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 is that even if it is WP:TOOSOON for an article, it's close enough that it's not worth deleting the page. (non-admin closure)power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm usually tolerant of jumping the gun a little in article creation, but there's nothing except a date the season will be announced, and there was false info in the citation to pretend the link led to info on 18/19 when it was actually key dates for 17/18. A brief topic ban might even be appropriate. Fake citations hurt Wikipedia. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but need improving. now have some sources. So pass WP:BALL Note some information fails WP:NOTSTATS. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article can be recreated closer to the season. Kees08 (Talk) 06:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Similar discussions have already been held regarding next season, see the AfD for Chelsea's 2018–19 season which resulted in a speedy keep and a discussion at WP:Football also largely supported keeping articles. @Jacknstock:, the ref was not a fake, the information it is sourcing is at the bottom of the page and the user had used the section heading rather than the page title as the ref name. I've added a few extra refs and some more info anyway. Kosack (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are going to need the article, I don't see why we need to straight up delete these articles and recreate a little bit later, given a bit of time I am sure editors will populate it with content. Govvy (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i think sometimes it should be bold to turn these into redirect in April instead of starting an afd discussion which may relisted several time to end in May, which at that time it would be influx of solid information. People are hyped to have their first article even it did not had any real information (routine start date worth an article?) when it was created in March and still no information in the eve of afd tag. [1] Thanks afd rescue team that yet again after the afd discussion was started good solid information was yet influx into the article....May be i should consider booking 2019–20 Serie A in January 2019 if i find some routine citation to throw in, even it was too bold as WP:TOOSOON at least until May 2019. Matthew_hktc 11:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you created those in January, no need to send to AfD, better to create a redirect instead. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly a little premature as no teams are certain of being in League One next season, but arrangements are being made (VAR in playoffs) and one team has been relegated to the lower division. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think this violates WP:CRYSTAL as it "is notable and almost certain to take place." However, it does violate WP:TOOSOON. But this will cease to be the case as more teams are confirmed for the competition, which will occur in the very near future (possibly by 17 April, and certainly within the next couple of weeks). I don't think it's worth deleting for being slightly too soon. Note that the 2017–18 EFL League One page was created on 1 April 2017, when the first team was confirmed. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per what I have read above. ATZNA 22:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)This account is a sock Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No realistic chance of this competition not taking place and sufficient sourced material for the article to be started. Fenix down (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CRYSTAL does not apply here. GiantSnowman 17:19, 18 April 2018 (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.
Fails WP:NMUSIC (no coverage, not signed by any label AFAICT), unsourced but PRODBLP was removed. Kleuske (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no results from any reputable sources when searching for "KNG Smalls" on Google News or just plain old Google, thereby failing WP:NMUSIC (and also WP:V). RetroCraft314 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nominator and above; no notability. Vermont | reply here 22:38, 13 April 2018 (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 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NMEDIA and GNG. tagged for notability and sources since September 2017 and no improvements made since. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is one good ref in the independent but the rest is blogs, social media or unreliable, notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2018 (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.
He clearly fails the notability guidelines for an actor, his role being so minor. When we turn to GNG there is one source that might be enough to add towards it, although others might see it as a local interest story that does not add towards GNG. Either way GNG requires multiple sources, and only the Deseret News source is 3rd party reliable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I lack the capacity to review Japanese-language sources (where the greatest bulk of coverage would likely be found), but even without undertaking that task there are sufficient examples of significant coverage in the US to satisfy WP:GNG. Examples include: (1) "Orem Native Kent Gilbert Is Top Celebrity In Japan", Orem-Geneva Times, April 4, 1984; (2a) "Two Kents from Utah reach TV-star status in Japan", The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 9, 1988; (2b) "Japan's American TV stars", United Press International, July 9, 1988; (2c) "Two Blond Yanks Find Fame in Japan", The San Francisco Chronicle, July 9, 1988; (3)Los Angeles Times article from 1992 referring to Gilbert as "Japan's most famous gaijin tarento, or foreign talent . . . who endlessly pops up on television talk shows and quiz games, makes speeches and pitches products"; (4) "2 Utahns tire of fame in Japan", Deseret News, March 28, 2003; and (5) "Kent Gilbert to Emcee Spectacular '86", Orem-Geneva Times, September 24, 1986. [Note: 2a, 2b, and 2c are the same UPI feature story picked up in multiple newspapers.] Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, as Cbl62 shows, Gilbert was one of the more famous of the "gaijin talent" to hit Japanese TV in the 1980s. Recently, he has become quite notorious as a foreigner who has served as a mouthpiece for the nationalist right wing in Japan. He has published a book criticizing Chinese and Korean culture that has sold nearly half a million copies: [2], [3]. He thus for better or for worse continues to appear regularly in the media for his statements and for disagreements with his positions: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. Michitaro (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article at a minimum needs to be revised so that his statements on political issues are sourced to 3rd-party sources and not sourced to his own website. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be based on primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the article needs work, but several third party sources have already been added, and there is no violation of WP:BLP. Accordingly, article quality and sourcing are editing issues rather than a cause for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it needs work, but articles should not be nominated for deletion because they need work. Deletion is not a question of the current state of the article but of whether reliable sources can be found. See WP:NEXIST. Michitaro (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming GF on the sources, this seems to meet the GNG DocumentError (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2018 (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 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the above search tools yield a single hit. Total fail for WP:N. Tapered (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator hasn't edited in a few years, but @Metalworker14: has edited recently and may have some sources that I missed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of this moment, the only reference citations are the band's site, a Myspace page, a Facebook page, and music promo sites. Not the stuff of WP:RS. Tapered (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2018 (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. ansh666 04:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No notability other than marriage. WP:INVALIDBIO "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are 2 refs in the article which in my mind satisfy GNG, they are about her wedding as mentioned by the nom but I googled and also found mention of her giving birth. Szzuk (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’COMMENT’’’ getting married and giving birth is not notable. People do those all the time.Heliotom (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 20:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep added few more sources that's seems to suggest subject barely passes GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additions but everything is solely in regard to the fact she got married. I don't see how it passes GNG at all. Again WP:INVALIDBIO. People get married all the time. Heliotom (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fake nobility, Afghanistan is no longer a monarchy. Coverage is superficial and tabloid-y. Sandstein 09:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF here; we have articles on a lot of European pretenders with lesser claims (for example, Carl, Prince of Wied). I also regularly vote delete on those when presented at AfD. The article certainly needs to be renamed if kept, I abstain from a !vote on keep/delete. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:13, 22 April 2018 (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 20:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Freshly branded tourism region (launched 12 April 2018). Nice marketing effort but nothing achieved. The Bannertalk 19:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New, yes. But a news search reveals that the subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I can add more of these to the article if it will help. ODriscollOClock (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they throw in a nice marketing campaign. But what did the IHH achieve themselves? And why is that marketing campaign also on Wikipedia? The Bannertalk 00:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the region was just introduced two days ago with lots of news coverage and you already want to delete it. Remember that Ireland is rather big on it's tourism. I don't think so. Wait a little while and it will no doubt be expanded. ww2censor (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any sign of coverage in the press or elsewhere beyond the current marketing campaign? The Bannertalk 07:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. tourist promotion entirely. The term itself indicates it has no other purpose. That news sources repeat promotional material does not make it less promotional--it rather shows the sources are to that extent unreliable in the matter. . DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete That this tourism branding was introduced only (now) three days ago is exactly why it needs to be deleted. We are not here to promote the promotion. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A tourism marketing campaign that has gotten mentioned a few times in local newspaper is run-of-the-mill. --Calton | Talk 14:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Standard touristm self-promotion. The campaign isn't particularly notable. FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I stand by my assertion that the subject meets the basic criteria for inclusion, as I outlined above. It's an officialy designated tourism region, not simply a marketing campaign. But as a realist, my request to the closer is that if the decision is against inclusion, that it will be to merge rather than delete, with a {{R with possibilities}} to the relevent section on the article of the designating body, Fáilte_Ireland. ODriscollOClock (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's "officially designated" by the National Tourism Development Authority of Ireland. In other words, it's a tourism marketing campaign. Your distinction is also irrelevant because whatever you want to call it, it fails notability requirements: Wikipedia is for documenting notability, not promoting it. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From where else would an official designation come from if if not the national authority? ODriscollOClock (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I get a bit itchy from the fact that you have added a link to almost every possible related article and have filled the article with irrelevant stuff about lakes and rivers. I severely doubt that those rivers and lakes have joined the region by themselves. The Bannertalk 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that your "official designation" is essentially meaningless, since its "authority" is the National -->TOURISM<--- Authority. So it is, once again, A MARKETING CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE TOURISM. Your distinction is also irrelevant because whatever you want to call it, it fails notability requirements: Wikipedia is for documenting notability, not promoting it. --Calton | Talk 16:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "tourism region" isn't the type of thing that must be included by WP:NGEO. It's inherently promotional, and the launch publicity can't meet the sustained coverage needed for GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 21 April 2018 (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 20:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NBAND. The article references bear the same name as the creator of this article. No reliable secondary sources found. Rogermx (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to fail WP:BAND - nothing in Irish singles chart or UK singles chart, no major album releases (of any kind), no evidence of notable awards, etc. Also fails WP:GNG - any coverage that is available is of the type that NBAND specifically precludes (trivial coverage of performance dates, reprinted promotional material, etc). At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. (FYI - In a note on the contested speedy in Sep 2015, it was suggested that mentions on the Independent.ie and BBC NI websites might indicate some notability. However, the latter seems to be just a photo - no content. And both the former and the latter, as far as I can tell, seem to relate to a completely different group of people than those listed in this Wikipedia article....) Guliolopez (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guliolopez, thank you for all the research you did on this. Rogermx (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rogermx, Guliolopez – having spent some time trawling through the social media accounts of the various people involved, it appears that in fact the two groups of people are (in theory) the same band... the original four members were all sacked at the end of 2013 and replaced with the current younger and prettier threesome. This appears to be a classic case of WP:TOOSOON at present – the band may break through and become famous some day, but at the moment all the current line-up has to show for their efforts is a short tour in 2017 (which didn't sell out most venues) and a cover of a Sam Smith song released on their website. Richard3120 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2018 (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.
Redirect to Skillet or the album per ATD-R. L3X1◊distænt write◊ 19:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In no way is it a suitable or likely search term. The song was released a decade ago and has never merited an article or creation of an article. The creator is simply trying to create empty articles about two specific bands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - like the other articles created by the now blocked editor, they're not appropriate spinouts, but are plausible search terms. Sergecross73msg me 15:35, 17 April 2018 (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.
Redirect to Skillet or the album per ATD-R. L3X1◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In no way is it a suitable or likely search term. The song was released a decade ago and has never merited an article or creation of an article. The creator is simply trying to create empty articles about two specific bands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to album. It was released as a single, so its a plausible search term, but there's no evidence that it meets the WP:GNG at all. Sergecross73msg me 15:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. PamD 22:08, 18 April 2018 (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.
Redirect to Skillet or the album per ATD-R.L3X1◊distænt write◊ 19:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a likely search term so not a suitable redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Skillet discography states that it topped a Christian Rock chart. It's not sourced though. Is this not true? Sergecross73msg me 01:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: I'm not sure. At the time there was no single "Christian Rock Chart". There were several who were vying for the title. R&R had one, and there were several other, smaller companies proclaiming a chart. Billboard definitely wasn't interested for another few years. That's why there's no reference in the 90s, and not until "late 2000s"—I think they started in around 2005—do you see a link to https://www.billboard.com/music/skillet/chart-history/christian-rock as a reference. The first all rock Christian radio station didn't start until the mid-90s. Prior to that you had rock shows that aired at times when contemporary Christian music stations thought they could get away without offending their regular listeners (late Fridays or Saturdays, and early Sundays) who compiled local lists. I volunteered a programme like that, and there were no centralized charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background info. I know the workings/history of all the general rock charts, but not the Christian rock ones, so that was informational. Sergecross73msg me 14:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. I'd be open to spinning it back out if someone if there's any truth to the unsourced claim of it charting. Sergecross73msg me 14:47, 16 April 2018 (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.
Redirect to Skillet or the album per ATD-R. L3X1◊distænt write◊ 19:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In no way is it a suitable or likely search term. The song was released a decade ago and has never merited an article or creation of an article. The creator is simply trying to create empty articles about two specific bands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally being a single and not having any convoluted disambigustion is considered enough to be a plausible search term. Sergecross73msg me 01:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because I clearly thought there was more than one title? ....... I thought that would've been obvious but apparently not!.... –Davey2010Talk 03:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. You sound upset with me over the fact that you proposed a page move without any particular rationale or research into why such a proposal would be necessary? But why would you suggest alternate naming like that without even checking to see if there are things at other locations? That's the whole reason we add disambiguation. Sergecross73msg me 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I can assure you I'm not upset ..... Not sure why I would be ?, I've already answered your question shan't be repeating myself. –Davey2010Talk 13:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I was annoyed with the way you replied, As I said I simply assumed which looking back I shouldn't of done, Anyway apologies for the rattled response, Anyway all water under the bridge :), The last comment was for me to copy and paste and it should've been removed before saving, ANyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per my comments above. Additionally, per WP:AT, no page move should occur. It's already at its correct location. Sergecross73msg me 12:40, 16 April 2018 (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.
Another non-notable song created by an editor who doesn't seem to understand WP:GNG and WP:NSONGWalter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skillet or the album per CHEAP. Skillet is fairly popular, so even though there is not enough coverage, I would feel comfortable with that. L3X1◊distænt write◊ 19:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In no way is it a suitable or likely search term. The song was released a decade ago and has never merited an article or creation of an article. The creator is simply trying to create empty articles about two specific bands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ here. I read ATD-R again, and you can't really prove it is unlikely or unsuitable, especially under WP:CHEAP. I am going to !vote redirect for the rest of the skillet nominations, because that is how we usually proceed, and it makes sense. L3X1◊distænt write◊ 20:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skillet (album) - Song is mentioned on the tracklisting so makes sense to redirect there. –Davey2010Talk 17:38, 15 April 2018 (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.
