nothing on the EP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article now has fourteen sources, and talks about BOTH singles in detail. Using a "top down approach", if single "Makin' This Boy Go Crazy" is notable, if that is Dylan Scott's song, and this is the only album of his that contains the tune, then the album is probably notable. An album is in fact, a collection of songs. If the album article cannot be kept, then it should be merged into Dylan Scott. Furthermore, the album has placed on two charts. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: None of the sources is about the EP itself though. They're all either about the song, about "Mmm Mmm Mmm", or about Dylan's full album. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, I do not disagree that the articles only talk about the two songs. However, the album is a collection of songs. Reviewing multiple songs is equivalent to reviewing the album. A top down approach would imply that if the song can have an article, then either the album or the artist can also have an article in place of the song article. The album article is sizeable anyway.

BTW, is anyone going to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bebe & Bassy Tour? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "reviewing multiple songs is equivalent to reviewing the album" is a completely inaccurate statement. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 'EP' isn't notable - there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of it and the chart positions don't make it notable. Aside from that there is barely any information that isn't duplicated from the article on the singer. --Michig (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The EP is notable, has five sources covering two songs, which is 40% of the entire album, a section can be written describing the music video, and there is currently no article about the songs to date. Additionally, there is no good reason to delete the article instead of merging or keeping it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 24 October 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. Sandstein 15:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solidaridad[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable non profit; significant RS coverage to meet WP:ORGDEPTH not found. Article cited to a self-published source, not suitable for establishing notability: "We have more than 45 years of experience in the sustainability of production chains. Together with everyone in the chain - from farmer to multinational - we work on fair products that do not harm human or environmental and are profitable for all." Extensively edited by several SPAs to introduce promotional material. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Fail GNG and Non-profit. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed in light of below L3X1 (distænt write) 00:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I first thought delete (and closed it as such), but checking the links in other articles it seems that this really was the first organization to declare the principles of Fair Trade. Apparently a further search for sources is needed, There may be some in the linking articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG DGG (deleted page Solidaridad (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidaridad (XFDcloser) The page is still deleted from when you closed this. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some of the additional available material, see the Dutch WP via Google translate. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably headed for delete, but as per DGG some extra source searching could perhaps turn something up, so maybe another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stubabout an organization." There are lots of in-depth articles in Dutch, for example 1, 2 3. I suggest withdrawing the nomination. gidonb (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that sources have been presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per gidon's searching. Thanks for doing that. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 23 October 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.

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#A_page_you_deleted

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)

[3] ttps://www.socanmagazine.ca/features/top-10-for-2017/

[4] ttp://deadline.com/2017/09/the-good-doctor-premiere-live3-ratings-young-sheldon-big-bang-theory-the-brave-1202179902/

[5] ECHLN: Defining a new sound & breaking into international markets. Nusoulhub Radio January 18, 2017. Retrieved October 17, 2017.

[6] In Studio: FonZo. Red Bull Jul7 27, 2017. Retrieved October 10, 2017.

[7] Spotlight: Bazz & Victor Malaza. Red Bull March 6, 2017. Retrieved October 11, 2017.

[8] ECHLN creates a laid back vibe for "Step" via Darker Than Wax. Artist Manifesto December 23, 2016. Retrieved October 11, 2017.

[UN_CERD_Aug23_17-9] "UN rights experts criticize US failure to unequivocally reject racist violent events". UN News Centre. United Nations. August 23, 2017. Retrieved October 18, 2017.

[NYT_UN-10] Chan, Sewell; Cumming-Bruce, Nick (August 23, 2017). "U.N. Panel Condemns Trump's Response to Charlottesville Violence". Retrieved October 18, 2017.

[11] Prevention of racial discrimination, including early warning and urgent action procedures (PDF) (Report). Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedures. Geneva. p. 2. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)

[secure.in.gov-12] "Welcome to SHAARD". Secure.in.gov. Retrieved 2015-12-23.

[ReferenceA-13] ttps://secure.in.gov/apps/dnr/shaard/r/1c9d1/N/University_of_Notre_Dame_Campus_Main_and_South_Quadrangles_St._Joseph_CO_Nom.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]