Contested PROD. Another non-notable song created by an editor who doesn't seem to understand WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I'll not go through all these nominations to post the same response, but WP:NSONG states "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." I see no reason why the individual songs cannot or should not be redirected to their album articles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In no way is it a suitable or likely search term. The song was released a decade ago and has never merited an article or creation of an article. The creator is simply trying to create empty articles about two specific bands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap, and readers who are familiar with Wikipedia article naming convention would not find this article title inherently "unlikely". I think you'll find that there are in fact a great many song-title redirects, with titles largely formatted like this one, in the project. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite familiar with the use of redirects, but this article didn't exist a few hours ago and no one thought it needed one let alone a redirect. It's simply rewarding the odd editor. Unless the editor is blocked, or possibly the redirect is locked (since I suspect socking is possible), it's going to be a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't my topic space, by far, but let's just say that I'm not quite willing to assume bad faith about an editor merely for creating stubs of non-notable songs by a notable artist, and leave it at that. Regardless of how we got here, I stand by the guideline suggestion that this be converted to a redirect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. An admin has blocked him partially for that behaviour and partially for not explaining why. As long as there's no chance of new editors restoring to a state before a potential redirect, I'd be OK with it. I'd also be OK with deleting the edit history, but I won't get greedy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skillet (album) - Song is mentioned on the tracklisting so makes sense to redirect there. –Davey2010Talk 17:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Album - For the group of Skillet songs nominated for deletion by Walter, there are some extenuating circumstances that prevent a perfect solution but we can follow standard policies. User:Elchezinazo created all the song articles while probably being unaware of notability standards, and has been reprimanded accordingly. Now we have a bunch of weak articles. I believe that the song titles are possible search terms for WP users, so these song articles can be redirected to the respective album articles. An imperfect but painless solution. (My votes on the other AfD's will link to this one so I do not repeat the text needlessly.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll only comment on this once. I gave a detailed explanation of notability criteria at 23:31, April 10, 2018 (UTC). This spate of article creations occurred three days later. If the editor couldn't understand it due to language limitations, the editor shouldn't have been working on the English project. The explanation was presented though. I had also nominated an earlier articled for deletion via PROD, but again, no explanation given as to why the PROD was deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could possibly request speedy deletion #G5 for articles created by a blocked user. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The block came because of the creation of these articles. The songs are clearly not notable and should 1) never have been created, 2) have been quietly PRODed after creation, but we're here because of a disruptive editor. Instead of returning them to dust from which they came, we're leaving a (cheap) redirect. It's like the time an editor took every song written by a band and created redirects to the band article. It's bureaucracy that we retain this sort of thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect you're getting uncomfortably close to using this AfD process to protest much bigger WP issues. These little song articles are unfortunate but mostly harmless except for taking up server space. Consider proposing a reformed redirect process at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or someplace similar. As for the actual AfDs currently at hand, the "search term" argument remains valid. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Close? Sorry. I meant to do a gig all over the line while waving a red flag at the ignorance of the guideline and those who created it. I'll see if I can do better in the next set of AfDs I have to do as a result of an editor who doesn't want to follow WP:N and then get to deal with competing "guidelines". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails GNG, but is a plausible search term. Sergecross73msg me 03:13, 17 April 2018 (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. Against astronomical odds, we're going to keep this stellar example of an article. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...ish. This actually isn't quite as straightforward as it looks. I support the retention of articles about the astronomical objects listed in the New General Catalog. In this case, things are a little funny. NGC 3545, it turns out, isn't a single object at all, but rather a pair of galaxies. The equipment of Dreyer's day did not permit the two galaxies to be separately resolved, and so the "object" received only a single number in the catalog. Furthermore, more modern catalogs have not always been precisely consistent about how to refer to the two component galaxies, sometimes numbering them NGC 3454/NGC 3454B, and sometimes NGC 3545A/NGC 3454B (and the A/B assignment not always in the same order!). IF the NASTRO criterion is meant to apply to the elements of Dreyer's catalog due to historical value, the proper approach would almost certainly be to discuss the entire situation, and both component galaxies, at NGC 3545 (which is a redlink at the time of this writing, as is NGC 3545A); a single article for the entire topic space would be my personal preference. If the once-removed nature of this object from the original catalog suffices, well, then that would also be that. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether we now know this as one or two objects seems irrelevant; if it's in the NGC catalogue it surely meets WP:NASTRO, though I'd be OK for a redirect to NGC 3545 were that to be created. 22:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article was merged into Moab#Language back in 2012. This editor pulled the text out of Moab and back into its own article, to considerable backlash in the Moab article. The text has been re-established in Moab, so this is a duplicate. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edit which merged into Moab was this, with edit comment: Merged into Moab article. Creating redirect. This article is always going to remain a stub since there is not much known about the language as we only have the mesha stele to draw conclusions from).
At Moab, there was a mini edit-war over this movement back out of Moab into a separate article, resulting in the text not getting deleted from the Moab article. Further detail, the responsible editor, Likethewaves, seems to be a sock of BedrockPerson (reported, not yet confirmed). All in all, the re-creation of this article seems unduly skanky. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not at all in agreement with the assertion that a limited number of source documents in the language means that there is an equally limited amount of third-party discussion of the language. There are quite a few journal articles and academic book chapters that provide at least some insight into the language, its orthography, and its mutual comprehensibility with regard to ancient Hebrew; certainly, more can be said--and cited!--than the article currently bears out. To say nothing of historical context of the discovery and identification of the various source documents (in particular, there's probably room for discussion of the disputed provenance and Moabite identification of the so-called marzeah papyrus). Will this always be a relatively short article? Almost certainly, but that's not cause for deletion (or, necessarily, for merger). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article, instead, should be rescued, im working on it! Newroderick895 20:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most languages (with some attestation) are independently notable from the ethnic/political group using them. This one is no exception and is clearly independently notable from Moab in a cursory BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as all languages deserve a page. We have no policy that forbids stubs. If there is an editor who merged the info from thise article back into the Moab article (a claim I could not verify), then they should be trouted, since that is an obvious attempt to circumvent WP:AFD procedure. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2018 (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 20:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What sources there are discuss acid attacks, but there is very little discussion of the actual subject of the article. Does not pass GNG, and much of the content is really promotional. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there anything here worth merging with Acid throwing? 331dot (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely possible, but it seems to me that copying and pasting, with an appropriate edit summary, would do the trick. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. Re: "Links to recent media and press coverage: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]" -- Wikipedia is not a clipping servince. In any case, these are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or possibly merge into Acid throwing. It could certainly use a rewrite. But even if the rewrite were only 3 paragraphs - strictly about the charity - I think it would be useful to readers. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith(talk) 03:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure merging it into acid throwing is a wise idea - I suspect there could be multiple related charities, and unless this one is far larger in scope, justifying *it* as the one that gets a good section in acid throwing seems incorrect. That said, I do think that the topic is potentially notable enough to deserve remaining - if rewritten. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am against'merge for my reasons above. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Acid throwing seems appropriate - not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. — soupvector (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I oppose a merge; merging an org into an article about a concept would be WP:UNDUE and borders on promotionalism. The target article would not be improved with a merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, oppose merge - from the amount of news coverage (hundreds of news items, in which their research data is often cited) and some book coverage - it seems they are probably notable (it also, incidentally, makes finding in-depth sources on them difficult). In any case - this should not be merged to Acid throwing - if it is not notable standalone, it should not be promoted there.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per Icewhiz. Per news coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (oppose merge as per Icewhiz.) Notability of this organization is clear, as is its impact: "UN Trust Fund to end Violence Against Women"[10] "The law that made this conviction possible was passed following extensive advocacy by the Acid Survivors Trust International, and their partner..."; and here: Campaigns Against Acid Violence Spur Change,[11]. Vitriolage: A Case of a 19-Year-Old Girl, "(programs) have subsequently been established in Uganda, Cambodia and Pakistan sustained by ASTI(Acid Survivors Trust International)" [12]; here: A desire to disfigure: acid attack in IndiaM Patel - International journal of criminology and sociological December 2014, 1-11 3 "Acid Survivors Trust International (ASTI) is the only organization whose sole purpose is to work towards the end of acid violence across the world....[13]. But someone might have to wade through a lot of searches to do a really proper job on the organization's structure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization has received coverage from multiple reliable sources. The article itself could use some love, but it shouldn't be deleted. Andrew327 16:56, 19 April 2018 (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. Trending keep if one discounts the last opinion which is quite superficial. Sandstein 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly notable as a photographer, no claim of notability there. Seems to have come to attention only during the Iraq photo controversy, which in itself isn't particularly noteworthy. Not enough references to verify any claims given. hiàn 03:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As it stands, pretty much BLP1E. Thais 1E should not be forgotten, but there could be a better place for it. (I haven't yet looked for other material about the biographee.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not BLP-1E as the subject is persistently covered in many reliable sources. I found numerous books on photography and journalism that mention this story between 2006 and 2016. I added about ten sources spread out over a decade, but could have come up with more if I had to. Unfortunately for him, he is famous in a durational kind of way, as what he did was very unique and has been widely and continuously reported in the 15 years since he did it. Because this deals with the truth, digital manipulation and war, his story appears as a cautionary tale in books on ethics, photography, journalism, computer culture and philosophy. 104.163.158.37 (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just added another source from a 2006 book on propaganda and information warfare.104.163.158.37 (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He does indeed get a double-page spread (pp 480-481) in Photo Box: Bringing the Great Photographers into Focus. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that he is not that notable for the photographs he took. However he is etched into the history books forever for the one he doctored.104.163.158.37 (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled by the positioning of your comment, IP. If you are saying that I said "he is not that notable for the photographs he took", then no, I said no such thing. The doctored photo is mentioned in the page spread in Photo Box, but only mentioned there: most of the page spread is devoted to an unrelated photograph. -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oh relax. You called him a case of BLP1E above. Sources only establish him as notable for his unethical photo.104.163.158.37 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said that the article as it then was looked like a BLP1E. (I did not say that a BLP1E was all that would be possible.) ¶ Thank you for this pair of edits, in which you cite Photobox (or Photo Box; the precise title isn't clear even from the book itself), ISBN9780500543849. I repeat what I said before: The doctored photo is mentioned in the page spread in Photo Box, but only mentioned there: most of the page spread is devoted to an unrelated photograph. How is this page spread compatible with your claim just above that Sources only establish him as notable for his unethical photo? -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You called it BLP1E above ("As it stands, pretty much BLP1E."), which logically implies that he is not notable for his photos. If you had thought his pics were notable, you might have said something along the lines of "He's notable for his pictures" instead. Anyway, you found your way in the end, and that's a good thing. Let us not make a mountain out a molehill.104.163.158.37 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- BLP1E doesn't apply per 104.163.158.37 above. The fact is that his career, including the alteration of that photo, which is an iconic example in the field of forensic photography, is discussed in RS that are widely distributed chronologically, so he meets GNG. Here's another one, Scientific American, that's not presently cited in the article. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A low level Stephen Glass type is still de facto GNG. Even if the existing citations need work, there's nearly 2 dozen listed and several more that could be drawn upon. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.
Comment. 104.163.158.37 is either unwilling or unable to understand what I write above, and seems more concerned that I enjoy sufficient relaxation. (I already do, thanks.) Walski is a living photographer whose Wikipedia article suggested is notable for one event. The article still suggests he's notable for the one event. Meanwhile, he gets two pages in Photobox aka PhotoBox aka Photo Box -- a source that the very same IP added -- for his photography as exemplified by a single photograph. Inclusion in this book is quite an achievement, not one shared by many photographers. The single photograph is one utterly unrelated to the main subject of the Wikipedia article about him (an article largely written by the IP). This book -- originally published in Italian, published in English translation by Thames & Hudson -- rightly mentions Walski's misdeed. It's right that the Wikipedia article discusses this. I don't know what motivates the IP, but their edits seem compatible with a desire to represent Walski as insignificant aside from one fuck-up. This misrepresents Walski. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really, drop the stick. I made a minor factual comment that you have misinterpreted as a slight, which it was not. I'm the one who added 20+ references to the article. Move on.104.163.158.37 (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2018 (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 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
local company with local following, according to the article itself. Only the first ref is conceivably usable. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at worst this would be a merge and redirect to Ponce City Market per WP:PRESERVE. In addition to the extensive coverage in the Atlanta Magazine article noted above there is also lots of coverage from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, recognition as an important local food purveyor from the University of Georgia, and coverage in other Atlanta area news sources. I deem it enough to make this special company with distinctive products notable per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local company that fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well, it cannot decisively meet WP:NCORP. And does not have a Wikipedia administrator as a frequent and cherished customer. But it runs up quite a few mentions in the media. And it's not too soon. And it's a business that contributes to the Atlanta Community Food Bank. So, weak knees. -The Gnome (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None, zero, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. FloridaArmy says there is "extensive coverage" in the Atlanta Magazine but completely fails to say that none of the coverage could be considered intellectually independent since it consists of interviews and quotations or small mentions-in-passing, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Perhaps FloridaArmy, who !votes a lot at AfD could point out some of the "extensive coverage" that would be considered to meet the criteria for establishing notability? FloridaArmy also conveniently forgets to point out that the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) articles are blog posts, thereby fails WP:RS as blog posts are not considered as reliable sources. We really need contributors who !vote regularly at AfD to provide !votes based on policies and guidelines especially if their !votes are based on the quality of sources. HighKing++ 20:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) you're wrong on notability and interviews, they do help establish notability when done by reliable independent sources. "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability."
2) I am seeing news coverage not interviews. Lots of articles on this Atlanta indie business. Jist click the "news" libk above.
3) You haven't addressed why if this business isn't independently notable, failing to merge content according to wp:preserve would be appropriate when an aplroproate target with bysinesses in the market already exists.
I've looked at the many articles discussing the company and its products. Choosing it for an award as one of Atlanta's best. And discussion of the founders, product offerings, and role in the Ponce City Market and notability is clearly established per guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) No ... articles that rely extensively on interviews and quotations are not intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Clearly stated in the guidelines.
2) Please post links so that the "news" articles can be assessed.
3) Sure, if there's anything notable to merge.
And post links to the articles you are referring to. The guidelines for establishing notability are different in relation to references than those references that may be used to support information and facts within an article. The criteria for establishing notability requires two sources. To date, zero sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 03:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New term discovered by the article creator, A11 declined. Using full AfD to knock it down instead of ineffective PROD which can be contested by anybody –Ammarpad (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't even a dicdef, because it doesn't define the term! This is very close to qualifying for an A3 speedy, as the only content is, fundamentally, an acknowledgement that the title is itself a phrase someone has used somewhere. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Floppy disk is a term commonly used by computer scientists" "Tent peg is a term commonly used by campers" "AfD is a term commonly used by Wikipedians" Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irredeemable, should've been speedied. ElassintHi 19:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even an adequate Wiktionary definition. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this article is entirely unsourced, I not only will state it is not up to a dictionary definition, but it is just plain false. For the last four and a half years I have worked at schools where the student body was over 97% African-American. My fiancee is African-American. I studied at Wayne State University in the heart of Detroit and did my best to transcend the Metro-Detroit color line while a student there. I have traveled most bus routes in Detroit, the five most used ones heavily. I have never heard someone use the term "black excelence", never came across it in any course I took on African-American or African history, and my soon-to-be step daughter who took a course on "the black strugle" never used the term. Black girls rock, Black pride, black is beautful and so on have more merit. There may well be people who "commonly" use this term, but I chalenge the notion it is a common term "in the African-American community". Of course I have had coworkers who showed students TV segements that perpetuated the discredited idea that the term "The Real McCoy" connected to the work of Elijah McCoy, and I indepdently came up with the idea to teach my Pre-K children to sing the song "Old McCoy had a grage", my early childhood supervisor thought that was the best idea ever when I told her about it. I don't think it actually worked when I implmented it, because children living in the north-west region of Detroit where most residences are detached houses with detached garages, and the next most common residence is duplexes with detached garages, think of the garage as where you keep the car, or where you would keep the car if your dad/granddad/uncle didnt have the lawn mower, some tools he says he will use to fix the car by the side of the house but never does, and the TV to watch sports plus an extra fridge. They do not think of a garage as a place to fix cars, as I sometimes use it to refer to commercial car repair places. I know this because when they built a garage with blocks they would put the TV in the garage, talk of watching TV in the garage, etc. My main points is that some claims get bounced around with no evidence, and I could write an article Northwest Detroit youths concepts of what a garage is and what its uses are that would come closer to being encyclopedic than this article does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a slightly different note our article on Automobile repair shop is lacking in historical context, essentially seems to ignore that cars are used in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania, and not just the US and Europe, and in general is a prime example of how Wikipedia is US/Europe centric and horribly neglectful of coverage of everything related to Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2018 (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 Speedily deleted. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 15:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a hoax to me. User:L293D, did you actually find any sources at all to suggest that it isn't? I didn't. GMGtalk 15:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't sure enough to A11 or G3 it, but it seem to be a hoax to me. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. Beyond the tonal problems, and the lack of sources, and all the other things wrong with this article, I'm fairly confident that it's also a hoax. "Xbox One F" provides absolutely no relevant Google hits. Nor do searches trying to tie Xbox to 5k, nor to the quoted market price. It is utterly beyond belief that the gaming industry's sea of websites wouldn't have this announcement at the top of their headline list. Ergo, this isn't real at all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I A11 and G3ed it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing + "Why is it so expensive? Your probably gonna hate me, but it's so expensive because of 5K visuals." - What neutral POV is this? Clearly not encylopedia stuff...more of a rant. Quek157 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2018 (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 20:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD concluded that the subject was not notable as an author (his books are self-published and not reviewed in mainstream publications) or a YouTube personality (no significant coverage in reliable sources). Nothing appears to have changed in that regard.
There is a new claim for notability in that he is (apparently) running for Governor of Vermont, but again I'm not seeing any coverage in reliable sources. We typically set a high bar for unelected candidates for office in terms of the level of coverage. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim of a gubernatorial candidacy has been edited out at the time I'm writing this, but it doesn't matter either way. Mere candidacy is insufficient to claim notability, and there absolutely nothing resembling reliable sources to support his inclusion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This individual's plan on running as a frivolous candidate in an election does not make him anymore notable than he was when the article was first created. The article only links to the subject's own Wordpress and Twitter accounts. NJM2010 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the article was more expanded and had better citations I might reconsider as Warwick seems to be a semi-known figure on the some sections of the internet, and he's also an author, but in its current state the article should be deleted. It appears the article was made solely because of his candidacy, but merely being a candidate doesn't mean much. If it he gets significant traction it'll be another story, but it should be deleted for now. 93.107.150.14 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After removing all the non reliable sources such as his youtube videos, it is clear there is ot a lot of RS on this individuals to establish notability.--VVikingTalkEdits 13:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not notable and seeing the talkpage comment this is clear push for publicity . –Ammarpad (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2018 (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.
Nomen nudum, as such per definition not formalized and inapplicable - best case is that taxonomic description will follow, but until then, no material exists to inform a species stub. Best source I could find is [14] - announced online under a temporary name and remains undescribed. - Part of a rash of dubious and/or unsourced creations by the same editor :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 13 April 2018 (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. Despite the length of the discussion, the consensus was pretty clear that the sourcing does not indicate that the subject should be kept in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as an artist (no exhibtions, except one group show at his own gallery). As a gallerist there is no significant , in-depth coverage except some mentions in reviews or announcements of shows by artists he represents. Creator has obvious read our notability guide for artists, WP:NARTIST, as they explicitly mention "significant body of work, being the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews, such as" in the article, but then fail to substantiate that claim. And then again with "widely cited by peers and periodical articles". The article was obviously translated from German. As a business, the article falls far short of WP:NCORP, except for one interview with the subject, not media have covered the business as such. There was a German article, that has been proposed for deletion twice. It was kept once [15] but ultimately deleted [16] as having "keine erkennbare Relevanz" (no discernible relevance) which is another way of saying the subject is not notable. Mduvekot (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)]
To make it easier to see where the problems with the sources are I'm including a table below that shows if the source is relevant, significant, reliable, independent and secondary. Relevant in this context means that the source actually says what the article claims and is about the subject, Significant means that coverage is in-depth, reliable and independent refer to WP:RS and WP:IS and secondary means that the source is not by the subject or an associate.[reply]
relevant?
significant?
independent?
reliable?
secondary?
notes
1 Chapeau
Y
Y
Y
N
N
An interview in a magazine that is not known for fact checking.
2 Berliner Zeiting
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
BZ these days is a usually reliable source, but this is about paintings in their own offices. The article is from 1994 when the BZ was a tabloid.
3 Die Welt
Y
N
Y
Y
N
This isn't independent reporting, this is a project by the source.
4 Die Welt
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Aims to supports the claim that F-H uses impasto (pastose brushstrokes != flottem Pinselstrich) No byline, absurd speculation that Frederick the Great might have commissioned work from F-H
5 Summary of other sources (already listed)
n/a
6 Gallerie F-H
N
N
N
N
N
The galley about itself. Should support claim that "Most exhibitions are accompanied by scientific(sic) catalogues", but doesn't.
7 kunstverein-uelzen.org
N
N
N
N
Y
A press release from the The Kunstverein Uelzen e. V. Should support claim that "Most exhibitions are accompanied by scientific(sic) catalogues", but doesn't.
8 Gallerie F-H
N
N
N
N
N
Published by the Gallery, not about the subject
9 Die Zeit
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Not about the subject, but confirms he is a contributor to Die Zeit.
10 ArtCircle
N
N
N
N
N
Not about the subject, also unnecessary, already supported by footnote 8
11 artgenossen-berlin.de
N
N
N
N
N
press release from a PR agency
12 Muenchen.de
13 Queer.de
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Quote from subject descibres Lear's style as ""Neo-expressiv"
14 Die Welt
Y
maybe
Y
Y
Y
Has a paragraph about the gallery. Describes where it is, that he exhibits work by his friends, that his wife operates an establishment in the Hackescher Markt and that they have a newborn together. 250 guests showed up for an opening, a painting costs about EUR 7000 and he sold 7 of them. A brief announcement of his next shows.
15 Kunstforum
N
N
Y
Y
Y
No mention of the subjectMention as one of a list of participants (Teilnehmerliste) in a weekend of openings. (updated) Vexations (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
16 artnet
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
List item
17 Der Tagesspiegel
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Mention of the gallery as a venue
18 n-tv
N
N
Y
Y
N
Interview with Mia Florentine Weiss, one mention of the gallery
Hi, after a bit of a reserach (and article reading), I think we scould agree on Keep because your claims aren't exactly what they claim to be, I feel like many sources I used in the article remain ignored in your statements above. Regarding the first statement, that his only exhibition he had was in his own gallery, it happens to be incorrect. As given in the text, he was shown in solo shows in the Galerie Commeter (which is the oldest gallery in Hamburg, founded in 1812, and one of the oldest and renowned gallery in Germany) and in several publishing houses, such as the editing house of Berliner Zeitung, which got press coverage (it is not a simple invitation, as falsely marked by you in the quote, it is an article published phisically in a newspaper). Further you point out that, I am reluctant to substantiate the claim that, he as an artist, is the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews, which are needed to meet the criteria for notability. I provided in the quotations in-depth coverage of articles dealing primarily with his art/work as an artist, published by Die Welt, Welt am Sonntag and Berliner Zeitung. Those newspaper articles are available on his artist website, which is different to his gallery website and not really in use anymore. They have been uploaded as flash and don't posses a url (except the article of the Berliner Zeitung linked above), reason why I couldn't link them to Wikipedia properly. You may acces the in-depth articles on his art here, but need to click on press (Presse) button and leaf through. I understand, it's hard to you to decide on the notability as Alexander Friedmann-Hahn came out as an artist in the pre internet era and most sources are written in German and not easily available on the www, but he clearly meets the criteria stated by Wikipedia for creative professionals. If you need further help in translating or have doubts on some quotations/sources, feel free to ask, I am happy to help! All my best (P.S. The reason why he has been deleted in the German Wikipedia is, that the criteria for creative professionals, they have a diffrent one for artists, is slightly stricter then the US one and AFH was on the edge of being kept or deleted. The same article, as you stated correctly, has been one kept and then deleted on the same grounds) --Klabumm (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is looks like a sources in other languages issue. Klabumm has a lot of credibility on the issue of art notability, and I accept what he says above entirely. All in all, notability established. Checking the "press link" provided above does lead to numerous RS, although the selection was a bit polluted with vanispam type articles. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I'm fluent in German. Mduvekot (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I will add the comment that I could be entirely wrong.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMduvekot (talk·contribs) has made a really clear analysis here, and it is meaningful that none of these sources have all five green checks! I'm not a German reader, so my vote would be solely an endorsement of Mduvekot's argument based on what is presented above. I trust Mduvekot. Theredproject (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes I agree-- my initial take was incorrect. I just trimmed large amounts of text that were just puffery.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read the German afd and the article here, I didn't check the refs because they are in German. If it isn't good enough for the German wiki I'm not sure why it would be good enough for here, it was deleted last December after what appears a lengthy discussion. My vote is probably full of holes, but this isn't a typical afd and it is the best I can do. Szzuk (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Szzuk (talk·contribs): It has been deleted because the criterica for notability in the German Wikipedia are diffrent to the criteria in the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia requires reviews/periodicals with prmary subject on the artist, whereas the German Wikipedia requires them to be published in the cultural part of the newspaper, they are slightly stricter. Regarding my sources. I was able to dig some more out and will incoprporate them today or tomorrow. User Mduvekot is citing quite selectively in his table and ignoring some peridocals which are available on the internet, partly due to the fact that I did not mention them in my sources, partly I assume he hasn't read them properly. I will write on this issue later, after having included further newspaper in the article not being mentioned in the table.--Klabumm (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Klabumm You say I ignored some periodicals which are available on the internet, partly due to the fact that I did not mention them in my sources, partly I assume he hasn't read them properly. Of course I ignored publications you didn't cite. I am not going to analyze sources that are not used in the article. If you meant to imply that I didn't do WP:BEFORE, that's not true, and I think it is well established that I am a vocal proponent of BEFORE even when not strictly necessary. If I overlooked a high-quality secondary source then please just use it to improve the article. Vexations (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning, as supported by exemplary work (and presentation). I went through the material, and I'm impressed by both Klabumm and Mduvekot. Yes, the Germans might be different from the rest of us but they cannot be too different. :-) The subject, in terms of the English-language edition's rules, does not achieve credible, independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am still working on my sources, I think I will post hem later today.--Klabumm (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following reasonsHope we can work this out, in a way it comforts both of us and Wikipedia. I agree, I could have used better sources and I further agree that there are some in which the gallery is mentioned only as a venue or participant at a fair, some other articles, here I disagree with you, are revieviewing in depth the exhibitions he had organized for his artists in his gallery and of course he is mentioned then as a venue! Again, for the purpose of clarification, his venue is mentioned because the exhibition held in his gallery is discussed in depth in the article. I enclosed a list, adding further reviews, having as primary subject the exhibitions he has organized for his artists in his gallery and dealing in depth with the work exhibited:
Die Welt: three reviews here, here and here. (Regarding the last one, I go in line with you: It is a article having Alexander Friedmann Hahn and his exhibition of one his gallery artisis as primary subject but deals a lot about miscellania, e.g. how much he has sold, when his daughter was born. No clear line was drawn between him as an artist, family news and exhibition review of his gallery artist, but it is still a periodical article dealing on him as a subject, it is ambigous),
In some cases, you can tell it even by the title that those reviews are are reviewing the exhibitions in his gallery, no need of profound reading knowledge in German is required!!
Amongst the sources above, you failed quoting in the table the following sources, dealing in depth on AFH as an artist.
Die Welt: Looss, Annekatrin: Ölkreiden in Havanna-Schachteln. Maler Alexander Friedmann-Hahn hat einfach Stil – Nicht nur bei einen Bildern, published on May 19th, 2000, available on his homepage and here (not quoted by you in your table, even though I have mentioned it in the footnotes)
He was primary subject of a documentary/television report, aired on Hessischer Rundfunk. The video lasts about 3 minutes and is avilable on his artist site here. Hessischer Rundfunk is the tv host of the state of Hessen, mainly dealing with subjects from Hessen, but is broadcasted nationwide through Germany, e.g. I am from Northern Germany and can receive Hessischer Rundfunk as the media policy in Germany is federal. Just press the "Presse" button and go through the many reviews till the end, you will find it there (didn't work on my old Mac but worked with Windows) (not quoted by you in your table, though you have admitted you went through the press page, I quoted above. I admit, I havn't added the documentary to his article, nonetheless a quick search would have had uncovered it. As you replied above to 104.163.147.121 you went through the press material. Now I am wondering why you neglect it and still deny the articles in your response to 104.163.147.121
Further I would like to clarify some points and express my doubts on your due process.
You falsely stated two times (Kunstforum International and queer.com), that both sources aren't bringing up a quote on the subject, which can be easily disproved. Just hold String+F, type in Friedmann-Hahn, et voila, you'll be directed to the part of the page where the gallery has been mentioned in text. I am with you, those are only mentions, not in-depth coverage and not hard criterica when it comes to establish notability.
Resuming, we got 22 (!) independant articles/reviews having as primary subject the exhibitions organized in his gallery and reviewing them in depth. Further we got one short tv doumentary/broadcast (call it however you wish) and further a long article in Die Welt, having a as primary subject him as an artist as well, additionaly to those mentioned in your table.
Those 22 new reviews, reviewing his gallery exhibitions and three article/tv documentary on him as an artist perfectly meet the criteria according the criteria for notability for creative professionals, which requires multiple independent reviews/periodicals. At the end, notability is not established whether you agree with his art critics (No byline, absurd speculation that Frederick the Great might have commissioned work from F-H...a bit biased your statement, don't you think?), but determined according the sources provided, which are, without any doubt, given. The fact, that you are making false claims (accusing me of quoting sources without the content being mentioned in the source), that you are falsely stating, you did research before and missed those 22 reviews plus the tv documentary plus the new article in Die Welt, which are avilable on the internet (I even instructed you how to get there), is quite disappointing in my eyes! I am sure, it wasn't your intention to distort facts, but in the end it is all about credability as users Theredproject, Szzuk, The Gnome can't read German and they rely on what we present to them. They make their decision because they trust us to present facts, written in foreign languages, properly.--Klabumm (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will provide a point-by-point rebuttal later (and fix the indentation above). For now, regarding You falsely stated two times (Kunstforum International and queer.com), that both sources aren't bringing up a quote on the subject, I have fixed the note on Kunstforum in the table above. There is indeed a mention of the gallery. It doesn't really make a difference. I do not see queer.com as a source. If you are referring to queer.de, I don't think I "falsely stated" that it didn't bring up a quote on the subject. Furthermore, please refrain from casting aspersions, or anything that could reasonably be construed as a personal attack. Vexations (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Klabumm: Below, as promised above, a point-by-point rebuttal. I'm creating this as a subsection to comply with WP:TPG.
a list, adding further reviews, having as primary subject the exhibitions he has organized for his artists in his gallery The subject of the article under discussion is Alexander Friedmann-Hahn, the person. Citing a review of an exhibition may be appropriate for an article about the exhibiting artist, but it does absolutely nothing to establish the notability of the gallerist. Notability is not inherited, it is conferred by significant coverage of the subject, not coverage of an artist represented by a business owned by the subject.
I am unimpressed by your list of 22 exhibition reviews. If you can find any significant coverage of the subject (the person) in any of those sources let us know what is is and where. Just say what exactly you're going to use them for, or even better, just rewrite the article and cite them. Bombarding participants with a long list of irrelevant stuff they ought to read before they can form an opinion on the notability of the subject is not helpful and borderline disruptive. It goes against the spirit of How to contribute to an AfD.
you failed quoting in the table the following sources, dealing in depth on AFH as an artist I didn't list it because of the way it was cited. There's a link to the Wikipedia article about Die Welt, but the citation doe not have a link that other participants here can follow. I did analyse the sources that were already cited elsewhere. The format you use is something that German Wikipedia uses where several sources are combined. We tend to not do that, and instead cite each source individually. So your footnote (currently #5) would be split into [1][2][3][4][5]
References
^Looss, Annekatrin (19 May 2000). "Ölkreiden in Havanna-Schachteln. Maler Alexander Friedmann-Hahn hat einfach Stil – Nicht nur bei einen Bildern". Die Welt.
The problem with this footnote is that you assert something that appears designed to thwart this discussion. This one of the reasons I think you may have a conflict of interest. In stead of summarizing what the sources say (which is what we do as editors of Wikipedia) you merely state THAT the subject has received coverage, but you do not say WHAT those sources say.
So you suggest that I have failed in my efforts somehow because I did not analyze a source that you did not use to say anything meaningful and that is difficult to access quickly. Well once you use it to cite something meaningful, I might make the effort. "being the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews" doesn't belong in an article.
I havn't added the documentary to his article, nonetheless a quick search would have had uncovered it I'm not going to review every google result. Please point to a policy page that says that I am required to review every potential source I might find on line that is NOT used in an article. I find it mildly amusing that you posted on April 6 I am still working on my sources, I think I will post hem later today and then didn't post them until April 8, but see it fit to scold me for not uncovering such sources in my review.
You falsely stated two times (Kunstforum International and queer.com) I make no such false claim. The subject is the person, not the gallery and the person is not mentioned in the Kunstforum cite, the gallery is. I could have made that clearer, and edited my note earlier today to reflect that.
For the record: I categorically deny that I have deliberately misrepresented anything known to me to be true in this AfD. Any assertion to the contrary is scandalous and not befitting a Wikipedia editor. Vexations (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that the following passage in Vexations's text is the crux of the ongoing dispute, at least as far as I'm concerned: The subject of the article under discussion is Alexander Friedmann-Hahn, the person. Citing a review of an exhibition may be appropriate for an article about the exhibiting artist, but it does absolutely nothing to establish the notability of the gallerist. Notability is not inherited, it is conferred by significant coverage of the subject, not coverage of an artist represented by a business owned by the subject. So, at the end of the day, we need, as we usually do, sources establishing independent notability. Do we have them or not? -The Gnome (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are two possible bases for notability: as an artist, and as a gallerist. There seems to be some very weak notability as an artist. We have no workable standards for gallerists. It is not just a business in the ordinary sense, but one of the auxiliary professions that facilitate the fine arts. Considering their significance in that professional network, I think we should be very liberal here; I would say the same about similar auxiliary professions in other fields, such as music and science. It's the nature of such professions to be overshadowed by the artists etc. they serve, and I've always thought we should interpret the GNG standards in line with the nature of available sources in the field. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to comment on the table above. It is constructed in such a way as to make 'relative - significant - independent -reliable - secondary each a binary choice. I do not think sources work that way. Sources are of relative degrees of relevance, significance, independence, reliability and secondary nature. To take a set of binary choices and then apply them across the array of sources gives a mistaken degree of precision, in the hunt for 2 or 3 sources that fulfill all 5. Looking at the rationales given, I could construct a rationale for disagreeing in detail with at least one of the binary choices for many of them. (depending on whether I though on the true basis, of global suitability for an encyclopedia. We could just as easily use them as complementary factors, or average them.
I recognize the attempt to rationalize the way of dealing with this, but it falls into a common fallacy: an elaborate table of values can give a spurious impression of precision. It tends to induce one to forget that the individual items of data are far from precise. It's 's similar to an equally spurious technique, the piling-on of as many possible references regardless of their importance. We've learned to be wary of that--it's too susceptible to use for promotional articles. We should be wary of this also--it's too susceptible to a destructive analysis. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to expand on DGG's comment a bit: while the table goes through the sources in the article, the table also assumes that they are the only sources. A before search brings up a number of sources, not notable and possibly otherwise. I think there's something a bit tricky about this article: I think it would pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG if it were about the gallery itself, even though the gallery is eponymous, but I would vote delete on the grounds I do not think the gallerist is notable. I vote move to Galerie Friedmann-Hahn and include a short blurb on the creator. SportingFlyertalk 06:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ARTIST; in particular, his work has (apparently) not been a significant part of a major exhibition, nor is it (apparently) included in important institutional collections. If there is a "significant body of work", where was it shown, where is it now exhibited? Nor, as far as I can see, does he meet WP:BASIC; there is is a certain amount of fairly trivial reportage, but not the sort of comprehensive in-depth coverage in diverse independent reliable sources that would allow us to write a proper article about him.
On the suggestion by SportingFlyer: it is quite difficult for an art gallery to meet WP:NCORP, as coverage is almost always of the works exhibited or sold, and/or of the artists who created them; this one does not come close. This would have true even before the recent upgrade of NCORP to clearer and more stringent requirements, and is all the more so after it. It could reasonably be added to a List of art galleries in Germany, if we had one.
I'm concerned to find that a good deal of what is claimed in the article is not in fact supported by the references cited; I've removed some of that unsourced content, but it seems that there may still be more.
If the article was translated as is suggested above, where was it translated from and where is the attribution of the source? Klabumm, can you clarify? Could you also kindly remove any links to newspaper clippings hosted on his website, per WP:LINKVIO? Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers You stated, that it is quite difficult for an art gallery to meet WP:NCORP, as coverage is almost always of the works exhibited or sold, and/or of the artists who created them; this one does not come close.. This is not true. We have 22 in depth articles/reviews having as primary subject the exhibitions held in his gallery, in other words the gallery exhibitions have been reviewed quite often. Those reviews aren't included in the article on AFH for now and have not been included in Vexations table above, but I posted a list earlier in this discussion, just beneath the first Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.--Klabumm (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out double vote. -The Gnome (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, BTW, Klabumm you can only !vote once. You may strike your duplicate !vote by using the strike-through markup like this <s>...</s> or with the {{strike}}} template. ::: And if you'd like to extend that table that you keep complaining about, just add every reference you can think of in there and let everybody contribute to the analysis of those sources, (sign with your name). Here's an example of a format that's a bit easier, and allows for any number of contributors, if you're not into table markup: Talk:Andrea_Lambert_(writer)#List_of_sources. It also avoids the "binary choice" that DGG found problematic. So why don't we do it that way. You get to explain why the source is good, everybody else gets their say, and I get to offer my analysis too. I'll put it under a new header, and I'll add every source that ever was in the article and every source that you've proposed here. Fair? Vexations (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Klabumm, you say that we have 22 reviews of exhibitions at the gallery; can you point me to just one of those reviews which includes substantial in-depth discussion of the gallery itself – as opposed to a work or works shown in it, or an artist or artists who exhibits there? This is somewhat academic, as this discussion is about a person and not a gallery, but possibly relevant if a page move is suggested.
I see that you have been asked on your talk-page whether you have a conflict of interest in relation to this and other topics that you have written about, but I do not see that you have provided an answer to that question. Please do so; in particular, please note that if you receive or expect to receive any financial reward for your edits, or are editing as part of your paid employment, disclosure is obligatory. Thank you.
I asked you earlier if this article is a translation, and if so, where from? Again, I do not see that you have provided any answer to that question. Attribution is required for translated material. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interview with Alexander Friedman-Hahn. Interviews are not WP:SECONDARY sources. Chapeau is not a magazine that is known for fact-checking. Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BZ these days is a usually reliable source, but this is about paintings in their own offices. The article is from 1994 when the BZ was a tabloid. Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aims to supports the claim that F-H uses impasto (pastose brushstrokes != flottem Pinselstrich) No byline, absurd speculation that Frederick the Great might have commissioned work from F-H Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The galley about itself. Should support claim that "Most exhibitions are accompanied by scientific(sic) catalogues", but doesn't.Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A press release from the The Kunstverein Uelzen e. V. Should support claim that "Most exhibitions are accompanied by scientific(sic) catalogues", but doesn't. Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article from 2006 has a number of statements that could be used. He is "sold out" as a painter and also runs a gallery with a partner, Rosalind Baffoe. There's mention of his wife and a newborn son, but the focus is on the vernissage for Pavel Feinstein. It names some of the VIP guests, Avner Edelstein, Michael Sowa, Guido Sieber, Hermann Noack, Volker Christians and Wolfram Lüdecke. It give approximate prices for Feinstein's work (€7000}), and mentions that 7 paintings have already sold. It also mentions that a painting by A F-H sold for €11000. Then it announces an upcoming exhibition by former disco-queen and ex-partner of Salvador Dali, Amanda Lear. It was originally used to support the claim that his gallery and artists have been widely cited by peers and periodical articles. To some extent that is correct, even though the article never discusses the art, the program of the gallery, or its business model (IOW, analysis) and places more emphasis on what I'd call society reporting, not business news or art criticism.
Kunstforum International is generally a high-quality source, but here, it is a mention of Galerie Friedmann-Hahn in a list of particpants of "Positions Berlin", a weekend "platform", where 26 galleries give "insight into the contemporary art scene in Berlin". It's a bit confusing to see what statement it is supposed to support in the current version, but it originally supported the claim "His gallery and artists have been widely cited by peers and periodical articles". Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is a flash wesite. A lot of people won't even have a way to run that anymore. Under PRESSE, there are newsclippings from some bewildering sources, "20 Private Wohnträume", "Bunte", "Der Feinschmecker", but one is the article by Johann Michael Müller, about called Leben Ohne Mauer that was referred to at some point. It is about a photo project where A F-H invited 100 10-year old children to take pictures, 10 years after the fall of the Berlin wall. Die Welt published those pictures, but says nothing about the gallery. Vexations (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A description of a reception at the gallery. Or rather, a party. There's a cockroach race, plenty of kaviar and cigars, some appalling behaviour by various people and finally a woman in a white mink coat "elegantly" stepping over an unemployed homeless person. Nothing about the gallery or the gallerist though. Vexations (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article mentions that the gallery is in Charlottenburg, and give prices (€1400 to €7700) for work by Josef Fischnaller. Vexations (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Review of Josef Fischnaller exhibit. It cites Sophie Gerlach, and mentions that she is an employee of Galerie Friedmann-Hahn. No further mention of the gallery.
The website of the gallery itself with a newspaper clipping of an article that appeared in Die Welt of 23 February 2013, an announcement of an exhibition by Josef Fischnaller. Vexations (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper clipping of an undated article by Ingeborg Ruthe about an exhibit by Markus Fräger. No mention of the gallery or the gallerist except as the venue. Vexations (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article about exhibit of Donald Vaccino, who spent three months in Berlin at the invitation of the Galllery. Most of the works exhibited were created during that time. No further mention of the gallery. Vexations (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No menntion of the gallery, but the price range of Amanda Lear's paintings is given: €3000 to €15000. Vexations (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Duo exhibit of Josef Fischnaller and Anders Gjennestad. No mention of the gallery other than as the venue. Some mention of sales; Fischnaller's photos "werden gekauft […] wie warme Semmeln" (selling like hotcakes).
Review of Pavel Feinstein's exhibit Von Dingen und Welten. No mention of the gallery other than as the venue. Noting that his work continues to be "figuarative-representational", and that he has been exhibiting with the gallery before might be interpreted as a "program" for the gallery.
Newspaper clipping of artxcle in the Berliner Morgenpost (2013-04-13) about Joseph Fischnaller's exhibition Queens, Kings & Other Friends by Frederic Schwilden. No mention of the gallery or the gallery. Just the address. Vexations (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Ruth Schneeberger of exhibit by Josef Fischnaller. 11 page slideshow with photos of work by Fischnaller. No mention of the gallerist or the gallery.Vexations (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two quotes from Melanie Battaglia about a summer show, a group exhibition. "At the moment many visitors to Berlin come to our gallery" and "It is important to us that the painters can really paint". Mention of the type of work and the price range of the work on sale: The focus is on figurative art, which costs between €2000 and €15,000.
This article from 2000 is actually about A F-H. He's quoted talking about himself, how he is perceived and about the way he markets himself. Could be used? Probably, in a section about the gallerist early career, even though it's 18 years out of date and not about the gallery. Vexations (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent forensic work and presentation by Vexations. This is an exemplary discussion, if I may say so. -The Gnome (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: if he isn't notable enough in his own country for his own article, then why should he be notable enough to be included here?Jeff5102 (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The discussion above indicates that notability is at best borderline. In such cases I prefer deletion to avoid the maintenance overhead that comes with maintaining a BLP article current, accurate, well-sourced, etc. Sandstein 21:01, 21 April 2018 (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.
Delete. This is about as NOTNEWS as it gets. An article about one aspect of one speech (roughly the Russian equivalent of the US State of the Union). Plausibly, we could have article on each annual Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly; we do have comparable articles for each year's State of the Union. Actually doing so would probably require the assistance of Russian-fluent editors, so... that won't be me. If a 2018 Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly article existed, I'd suggest we merge or redirect or something to there. But it doesn't. So deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this is the way to frame it, this article is about a definitely notable event. This is a milestone in the history of the nuclear balance of terror. America and Russia both have strategic nuclear forces meant to deter a nuclear first strike by an enemy. This is mutually assured destruction. Starting with Reagan, the American missile defense program was meant to provide a way out of this balance, by allowing incoming missiles to be intercepted and destroyed. Putin announced a new generation of nuclear weapons delivery systems, specifically meant to get past missile defense, and blamed this escalation of the arms race on an American refusal to heed Russia's strategic concerns. If that's not notable, what is? Mporter (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Russia and weapons of mass destruction which covers this topic in a paragraph, which is much more useful than the single sentence in this article. If someone wants to write something relatively in-depth on this specific topic, it could then be split out into a separate article. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2018 (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. FWIW, a merge discussion would have been more useful, though the closure of this AfD doesn't preclude one now. ansh666 04:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because Switzerland holds so many referendums, we generally have a single article on all the referendums in a given year (Swiss referendums, 2018 for this year). There is no point in having this separate article when it can be covered in the main article (the useful text has already been merged there, but the merger was undone by this article's creator). Number57 13:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Now confirmed that the article's creator is a sockpuppet and has been blocked. I tried to G5 the article, but one of the canvassed users has since made some major edits so that G5 was no longer valid. Number57 15:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I think several editors are missing the point here. This is not a suggestion to remove this material from Wikipedia – it's noting that it should be included in another article as per the usual format rather than having a separate article. Number57 07:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Would you like to comment on how thoroughly WP:BEFORE has been properly implemented? Adèle Fisher (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure – I've been writing referendum articles on Wikipedia for over a decade, so I therefore consider myself pretty well-versed in the usual conventions for Swiss referendums and deemed there to be no need for a separate article. Number57 15:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes an item deserves its own, separate article. Why? Because that item enjoys independent notability, per Wikipedia 's criteria. And the subject of the contested article quite evidently does. This does not affect the quality of the list to which it belongs. -The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely poor sourcing on this. It's basically a promotional narrative device for a fringe group of deflationist monetary activists who've been flogging this stuff for nearly a decade with zero public notability to show for it. SPECIFICOtalk 14:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
International newspapers or agencies which covered the Sovereign Money Initiative include: Bloomberg Businessweek, City A.M., Global Finance, Handelsblatt Global Edition, Reuters, The Daily Telegraph and The Economist (between 2015 and today). Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Part of the problem with your article is that you are unwilling to differentiate primary sourced, opinion, and incidental mention of your cause from independent secondary coverage or analysis that would indicate notability. Stuffing the page with lots of marginally-related and marginally sourced or incidental content can't cure the problem. SPECIFICOtalk 16:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my article. Everyone is welcome to improve it! Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Yep, sure thing, just so long as we don't delete it -- right? SPECIFICOtalk 01:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it fair to assume that, as an experienced editor, you should be used to WP:BEFORE? The guidelines seems to clearly state that an article to be improved on a notable subject should not be deleted but actually improved. You are welcome to help if you wish. Adèle Fisher (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The "Positive Money" crowd may or may not be in the wrong but this has nothing to do with the AfD: The referendum is a fact, it is going to happen, and it is a (most) notable event. This is not about the soundness of the proposed initiative; it's about the subject of the article, whose notability is debated. On the basis of reliable sources alone, there is truly no debate: It's a stone cold, slam dunk, ball busting notable referendum, whether we're laughing or crying about it. Come June, I hope we all take a deep breath, but, until then, the article carries a fully worthy subject. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is saying it's not notable. What is being said is that there is no need to have a content fork from an article in which it is already covered. Number57 09:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we will have to agree to disagree since I find the subject independently notable (and very much so) and deserving its own, separate article. Perhaps, as the creator of "hundreds of articles" on Swiss referendums, you feel that we need to keep them neat and tidy together in a list and only in a list. That may be acceptable for votes on items of relatively minor importance. But a one-paragraph description of this particular referendum (inside a list) does not do justice to its significant subject. The issue here is fractional banking itself, for pete's sakes; not some CEO's salary. The subject deserves its own, separate article. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* - as well as being somewhat promotional, there's already the mentioned overall year article. The other referenda of the year don't have articles - this certainly is not special enough to require it. The summary in the article is already present, and somewhat more neutral, so there doesn't seem a great deal of benefit to be bought. Many of the current sources are either WP:OR or non-neutral. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, the overall yearly articles only includes short summaries about the various referendums held and it is not uncommon to have articles on popular initiatives in Switzerland. However, if you see elements of this article which can be improved, you are welcome to contribute or comment about them. Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Nosebagbear, the biased verbiage has been removed, while most sources are now reliable and neutral (except where the two sides' arguments are presented). The issue of the referendum remains of enormous importance for the world of finance, as attested by sources. You might want to revisit the text, now, as it stands, and examine if it addresses some of your objections. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look later - many thanks Nosebagbear (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I'm still not positive about it, reference quality is significantly improved, so I am happy to go keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nose, I am still not seeing more than primary source, opinion, off-topic and other sourcing that does nothing to establish notability for this separate article. SPECIFICOtalk 20:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO The proportion of OR has dropped significantly - there are still multiple sources that either are poor or marginal, but the absolute number of acceptable sources has risen sufficiently. Regarding the separate article notability - there are sufficient sources to justify it - referenda are almost always individual, it's just because the Swiss have numerous ones they are usually grouped. However that is primarily because there is less/insufficient sources for each, not because there is any particular requirement for that to be the case. I've clarified my vote as a weak, as it is, but I do believe it is correct. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, SPECIFICO, I'm amazed that you have not changed your opinion at all about the text after such an overhaul. You claim there are "no more than primary sources in it" when, in fact, there are only a couple of them which present the opposite views, as is the honest thing to do. The overwhelming majority of sources are third-party, major media, publications by major organizations, and scientific papers. Going over the text, I see no WP:OR; if I did, I'd remove it. You know what? I think you've allowed your anger against the sockpuppet to cloud your judgement; otherwise, I mean if the article had been created by someone else, you'd have no issue with the subject's notability, I'm sure. Anyway, take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course I could be mistaken. Could you list the 5 strong sources you think are independent secondary and factual reporting that demonstrate notability? Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk 23:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions, press release rehashes, opinion, all the sort of sources that verify it exists but nothing substantial enough to warrant a standalone article. A section in the general article of these Swiss flash-in-the-pan initiatives is warranted. That's it. SPECIFICOtalk 15:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for "five sources" and I give you ten full-length, dedicated reports in major media, and this is what you have to say?! A referendum about changing radically the way banks operate is nothing unusual, just a "flash in the pan"?? You're in denial, man. I rest my case. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as it has sufficient notability and reliable independent sources. It will also allow to improve it as it very likely that many more quality articles will be published in the next two months until the vote (material to add to the current article). Also, the reasons for deletions are wrong. Most referendums have just short descriptions yearly articles and little or no international coverage. This one is different as shown by the references and by its uniqueness. Adèle Fisher (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Adèle is the article's creator and unfortunately has been canvassing/WP:VOTESTACKing other editors on this AfD.[17][18][19][20]. WP:VOTESTACKing because these are all editors who !voted to keep the last article that she created when it was AfD'd (she did not notify the editors who did not support keeping the article). Number57 15:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She's also frantically adding poorly sourced and tangentially relevant material to "her" article. SPECIFICOtalk 15:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your comment, Number 57, no one opposed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive Money and Specifico was already aware of this new discussion. However, to be as fair as you suggested, I also gave this piece of news to the two users who 'commented' the above-mentioned talk. Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Greetings, Lyndaship. Perhaps you'd care to examine the text as it currently stands, after a major overhaul, and review your concerns about it. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather keep. We already have several articles on separate referendums in Switzerland. Maybe, there are some problems with sources, but the subject is important, no doubts: Switzerland is the first country voting on a similar monetary system, and it is attracting the attention of other world (See that article in English, in Handelsblatt; about the initiative (shortly) and some refs to its reviews see a Bloomberg Newsartcile). --Tamtam90 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of single issue referendum articles in that category (e.g. Swiss alcohol referendum, 1930) are ones that happened to be the only referendum in Switzerland that year, so there was no combined article. Also, yes the subject is important and would therefore be covered at Swiss referendums, 2018. The point is that there is no need for a separate article. Number57 00:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that the four-sentence summary on the yearly article is as informative as this one? Anyway, the guidelines are clear about the notability criteria and those are met here. Adèle Fisher (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
You're welcome to expand the text at Swiss referendums, 2018 – it's not limited to four sentences (which was all that was worth merging at the time I attempted to do so). Number57 15:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First of all, the argument that "Switzerland holds many referendums" (and, therefore, let's pile'em all in a list) does not hold water for a second. It is a very long time since a referendum of such importance has been held in Switzerland, in terms of financial rules, if not in the whole western world. So, the existence of a list does not mean that all referendums are of equal importance. This one needs to be presented as it deserves, i.e. in depth, with a panoramic viewpoint, and properly sourced.
Second, the June 2018 referendum has already been the subject of numerous articles in the media, as well as discussions on television around not just Europe but the US and Asia, as well. It is astonishing that contributors to this AfD would consider the sources as "poor" when we already have in the article major media outlets reporting on the referendum and its potentially significant consequences (The Economist, The Guardian, Handelsblatt, The Telegraph, Bloomberg, and so on). And as we approach the date of the referendum, the coverage is intensifying.
Third, have the AfD's contributors understood what the referendum is about?? Has WP:BEFORE been properly implemented? The change now being debated in Switzerland, and on which the citizens of country will be called to vote in June, will completely change the way the banks' financing system works there. And this, moreover, in Switzerland, a major international center of finance & banking operations. I find it unthinkable that the article is being considered for deletion. If it did not already exist, I for one would create it immediately. -The Gnome (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gnome, do you have citations for us so that we can review the TV coverage around the world. That would be helpful. SPECIFICOtalk 23:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There have been and continue to be many and extensive debates, including television debates, about the issue being voted upon in the upcoming Swiss referendum. About the referendum as such, there have been debates mostly in Switzerland, in and out of parliament. They appear to be mostly unavailable in full. For example, there was an extensive debate between UBS CEO Sergio Ermotti and an economist (see here; a public debate between the head of the Swiss Bankers Association and the initiative's lead campaigner; various parliament debates on the referendum (here or here); etc. Perhaps the TV haul will not impress English speakers. Yet, even if it did not exist at all, the coverage in printed and online media would suffice for the subject to be worthy of inclusion as an article. -The Gnome (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So Gnome, if you only have primary source Youtubes that is exactly the sort of thing we find in attempts to promote non-Notable subjects into WP articles. This has gotten little to no secondary coverage taking it seriously except to describe what's on the ballot. This is pure promotion, like hundreds of thousands of other events that do indeed occur but do not warrant their own WP articles. SPECIFICOtalk 01:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you mean by "primary sources". Debates between supporters and opponents of the referendum's subject have been held on television. Debates have taken place in Swiss parliament too. Some of them have been televised and some of the televised ones have been posted up on YouTube and other places. You asked for video clips. That is it.
Yet, once again, even discarding television (on account of language, etc), the coverage in mainstream media has been quite extensive. This is a notable subject; no two ways about it! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the canvassed editors. As for WP:BEFORE, I've created hundreds of articles on referendums, so I think I'm quite aware of the usual conventions on how we deal with Swiss ones. Number57 00:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Number 57. I do not understand your comments. What exactly are you saying or implying here? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am noting the fact that you are one of the editors that Adele requested comment here in the belief you would also support keeping the article. Number57 07:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. That is correct: I was notified of this AfD by Adèle Fisher, and I must say I'm glad I was since this is an article quite clearly worth keeping. Accident prevention, way I see it. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's a kooky initiative launched by kooks, as far as I can tell. These things happen in direct democracies, see e.g. several of the articles listed in List of California ballot propositions. It's still extensively covered, making it notable. Coverage exists not only by the international media cited in the article but of course also by leading Swiss national papers since 2014, e.g. Neue Zürcher Zeitung ([21], [22]), Der Bund ([23], [24]), Le Temps ([25], [26]). More coverage is easily found by searching for the German or French title of the initiative, "Vollgeldinitiative" / "initiative Monnaie Pleine". For what it's worth, the German language Wikipedia considers each Swiss initiative that has gathered the required 100,000 signatures automatically notable because of the coverage these things always generate. Sandstein 06:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve until outcome of vote will be known on June 10, 2018. In case of rejection, include in Swiss referendums, 2018 only. However, if this Swiss federal popular initiative would be approved by voters, it would not only be of national importance in Switzerland and justify a separate lemma. Switzerland would give up the fractional-reserve banking system of nearly all industrial nations and replace it with a system where all Swiss Francs would be issued by the Swiss National Bank only. This would certainly draw a lot of international attention. BBCLCD (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the outcome of the referendum is known. For the thing about canvassing, yes, it is arguable that it is canvassing, but on the other hand, no one !voted Delete on the Positive money AfD, so it is normal that only Keep !voters got messages. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, this is another one of the editors who was canvassed by Adele. Number57 15:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suppose, someone alerts contributors who voted in a previous AfD, when that AfD had gone unanimously one way; let's say they all voted to delete. Would that be canvassing by definition? Are we not allowed to alert others if they and everyone else had voted one way? "Mother of Mercy, is this the end of WP:CO?" -The Gnome (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is Yes that is canvassing. Are you really going to the mat defending a sockpuppet with 100+ disruptive accounts? Really? SPECIFICOtalk 15:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see me protesting the ban on the sockpuppet? Nope. Did you see me defending the canvassing? You didn't. Did you see me taking sides in the Swiss referendum? No, again. Since the beginning all I defended is the subject's notability. Nothing else whatsoever. Scripta manent, etc. The question I posted above, though written lightly, is serious. Your answer to it is that we are not allowed to alert any contributor to AfD#2 if they had participated in AfD#1 where the decision was unanimous. Fair enough, that's all I was asking. I'm not comfortable with such a state of affairs, but so be it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather artful or disingenuous "summary" of what I said. WP is not a self-publishing platform for cranks and kookabies. It's easy to get something or other in the media. Especially when digital content is free to the publisher. Money, water, religion, etc. all attract this kind of stuff. So what? SPECIFICOtalk 15:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your rather unfair accusation that I was "going to the mat" for a sockpuppet. You keep confusing the validity of an argument/idea/issue with its notability. In this, you're entirely wrong. There's an article in Wikipedia about the notion of the Earth being flat, there's another one about the divine entity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The ideas behind such concepts may be silly but the concepts deserve their place in Wikipedia because (wait for it!) they are (drum roll) no-o-o-o-table. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's clear you don't understand our notability criteria, how to differentiate independent, secondary sources, and how to count the hundreds of RS that discuss Spaghetti Monster or the tens of thousands that discuss "flat earth" the closer will know what to do with your contributions to this page. Also, don't assume everybody you insult is male. Half of them are likely to be the other way. SPECIFICOtalk 12:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting tiresome, if not ridiculous. You asked for television coverage; I provided it. Then you asked for "five sources"; I provided ten. Next, I don't understand what is an reliable source. This, after I provided almost a dozen links to media such as The Economist, Bloomberg, and others, which contain extensive, detailed and dedicated coverage. Meaning, the articles are exclusively abt the referendum, they discuss at length the referendum, and some even offer their views on it (mostly critical). Yet, you dismiss such extensive and dedicated coverage as "passing mentions", the texts from all that serious media (written by pro reporters or econ.professors) you call "press releases" (!), and what is actually reportage for you is "opinion". This, dear fellow, is denial, as I said.
As to my use of ...pronouns :-) they're not meant to imply gender but generality. I'm getting this last bit of nonsense out of the way before a mountain is made from yet another molehill. -The Gnome (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Whether the instigators of the referendum are "a fringe group of deflationist monetary activists who've been flogging this stuff for nearly a decade" or a bunch of Nobeal laureates has nothing to do with the subject's notability - is what I tried to make you understand with my example of loony ideas supported by fringe groups, such as Flat Earth. I tried, and failed. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. ATZNA 07:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are there kooks involved that don't know what they're talking about? - yes - a great many. Are there also experts that are sympathetic to these ideas that do know what they're talking about - yes, including former governor of the bank of England, Mervyn King and chief economist at the Financial Times, Martin Wolf. Reissgo (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is another one of the canvassed editors. Number57 09:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
[reply]
Given that you've made 24 edits to this AfD (rather more than my 15), perhaps you should consider taking your own advice? Number57 11:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Make as many contributions to this discussion as you must, Number 57. The horse flogging is not a reference to the number of edits you've made but rather to the exact same argument about "canvassed editors." Why you persist in pointing out that this or that contributor has been "canvassed" is beyond me. What difference does it make? Carry on, regardless; regards, The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassed !votes are usually disregarded by the closing administrator. Number57 13:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admins might disregard canvassed opinions only to the extent that there is unambiguous vote stacking. There is no hard and fast rule, as far as I know, that obliges admins to disregard canvassed input - and for good reason! As it happens, I've been "canvassed" a few times in the past, as I was here, and every time my input was against the intentions of the canvasser! :-) Case in point right here (but, in your raging quest to eliminate the article, you cannot see it): I was notified of this AfD by a firm PM-believer and how did that end for the article itself? It was completely changed (see its history) and all the abject, unsupported, overweighted nonsense was replaced by somber, sourced background. -The Gnome (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Gnome is highly motivated. But the worst part is that @Reissgo: is himself one of the real life advocates aligned with Positive Money, who promote his self-published nonsense deflationist theories. On WP, Reissgo never misses a chance to push cherrypicked or misappropriated (SYNTH) article content citing his idol, Baron King Mervyn of Lothbury, or the news writers who recite Positive Money's anti-commerce propaganda in print and web venues. From a community POV, Reissgo's comments here can be disregarded. SPECIFICOtalk 12:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the views of Reissgo (real person, according to his own user page: Michael Reiss). Once again, personal views about the validity of the argument involved in the June 2018 referendum do not matter in the slightest. This is almost exclusively about the subject's notability. The input by Reissgo in this AfD is as legitimate as yours or mine. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COIWp:spa disruption does not matter around here? Very refreshing. Thanks for your opinion. SPECIFICOtalk 13:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Single-purpose accounts are typically and rightly frowned upon. In Reissgo's contributions record, to be fair, I see more than one subject. As to the potential for a conflict of interest, we need to be careful. I have a COI when, for example, I post up an article about my shop or my biography. I do not have a COI when I post up an article about a person I happen to admire or an ideology I happen to believe in. That is not COI but something else. If a Wikipedia editor is an acolyte of Positive Money and posts about subjects related to PM, this is not COI but grounds for potential bias, which is a similar looking yet different animal. We should be careful, otherwise the Wikipedia alphabet soup can turn quite nasty. -The Gnome (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2018 (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 only claims to notability as a muscien are as being a finalist in a couple of competitions. WP:COMPOSER expressly states "Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers." this is I am afraid a case of WP:TOOSOON. The other sources are not sufficient to show he meets WP:GNGDom from Paris (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article was written by a student at a major university studying Kolat's work. Kolat was selected by the professor of the course as a topic--the composer did not contribute to either the class nor the Wiki entry. While it is poorly written (and certainly deserves a good {{cleanup poor writing}}, it seems extreme to label it as a case of WP:TOOSOON considering the number of composers and artists with pages and less recognition than Kolat. The Dutilleux and Takemitsu awards are among the largest international awards for composers. He won first prize in the Takemitsu. Template:expert-subject should be considered before dismissing major awards in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea2nyc (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the writing that I am concerned about bybthe fact that the article does not prove that he meets Wikipedia standards of notability for inclusion. Concerning the Dutilleux prize I could find very little mention of it. It is . composition prize held in a very small French town with a 1st prize of €5000. It is not mentioned on the WP pages for the town and the composer neither in French nor English. Are you sure it is amongst the largest awards of this type? The Takemitsu award is for young composers and the criteria specifically exclude this kind of award. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your feedback is fine. Yes, the Dutilleux is held in a small town and the monetary prize is small. However, it is a sought out prize both judged and held by major contemporary composers. Within the small field of contemporary composition, it is a major honor. Most major competitions are for composers under 35--composers who have, in most cases, finished their doctoral studies: see Gaudeamus International Composers Award--which is included for many Wiki entries as the only major award the composer has won. The Takemitsu is a major honor for both the finalists and the judges. If you do not have an expertise in the field, I don't think you can adequately assess the level of these honors. If you did have the expertise, you would know both awards by name. My credentials: musicologist specializing in 20th and 21st-century music."the composer neither in French nor English" I'm confused by this statement: Henri Dutilleux French composer.
you're right I may not have been clear but what I am saying that there is no mention of this prize that you are saying is a major prize on either the composer's page or the town's page here on Wikipedia. And that goes for the French and English versions. I could find very little on the web to attest to its importance. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia that covers all and any subjects matter and there are notability guidelines that are relatively clear even for non experts (by the way you should avoid making personal comments about other editors as you have no idea where their expertise lies over and above what they chose to write). Please read WP:NMUSIC and try and find the sources that meet the criteria. It says major prizes with the exception of those for young composers. You may not like that but those are the criteria. This deletion discussion is sorted in such a way that those people interested in music related discussions will be informed about it and it is possible that some will back up your claims about the prize. If they do it will have to be supported by sources that show that this is a major prize as per the criteria I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to split hairs, but #4 under the criteria says "Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers." There is a semantic issue here--"newcomer" is different than an age limit, no? It does not say "with the exception of those for young composers." We aren't discussing a prize given to 15 year olds trying to write their first orchestral work; 35 is hardly a newcomer age--and just happens to be the cut off for this competition. Again, I refer you to Gaudeamus International Composers Award which is a important award given to those under 35. So if we are discussing the issue is the age limit, composers who have pages using the Gaudeamus as their only major award must be scrutinized as well, no see:Sampo Haapamäki? For the record, I don't think either of these articles deserves deletion. As for the Dutilleux--the internet is not crawling with sources on this award. It was established in 1990 by people in their 70s, and its presence online is not of importance to the award itself--unlike Gaudeamus, which has a very good marketing campaign. One must look at previous winners and their accomplishments post-award to decipher the importance of the award itself. I do not have any problems with either the rules or the criteria and am sorry if I offended you (and I will be careful in the future), but Wikipedia has encouraged academics to engage with this forum, which I am doing, bringing my own expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea2nyc (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry I wasn't insulted but as you are a new user I was just giving some friendly advice about etiquette here on Wikipedia. We try and avoid personal comments if we can. Look I really don't know if this prize is usually taken into consideration or not. I have left a message on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers talk page to ask for participation. BTW that would be a good project to join if you are interested in bringing your experience to good use here. Anyway probably better for us to let other editors join the discussion and see what they think. CheersDom from Paris (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious keep. Sea2nyc makes an important point by referring to the actual text of WP:COMPOSER - "young" is certainly not synonymous with "newcomer", in this case aged 31 and already three years beyond his first competition prize (interestingly when he was a actual newcomer he won 2nd prize in a competition that has no age limit). I have not found enough on the standing of the Dutilleux competition to comment on that, but I find a reaonable amount of general coverage in French national media in recent years; the Takemitsu prize is more generally known, though I suspect the coverage is stronger in Japanese sources, which I cannot easily search. Davidships (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Davidships do you have an opinion on the Takemitsu prize and whether it qualifies as a major prize as per the guidelines? Dom from Paris (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We know that "major music competition" is not defined but, on the face of it, the Takemitsu prize is highly prestigious: it was established by the most internationally famous Japanese composer of art music (he had set it in motion and planned its first three years before his death in 1996), all the judges have been leading contemporary composers from around the world (every one with a significant WP article) and it is supported by Japan's senior classical orchestra. And of course it is notable, having its own article here for nearly a decade. That all adds up to "major" in my book. If I were a young composer in the early years of my professional career, winning such a competition would undoubtedly be highly prized. Davidships (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 16:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toru Takemitsu Composition Award. There's very little in terms of third-party reliable sourcing about Kolat aside from the competition awards, so the merits of this deletion discussion have to fall to whether or not the Toru Takemitsu Composition Award and a 2nd place award at the Concours Dutilleux constitute major awards in the context of the notability guideline. And there, I'm going to have to say that, no, I don't believe they do. To start, I don't think the Concours Dutilleux is the sort of competition that was intended by the parenthetical bit about second place awards. While it may be prestigious locally, and I'm certain that it's an honor for its participants, it is a small event with very little third-party coverage. I read French well enough to go digging for French sources, and there's not a lot out there, in any language, that would be considered independent sourcing. We don't have an article on it, and I don't think it's notable under our standards (the French Wikipedia article is entirely unreferenced); even if it were marginally notable here, that's surely not a "major competition" of a level such that 2nd place confers notability. So we are down to whether the Toru Takemitsu Competition win is sufficient. That's certainly an interesting event. It's not a juried competition in the traditional sense, but rather awards are assigned by a single celebrity judge (and who isn't bound by normal award scoring; Kolat is in fact one of two "First Prize" recipients that year). None of the sources in its current article are acceptable (the Australian Music Centre source is an entry in a very long, indiscriminate collection of music awards, and the rest are not independent of the source), but there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources that a compliant article on the competition could be written. But I don't think a shared win at a single non-juried competition is what that notability guideline intended, in the absence of reliable, third-party coverage of the composer himself. Accordingly, I'd support a redirect to the notable competition's article, where Kolat is already included in the list of winners. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject of the article here. Thanks to all for your time. After reading the discussion, I must say that the focus on the competitions is rather unbalanced. Non-vernacular new music composition is primarily an academic field, because of that, the consideration of a composer’s notability should always be based on her contributions to her field, not on the awards. Awards and recognitions in arts often fail to function as measures of contribution. Certain influential composers to whose music I refer on daily basis have only a few awards, or no awards whatsoever in their bios (and most of them don’t have Wiki pages as well). Others, despite of their impressive lists of prizes, grants, and commissions, fail to spark any genuine artistic inspiration and/or scholarly discussion with their works. That said, I do not claim any notable contribution to my field, that is a decision to be made by my colleagues and musicologists. However, if I were ever appear in an encyclopedic source, I’d prefer to do so with notable contributions to my field, not with a list of awards. Racehorses should be subjects of purely award-based discussions, not artists. Please delete this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8500:8253:448E:44CA:1378:5C67 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2018 (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. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Guy's film won the best picture Genie, which is like the Oscar but Canadian. We wouldn't be talking about deleting the producer of a best picture Oscar winner. Also, he's well respected in Canadian LBGT circles e.g. per this source. The guy's films are pretty widely reviewed in the Canadian press as well and he's written about himself, which I can see in a database but not link through to. Here are a couple:
FILM; Brueggergosman stars in Brown Girl prequel Chronicle Herald, The (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) - November 19, 2015
Strategic Partners strike deals at Atlantic Film Festival; Canadian producer Cass to work with South African company for upcoming feature film Chronicle Herald, The (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) - September 23, 2006
STAR-CROSSED LOVE, CROSS-DRESSED CAST IN `LILIES' Plain Dealer, The (Cleveland, OH) - June 12, 1998
Keep. This definitely needs some referencing improvement, but producing a Genie Award for Best Motion Picture winner is a valid notability claim for a film producer, in exactly the same way that is true at the Oscars or the BAFTAs — and for a producer whose notability clincher took place in 1996, a simple Google search would not be expected to turn up the strongest coverage of him, because Google is only useful for locating recent media coverage and not for locating 20-year-old media coverage. Wikipedia does not have any requirement that our sources be web-published — we are allowed to cite books and magazines and pregooglable newspapers retrieved from archival databases or microfilms. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2018 (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. ansh666 04:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New article from a new editor that would have been stopped by WP:ACREQ. One ref bio about an actor who had two parts that are not referenced in the show's articles. Fails WP:ENT. This is why new users should start by editing existing pages. Here is the very short IMDB [27]Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP for now at least. I wouldn't really consider his IMDB page to be short considering that he has almost 50 credits. His role on Raising Hope was actually a pretty big one, appearing in more than half of the episodes a d more than any other recurring character. He has also guest started on several big shows like NCIS and Bones. At the very least the article should be given a little bit of time to be expanded before deleting it. JDDJS (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please don't delete his article!!! He is the best actor ever!!!! You guys are crazy! Dag-bernit Wikipedia users! People just wanna make the Wikipedia bigger and funner! Just don't do it! Maude~Duggel (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any argument grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines? WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Iffy★Chat -- 09:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete IMDb is not a reliable source. It often inclusdes total falsehoods. It is not an acceptable source, so it does not matter how long an entry is there. Beyond this, Wikipedia does not aim to cover every actor ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDb is enough to escape WP:BLPPROD, but not enough to show notability for AFD; it is not, ever, a reliable source. Note that the other reference in the article as of this writing only mentions Giebenhain as a "guest star", in the caption of the photo, not in the article text at all. That said, I can find quite a few passing mentions to him, largely from his role on Raising Hope, but nothing that constitutes significant coverage. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep you guys don't want to keep one of the greatest actor's page anyone has ever seen, Todd Giebenhain is the king of acting! Not freaking Shahrukh Khan or Jack Nicholson! Those two suck! Maude~Duggel (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't vote twice. Legacypac (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (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. Sandstein 21:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PRODed twice already. I concur with User:Scope creep's rationale: "Fails the new WP:NCORP standard. Startup with routine news coverage, e.g. funding." SmartSE (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was planning to Afd it. The new WP:NCORP notability standard could almost be explicity written for this article. Delete. scope_creep (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Corporate spam, no indications of notability. They appear to have one a couple of awards but these awards are not prestigious enough to meet the criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:14, 18 April 2018 (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. ansh666 04:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has almost no sources besides press release from Ashton-Magnuson Media. All other sources are announcements. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Creator is an undisclosed paid editor. Vexations (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I almost requested this be speedily deleted under CSD A7. Decided I wasn't quite comfortable doing that, that recurring annually for a decade might be a valid claim to significance. Either way, definitely agree this doesn't demonstrate notability. —Compassionate727(T·C) 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for speedy deletion under G11. That was declined as "speedy declined. not blatant advertising, at least not enough for speedy deletion". Fair enough, if you think that announcing your company's next upcoming event is not blatant advertising, or not all of the article is advertising because it also contains a list of previous events. Vexations (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy deletion. Assuming for purposes of argument that this is a notable event, wouldn't you expect an article about it to list the previous occurrences and the next scheduled occurrence? The statements are factual in form. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: No, I wouldn't. I would expect only those events to be listed that can be sourced to independent, reliable media, and I would not expect future events to be listed at all, unless there is clear evidence that the preparations themselves have been covered in such sources, akin to how we only write about upcoming movies if principal photography has been completed (and written about). Vexations (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources now in the article do not establish its notability (ehich is why I tagged it for possible lack of notability). However, was a WP:BEFORE search done? It isn't mentioned in the nomination statement. What sort of search did you do, Vexations? Alos, saying that the creator is an undisclosed paid editor is a serious accusation. Is there any evidence for it? DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegelWhat sort of search did you do My process for new page review is supported by a set of tools I developed specifically for my own use at NPP. I read every (online) source, check it against the claims, and then check all of the sources to see if, where, and how often they have been used in other articles and look for indications of independence and reliability. I enter every source that I assess in a database, with notes and rankings for reliability and independence. When I encounter a source again, I can assure myself that I treat those sources consistently and maintain a level of integrity that I find fitting for a reviewer. To comply with WP:BEFORE (which isn't policy BTW) I use {{Find sources}} and sometimes, when warranted, my subscriptions of to Gale, JSTOR and OneFile. I'm happy to explain how I review further if you like, but I don't think it is germane to this discussion. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Vexations. That sounds rather more meticulous than many AfD nominators are. WP:BEFOrE may not be strictly policy, but I think it is petty clearly implied by the deletion policy and particularly the section WP:ATD, which says If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I am glad that you do make such a search. I tend to regard AfD noms on notability grounds which do not mention a BEFORE search as flawed if not invalid. You cause me to incline more to deletion here. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (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. ansh666 04:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Failed AfC submission. Article creator copied all text (including AfC templates) and pasted into mainspace. Lack of reliable sources. I question it's notability. Vermont | reply here 12:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are a couple of refs from The Hindu which look ok, it was declined at afc because these weren't enough. Szzuk (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. The founder appears to be notable but notability is not inherited. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:19, 18 April 2018 (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. Sources don't seem to provide notability. Note that there is no requirement or even suggestion that sources we consider reliable are themselves notable. ansh666 04:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I think is now clear, coverage of Pagini Românești is slight indeed, and "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is basically non-existent. For that reason, we should delete. - BiruitorulTalk 17:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that an article about a newspaper that is quoted quite often in Wikipedia is not meant to have a page.
IQ Ads does not publish paid articles. Or at least, what I saw was not the case with the example quoted. There are articles with far fewer quoted sources (see Evenimentul zilei). The newspaper in question is published from 2001, it is not something new and it is important for Romanian community in Canada.
I cleaned the references again. I would prefer constructive suggestions, especially because I want to make pages for the rest of the Romanian publications in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgraur (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if "IQ Ads" were a completely legitimate source (it isn't), the only fact attested by that article is that one Viorel Anghel is editor of this paper. Given that every newspaper on earth has an editor (some of whom are notable individuals in their own right), this doesn't really get us to notability. - BiruitorulTalk 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 20:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of Pagini Romanesti in scholarly sources or mainstream media despite 15 years since it's foundation. My Lord (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One blog post by a marginal politician and one interview with a Japanese judo coach that happened to be picked up by Romania's mainstream media do not constitute significant coverage of Pagini Românești newspaper. It's been weeks since this discussion began, and I think it's quite clear by now that no real indication of notability is going to emerge. - BiruitorulTalk 17:41, 19 April 2018 (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. Despite the assertion of additional sources, they don't seem to provide notability, and WP:NPROF doesn't seem to be met. ansh666 04:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable academic, I've added sources and more are available. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar shows citation count too low for WP:PROF#C1[28]. Journal editor could pass a different WP:PROF criterion but only for a significant and well-established journal, which this one doesn't seem to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So... what happens now that this has been relisted twice with no more input?Schnapps17 (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2018 (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. No consensus for a particular outcome has transpired. North America1000 09:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probable keep. This is of an age where online information is going to be scanty. However, there are some indications it could be notable with some library searches. Some of its history is in back issues of Retail Business. Only snippet view available on gbooks but it appears to be reasonably detailed. There are lots of passing mentions of their takeover and merges, and they frequently get mentioned taking part in the battle over Sunday trading laws of the era. Court cases concerning their Sunday trading are cited as precedent cases in books on law. SpinningSpark 14:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needs more than one reference to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rpclod: Well the book Tales from the Marketplace gives it a couple of paragraphs. Not much, but it's strongly encyclopaedic with citable facts on the history. Note also that the Retail Business source I linked above is a volume of issues and Payless DIY seems to have articles in two separate issues of the magazine. The magazine Do-it-yourself Retailing is again only snippet view but appears to have a substantial article. This book seems to have a lot more than a passing mention, snippet view won't give anything that can be put in the article but almost certainly there will be something there if the full article is accessed. The legal actions on Sunday trading I mentioned above [29][30][31][32][33] are passing mentions, but together could probably add a sentence or two to the article The first source in that list in particular is a secondary source that puts the cases in the context of the effectiveness of political lobbying. SpinningSpark 09:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 16:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - expecting a simple Google search to throw up much on a 1980s chain seems fruitless. It looks like someone needs to roll up their sleeves and do some historic research and citations on this one, with Google Books being a decent starting point. I'm seeing multiple decent discussions in sources like Investors Chronicle, and an 1994 book on one of its parent companies. I do wonder if it would be better placed as part of an article on Ward White - which seems to have more significant references, and seems to have significance in the history of Boots UK and the Sunday Trading Act 1994Mattyjohn (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:32, 13 April 2018 (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.
Mostly unsourced and (partly copyvio) hagiography of a Shia cleric in Kashmir which doesn't appear to credibly assert notability per WP:BIO. I've searched online yesterday and today for WP:RS on him: this is difficult for a bio of someone from Kashmir, and transliteration of his name is not given here or anywhere I can find online. So I've used a best-efforts transliteration of "آغا سید مصطفی موسووی", and can find nothing in WP:RS under that spelling either. His main claim to fame seems to be as the successor to his father-in-law, Ayatullah Aga Syed Yusuf Al-Moosavi Al-Safavi. I do see a few WP:RS in GNEWS about that similarly-named relative online, but WP:Notability is not inherited. The only source cited in the article that mentions him is the source of the copyvio, [34], an obituary from the organisation he founded and led, Anjuman-e-Sharie Shian, which I wouldn't consider to be a WP:RS. Some of the claims in the article, about a leadership struggle in which Iranian ayatollahs got involved, might make him notable if we could find some sources for it. But these might be in one of several languages. I tried to cut it down to a stub in the hopes of Farsi, Kashmiri, and Arabic speakers getting involved with referencing and proving me wrong about his notability, but was repeatedly reverted by the article's creator, a new editor. I'd be amenable to moving this to draft, if other editors think there's a good likelihood of verifying some of the claims made. But as far as I can tell he fails WP:BIO. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per [35][36], [37], [38] I suspect he is notable, and is usually referred to as Agha Syed Mustafa and leading a large part of this group following a 1982 split. His sons also went on to senior positions. I am holding off my !vote as I am not sure about the quality of the sourcing here, but my gut feeling is that he probably is notable - though the language issue (and naming variants, including the whole leadership family being named in a very similar fashion complicating things) as well as lack of on-line references (the 80s are actually tricky - much is not digitized, and you have less book coverage than earlier periods) might make finding stuff difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a help, didn't occur to me to search on just "Aga (or Agha) Syed Mustafa". And I forgot to mention, their surname is also romanized various ways online: so far I've seen Moosavi, Mosavi, Moosvi, and Mosvi. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The romanized Persian is usually Mousavi (regarding Kashmiri translits, well..... it seems to vary), but it seems that the last two components of the name ("Al-Moosavi Al-Safavi" - with or without the al-....) are often dropped.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So are you satisfied with Icewhiz's response and the sources contained therein, The Mighty Glen? Would you like to withdraw the AfD or continue? — Nearly Headless Nick{c} 18:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The response from User:Icewhiz was welcome, but I don't see how we can judge notability at this point, with the references currently cited. There's a ton of references added since the AFD began, but most don't mention him, and it's difficult for me to judge the reliability of the ones that do. I'd be content with a "no consensus" for now. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some do, but in passing. I suspect he is notable, but will not !vote bolded as I am unsure of source quality here and the level of my topic area knowledge (and given I just suspect notability). A no consensus would not be a bad close (assuming no experienced India/Pakistan editors weigh in).Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:32, 13 April 2018 (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.
Not seeing any notability, most of the sourcesare not about the organisation as far as I can tell. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know Slatersteven. I have followed the progress of a number of English Residents' Associations. CHSRA's work appears more noteworthy than most other RAs, but perhaps that's subjective. Is there anything you would recommend I should do to improve the article? Best regards DrJonathanOsterman (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There need to be in depth third party coverage of them to establish notability, not really seeing any of that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a fairly new organisation, established in March 2017. Yet when comparing it with other English Residents' Association wikipedia pages, there's hardly much "in-depth" third party coverage on them either. Havering Residents Association for instance. I struggle to see how I can improve it further, but would appreciate your guidance. I have cited newspaper articles describing CHSRA's work. DrJonathanOsterman (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is all irrelevant, if it is too new to be notable it is too new for an article, and other stuff exists is not a valid keep argument (rather it is a valid argument to AFD those pages). Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Havering Residents Association seems to be most notable not for the standard activities of a residents' association, but because it also acts as a local political party. Its success at getting its members elected as councillors over a number of years has in turn had a profound effect on the local politics of the London Borough of Havering, making Havering politics very different from that of most other English local authorities. Consequently, one occasionally finds articles about Havering politics in non-local publications such as this one from The Guardian. And this kind of non-local coverage contributes strongly to Wikipedia notability, while purely local coverage scarcely contributes at all to notability. Chadwell Heath South Residents' Association seems to be an exemplary residents' association, getting a lot of favourable local publicity - but, being local, this unfortunately does not contribute to Wikipedia notability. PWilkinson (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the fact that there are hardly any citations, to show this, on the page of Havering Residents' Association; thus meaning that a non-local reader would have no idea of its notoriety, on non-local publications such as The Guardian, unless they carried out independent research. I'm not disputing Havering RA's credibility, far from it. Yet it seems that, for you, a Residents' Association is only deemed notable, on Wikipedia, if it is POLITICAL. Reigate and Banstead Residents Association, Merton Park Ward Residents Association and Old Windsor Residents' Association are further examples of pages that do not explore organisations in-depth, or appear to be written by active members, and arguably don't have much notability by your standards either. No other editors appear to follow my viewpoint, so I leave it to you. The CHSRA logo has already been removed, so you can do what you wish with the article. I'm sure in years to come someone will come back and try again, with a better article; hopefully by then you'll be satisfied with CHSRA's notability. All the best DrJonathanOsterman (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree many of these do fail notability they all seem to actually be political parties, so they are not quote analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable residents organisation. Created by a spa with ref bombing. The refs where they mention the organisation are social media, otherwise they aren't related. Szzuk (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for clarity there are 3 delete votes in this afd, myself, the nom and user PWilkinson who has said this article is not notable (without explicitly voting), there is one keep vote from the article creator an spa and likely coi. Szzuk (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2018 (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 is keep, if the available information changes it can be renominated. (non-admin closure)Szzuk (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Related to the recent AfD I put up on Geneseo station. Appears to be a bus terminal at present with insufficient sources to say "if" it'll become a railway(road) station. Sources however repeatedly stipulate project is on hold Nightfury 11:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it's moved beyond just a plan (and into construction) and the building itself is independently notable as a former railroad station. SounderBruce 03:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the overall renovated building has parts in use now, but I'm not sure anything that is truly a train station is under construction yet: The latest source cited in the Wikipedia article indicated that the "interior of the train station" would be done by May 2017, but that might just mean the glass hall on the side of the building; and that the hotel would be done by August 2017, not the train station. The claim "passenger rail service to commence soon thereafter" is not supported at all by the source given for that claim. --Closeapple (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: This article was titled "Moline (Amtrak station)" until yesterday. Some relevant points: According to "Train project still on track" (2018-02-25), "there is no update on a timeline other than 'it is in the state of Illinois' five-year plan.'". But the future train station is actually part of a multi-use building now called the "Q", and overall that development is progressing: An Element Hotel just opened in the building. https://www.moline.il.us/1367/5th-Avenue-Building-Hotel-Project calls this the "Fifth Avenue Building/Sears Roebuck Building".(Correction: The building we're talking about is 316 12th Street at 4th Avenue. The Fifth Avenue Building, shown in File:Fifth Avenue Building.jpg, is 1620–1630 5th Avenue at 17th Street, a different building that is also an old Sears building that developers also hope becomes a hotel in the same historic district.)"Officials expect The Q to be ready in May" also calls this the "O'Rourke Building". http://www.moline.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/1871 shows the building as a contributing property just inside the Moline Downtown Commercial Historic District, with the boundary running through the new eastern extension of the building where the train station will be, so I don't know if the future train station is technically inside or outside the historic district. However, "Why It Took So Long To Build “The Q” in Downtown Moline" (2017-12-26) mentions building the Grand Hall on the east side of the building, saying "We had to follow the 106 Process, because we used federal money in a historic building so this building is on the National Register," so maybe this article could be merged into Moline Downtown Commercial Historic District, particularly if it were about the Q in general; or maybe there is enough substantial coverage about the building to get it to Wikipedia:General notability guideline already. --Closeapple (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Closeapple's information, the historic building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, not as an individual listing but as a contributing building in a historic district. We have lots of articles on such buildings, which can be presumed to be at least marginally notable, but also we don't have to have a separate article. Here, it seems appropriate for the current article to cover the historic station and also current station and/or planned future station. Seems like there's plenty going on about this. Revisit in 5 years if not settled out more clearly by then. Also, as Closeapple suggests, merger/redirect into the historic district article is also a possibility as a wp:ATD alternative to deletion, but this is complicated enough as it is, and Keep is simply better. --Doncram (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. It was already a station and even on the NRHP. Even if it doesn't return to passenger service, it's still notable. --Oakshade (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What is the "it" in Moline that "was already a station" and had "passenger service"? (See below — still not sure what "it" that "was".) You made the same blanket claim over 5 unbuilt stations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere station, when one of them (Lena station) also doesn't even have a claim of a station ever being in that town. --Closeapple (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of fairness: I've done some more digging. Moline had at least 3 train stations simultaneously in the past; so I still have no idea what Oakshade means by "it" that "already was a station". Also, none of these sources are enough to prove WP:GNG, and I see no evidence that any of them have any relation to the site of The Q:
I found a couple photographs of a train station in Moline, opened in 1900 for the Davenport, Rock Island & North Western Railway, and closed in 1934; it was torn down circa 2016. Despite the "Rock Island" in the name, it apparently was not part of the CRI&P that everyone thinks of today. According to Union Station (Davenport, Iowa), the DRI&NW was bought jointly in 1901 by the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad and the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad. (None of this is "substantial coverage" for WP:GNG.)
According to The WPA Guide to Illinois, there were three train stations in Moline by the 1930s: the CB&Q at 1929 4th Avenue; the Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific at 2016 3rd Avenue (which sounds awfully close to the CB&Q, doesn't it?); and the Rock Island Lines (presumably the CRI&P since the other two railroads owned the DRI&NW) in the 1800 block of 4th Avenue. (This is just a listing of services in the city, not substantail coverage for WP:GNG.)
http://www.greenfrog.com/rocketsDefy_BD.shtml sells a video called Rock Island: The Rockets Defy Discontinuance which mentions that there was a "Quad Cities" service from Chicago to Moline in 1971. (Doesn't show whether the content of the video is substantial coverage of any Moline station for WP:GNG.)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there's sufficient ifnomration to call it a station now , and historically tit seems clear that there was one. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 18 April 2018 (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. ansh666 04:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly seems right on the edge, however, I believe this fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. While a BEFORE search of Google News finds voluminous hits to Tsipursky, they all come in the form of bylines and boilerplate bios after a bylined article; sources, in other words, that are not WP:INDEPENDENT and don't help us reliably establish any biographical information about him other than the fact he is a living person and prolific essayist. As of now we don't even have enough information on Tsipursky to establish a date of birth. Chetsford (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Located sources for date and place of birth; added references to coverage in independent news sources. Branchc (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Located sources for date and place of birth" Facebook, you mean? Chetsford (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for date of birth - it seems like in this case it meets the guidelines as a reliable source since it's an official page of the subject. Branchc (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when we are reduced to using facebook to source anything that is a strong indication the person is non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case this guideline may need to be reconsidered:
"As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.)"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take a shot at improving this article before a decision is made. I think there is more newsworthy information that has not been added. I agree that it is difficult to find biographical information but I feet he is notable due to recent political activity with the Pro Truth Pledge. I think better sources can be found for the material on the page and it can be expanded somewhat. I'm a fairly minor person here without a ton of edits so forgive me if this is not how this is done.--Slroney (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to meet the extensive coverage requirement based on my reading of the requirement and his media appearances. While the article certainly fails WP:NACADEMIC I disagree that it fails WP:GNG.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please also refer to WP:INDEPENDENT. Having one's byline appear on a large number of articles one wrote is usually not considered "extensive coverage." Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely does not meet WP:BIO and based on google scholar does not meet WP:PROF. Signs point to undisclosed paid editing. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to say anything, however, I did find it unusual that the four editors who have opined to keep, or commented on the AfD Talk page, each have less 140 total edits and have all also decided to make this the first AfD in their editing history on which they chose to comment. Chetsford (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is well known in other communities for using "paid contractors" hired from upwork to promote himself, so undisclosed paid editing seems very likely. Coverage by him is not independent coverages "about" him so failsWP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. AlasdairEdits (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suspect a touch of autobiography as well - User:Gleb Tsipursky uploaded the headshot at commons more than once Ronhjones (Talk) 22:02, 20 April 2018 (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 09:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists are valid Wikipedia articles and navigational aids. "Delete because it's a list" is a non-argument. Hindawi is one of the major open-access publishers, and most if not all of its publications are notable. Currently 15 out of 248 entries have articles, with an additional 10 redirecting here. This number could easily shoot up to hundreds and helps facilitate article creation of notable journals, and curb article creation of non-notable journals by providing a good target to link to. It also helps with disambiguating journal-related searches. The list has encyclopedic value, and should therefore be kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is useful to have lists of notable journals (not necessarily all journals) published by notable publishers. If this list was deleted it would set a worrying precedent and many other similar lists e.g. Copernicus journals , Pensoft journals would also have to be deleted. There is no need to delete this list if it is a helpful navigational aid which I think it is. Metacladistics (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no lists for Copernicus or Pensoft (and neither is very notable at that). In addition, I'm not sure I see how a list consisting mainly of black "links" helps in navigation... --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at some of the journals with articles I suspect many of them wouldn't pass WP:GNG on their own. This is hardly a navigational list, it's a list of journals that exist. Ajf773 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather keep. Other similar lists lack (or don't have at all) any reliable sources, and the nominated list is useful, for editors and readers. --Tamtam90 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's classical WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And "it's useful" is not a particularly strong argument either. --Randykitty (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, in other case. But, since all journals from the nominated list are "open-sourced", it could be incredibly worth and useful for our editors and readers (WP:IGNORE, probably, is more appropriate for this case). --Tamtam90 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So if this was a "traditional" publisher with journals only accessible through subscriptions, you would !vote "delete"? --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Open or not is a red herring either way. Hindawi is notable, as are most of their journals. Wikipedia is not improved by deleting the list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Helps in identification. The journals do not mostly need separate articles, but people will come her and look for the names, and this provides at least some identification. Hindawi is somewhat different from most of the companies whose publishing methods have been questioned; they publish some respectable journals. Personally, I do not consider them necessarily abusive. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (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.
Lots of unreferenced, dubious claims; it's been tagged for five years and the one valid reference is to a study protocol, not actual research. NE Ent 01:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 16:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tenuous Keep There certainly are sufficient potential links for this topic to establish notability. Andrew D. - some brief research seems to indicate that manual massage is a sub-area of soft tissue therapy Lengthy Piece covers a fair amount, including rolling in that categorisation. Whether those who specialise in manual massage would have that viewpoint I'm not sure, but I ran across that categorisation in multiple sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to manual therapy, I think this is what is described in the article. Szzuk (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. or mergeto manual therapy. I'm not sure whether or not this is a varient name, or a someone different system of practice. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 18 April 2018 (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. This has been open since March 28, which seems long enough, especially as it is now attracting a sock farm and a bunch of SPA IPs. Once the sock/SPA !votes are discounted, the consensus is almost unanimous based largely on the inadequacy of the sources used. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2018 (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.
Not seeing enough to pass WP:GNG. Only one source might amount to WP:SIGCOV, the Marketing Week that I cannot see without joining. Edwardx (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is suffering badly from a mix of link rot and weak/promotional sources, but the subject has won awards or been included on major figures lists by all the major marketing trade press, including a very recent profile (you can view by just clicking to close the registration pop-up). Needs clean-up and updating, but seems on the top end of notablity within marketing. Mattyjohn (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. Where is the general, wider notability, beyond the sporadic mentions in trade media? (Ad media, at that.) I half-jokingly accept the subject's own verdict about "his children’s births, his wedding, [and] Luton Town’s 1988 Cup win" being more important. We have WP:TOOSOON doing overtime in entrepreneur-related articles. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and the whole thing is written promotionally, like a resume. The article is a poorly sourced list of accomplishments for himself. ElassintHi 19:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is at the top end of notability within marketing. The subject was in the news in March 2018 for receiving an Honorary Doctorate that will take place in July 2018. [39]. Just needs links cleaned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accu1987 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC) — Accu1987 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ubuntuforum (talk • contribs). [reply]
Comment New editor, only edit has been to vote on this AfD. Likely sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is more than enough evidence for this subject to pass WP:GNG. The subject, in addition to what is written above, being awarded a Doctorate in 2018, has enough verifiable, objective evidence and significant attention from independent sources. From a quick search online I can see the subject is a judge of marketing excellence in the UK from an article published today, 18th April 2018. The subject has been consistently in the news around the marketing industry for over a decade and thus is not a mere short-term interest. Ubuntuforum 17:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC) — Ubuntuforum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment 12/13 of Ubuntuforum's edits have been to the article or this AfD. On User talk:Ubuntuforum in 2012, they state: "Yes, I know John personally, we work in the same industry and I have known him for almost 5 years." Edwardx (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This passes WP:GNG. High notability within the marketing field based on suitable sources and the subject demonstrates significant recognition within the marketing industry. The subject has been updated to correct broken URLs, and also updated to include coverage announcing the subject's election as a Trustee to the world's leading marketing body in November 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8C10:B500:1074:D0B5:C839:89CA (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:8C10:B500:1074:D0B5:C839:89CA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (IP is checkuser blocked - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. This is a field where we have to be particularly careful; articles about people whose profwesssion is promotion atend to be just extensions of their own promotionalism about their own profession. In this particular case, the doctorate is just an alumni award. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are only allowed to vote once. Edwardx (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This subject clearly passes WP:GNG. The subject has been newsworthy since 2006 including producing a global innovation in the advertising industry that is used today. The subject continues with high notability in the industry with Coverage in 2017 and 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodw (talk • contribs) 10:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC) — Goodw (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ubuntuforum (talk • contribs). [reply]
+1 to the point above that is crossed out. Subjects who work in advertising, marketing or promotions should not be excluded from wikipedia because they work in a promotional job. We need to be mindful to not tarnish a group or individual due to the nature of their work. To also +1 the point above, the subject was awarded an 'Honorary' doctorate alongside a Nobel prize winner, given to 'Individuals who have been deemed worthy of special recognition for contributions to society'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate. This subject has high notability within that industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodw (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Comment User has only six edits, all either to the article or this AfD. Edwardx (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Multiple sources to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. High notability. Suggest changing the subject title to john Bernard instead of John d. Bernard . A search for John Bernard marketing or John Bernard Firefox highlights high notability imho . I disagree this is written promotionally, its a subject written chronologically in the most part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apcddx (talk • contribs) 12:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC) — Apcddx (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ubuntuforum (talk • contribs). [reply]
Comment New user, only edit has been to vote on this AfD. Likely sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (Yes, I know I'm a new account and only edited few things besides my own sandbox, but I have an argument). Ok. The article may have been TOOSOON when it was created 10 years ago, but I don't think it's too soon right now. The subject of the article has been head of marketing in several very important and global companies. Besides that, he was the subject of several articles in important media outlets in the marketing field. I think he's important and noteworthy enough for an article on Wikipedia. I don't think the tone of the article is promotional. The article may need a restructuration, but honestly, I don't think it should be deleted.--EEmerique (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC) — EEmerique (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SirEdimon (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete. per DGG. I am not opposed to a future page if sourcing is better, but this was done badly from the beginning and wreaks of conflict of interest editing. Clearly paid for cruft without adherence to our rules. 24.114.23.54 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please clarify. Is the article being deleted for lack of notability or because the article is in bad shape?--EEmerique (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is all explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Right at the top, "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including ... articles needing improvement ... be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." I nominated this article because after having examined the article sourcing and searching the Internet, it was my view that Bernard had not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" , see WP:SIGCOV for more. Edwardx (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But the article's subject seems notable. The article is not in good shape. Perhaps, it would need a restructuration, but not deletion. The article's tone is not promotional, seems neutral to me. He was covered by BBC, Marketing Week, Tech Times and others important media outlets in the marketing and business field. He has been in head positions in several important companies. I really don't understand why he's not notable.--EEmerique (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This individual has received coverage from the BBC including with an interview [40] half way down the page which is a reliable source and independent of any subject; he has been in the Mobile Phone industry trade press for over 10 years (granted this is trade press but he's notable in this field); has been featured in national marketing coverage; and seems to be an innovator in his field with new technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.164.178 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC) — 87.242.164.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP - Bernard has sig. coverage from reliable sources. This includes in Fortune magazine referring to changes in Strategy to the browser Firefox from 2016 [41] and he’s listed on Bloomberg [42]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.57 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC) — 85.255.232.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP hello everyone! First time Commenting on Wikipedia, came across this page from a Google search on John who as we're researching as a speaker for one of our tech events. Ignore this vote if not applicable as a first time poster but we certainly think John is worthy of inclusion given his achievements in tech. Thanks! PS also updated the profile as he is not dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.128.78 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: sorry, everyone, should have qualified, updated the profile based on very recent activity on the @thejohnbernard verified Twitter handle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.128.78 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only waded through all the refs (ugh!) but also reviewed the history and was astounded how much of this article was written by the same sock farm as turned up to vote! It seriously looks like a single paid editor. Notwithstanding that egregious deceit, it still fails WP:GNG. VelellaVelella Talk 13:29, 21 April 2018 (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. ansh666 04:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Novant Health If you un-redirect an article for good reason I expect a rewrite and updating, but Tingrin failed to do that and just restored the article as-was in 2014, all issues unresolved. If there's no difference between the writing of a brochure about the hospital and this article, that's not a good thing. WP:SOFIXIT if you want the article retained. Nate•(chatter) 02:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is the largest hospital in the region. The 2nd largest hospital in the area (Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center) has its own article and not being afd. Acnetj (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or redirect). I wonder why the subject of this article was ever deemed to lack notability. It certainly does not lack promotional bacteria. But that is no reason for euthanasia; merely for some disinfection. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 13:24, 13 April 2018 (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.
Hospital branch not meeting WP:GNG on its own. I haven't found significant coverage; the article's creator added one source that mentions it as the location of an endoscopy practice that closed. I had changed the article to a redirect to The Ottawa Hospital, as I had done a while back under a different title for the same facility, Ottawa Riverside Hospital, but the author changed it back. In response to my WP:3O inquiry, another editor pointed out the guidance in WP:BLAR to bring this here for discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large local hospital, not just a branch of another organization. Also keep per WP:NGO. 16:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep pending a merger of all of the small articles on this hospital's campuses into one main article. They don't appear to be individually notable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting that. I did mention at one point in earlier discussion that there's nothing stopping this material from being included in the overall organization's article. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make a decent article if all of these stubs were merged, even if some of the branches are individually notable. We just don't have enough detail to support separate articles at this time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Ottawa Hospital under a new "Campuses" section. The only references appear to be their own publications or local WP:MILL coverage; the book about the hospital is their own publication as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:06, 22 April 2018 (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 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.
Subject does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Competing in beauty pageants, including Miss America is not something which gives one an automatic free pass over WP:BIO. Saqib (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, created by an spa with likely coi, nothing reliable in the article or on google, nn creative media person promo. Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2018 (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.
Young artist at the beginning of his career, doing well so far but WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article. Article was written by his promoter, and the WP:COI is evident in the promotional tone used throughout. He's just signed with Sony and released a single through them, but no evidence of chart success, no significant coverage in WP:RS of him supporting Mark Battles on tour, or anything in points 1-12 in WP:MUSICBIO. No substantial coverage of him online in WP:RS: the local press that I was able to find is already in the article: [43], [44]. Per point 12 of WP:MUSICBIO, those are a local radio and TV station respectively, not national. Article was proposed for deletion three days ago by User:Sro23, which was contested without comment by article creator, along with addition of even more of the subject's and the article creator's Facebook and Instagram links: [45] Might well be notable enough in a few years, and good luck to him. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Sro23 (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2018 (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.
Notability not proven. Makro (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a number of articles about the subject, [46], [47], [48]. Note to the nominator, please review the article using WP:BEFORE prior to going to AfD. reddogsix (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went by sources used in article. If the writer couldn't be bothered to used references to prove notability then I had to nominate.Makro (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As evidenced by WP:BEFORE, that attitude is contrary to Wikipedia community standards. The reason to nominate an article for deletion is to remove articles that do not meet Wikipedia criteria, not remove valid incomplete articles or to punish editors for their brevity. I suggest you reevaluate your reasoning for nominating articles for AfD before your next nomination. reddogsix (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, multitude of sources over many years. L3X1◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
L3X1 If you have more than the three included sources please add them to improve the article. Just the three on the page are not enough to prove notability.
A I didn't get your ping because you forgot to sign, B, the essay WP:ATD says under WP:ASSERTNwhat matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless of the present state of the article.. The sources don't have to be on the article, the whole sources for notability vs sources for info thing. I will try and add them in when I get the chance. L3X1◊distænt write◊ 13:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am tired of this hand waving for more sources. People need to put sources in. While deletion should be based on what exists, people can't just claim sources exist and leave it at that, they need to prove it, which means inserting them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: this argument should be discounted as a clear violation of arguments to avoid; notability applies to a topic and not an article as it currently stands. Sources have been given explicitly by reddogsix and whether they are listed here or in the article is irrelevant to AfD. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If his most notable rôle is not even mentioned in our article on Community then it is minor indeed, and surely not a "significant role" as required for WP:NACTOR; his other parts appear to be even more trivial. If someone adds a good number solid reliable sources with in-depth coverage of numerous significant parts as required by our notability guideline, then please ping me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the sources Makro gives. For what it's worth, Fat Neil is a recurring but not major character on Community (regardless of what our article does/doesn't say). The CSI: Cyber role could push Koontz over the edge of the notability threshold, but I am not familiar with that show. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:41, 14 April 2018 (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 salt. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This person is marginally notable. Marginally; not slam dunk. It is unclear what the US equivalent of their faculty position is, the journal they are chief editor for, is published by his own university. He has published some books and articles, and been discussed a bit in local (!) press. Normally I think folks would be OK with letting this slide. However the page was pounded by a sock farm for a while as is evident in the history and the talk page, and even after they were all blocked and the page was protected, obviously related IP editors keep popping up to urge some content be added or changed, leading even an admin to edit by proxy on their behalf (today's block-evading diff, removed per BLOCKEVASION, yet implemented here.) Keeping this around is good for nobody except the people trying to abuse WP to promote this person; trying to maintain this page as something other than a vanity page is a drain on the volunteer editing community. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:ACADEMIC#8 as "head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area", as they created and are the Editor in Chief of the first journal in their field, and #1 as having made a significant impact in their field, per creating the first journal and as they are listed as one of the most published researchers in their area [49][50] with a h-index of 25 and 2700 citations [51], which is significantly high. - Bilby (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one could describe "International Journal of Safety and Security in Tourism / Hospitality" as a "a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area"... however it being a) hosted on the department website; b) electronic-only as far as I can tell: c) not in Scopus or JCR (I searched each) -- would make it appear .. marginal in that definition. Pinging User:Randykitty (with whom I disagree plenty of times, so this is not canvassing) to get their thoughts on this journal. About his being "one of the most published researhers", I found those two papers about publications in the field of tourism so odd; I don't see many papers in well-established fields where people do this kind of navel gazing. It is like they are trying to establish the field as something legitimate and show the world just who the people are who publish in it. Like I said, overall N is marginal for this person. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is most certainly not a pass of PROF#8. It's not indexed anywhere and it'll be a long time before that happens, too, judging from the broken English on its homepage. The citation record (judging from his GScholar profile) is above what we generally find sufficient in these discussions (>1000 citations, h-index > 20), but I don't know if this is a high-citation field and GScholar can be gamed. Some of the books are with reputed publishers such as Routledge, which is an indication of notability (but it would be nice to have a book review, for example). --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say it is not indexed anywhere? It is indexed in both ProQuest and EBSCOHost. That was already established. The query is only whether or not it is a significant journal in its subject area, and that seems to hold - hence the decent citations and h-index. - Bilby (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more exact: "not indexed in any selective databases". Neither ProQuest nor EBSCOHost are normally taken as indicating any notability, just independent proof that a journal exists. As it is not even in Scopus (the selective database that is easiest to get into), it may be a significant journal like you say, but we don't have any evidence (i.e., independent reliable sources) supporting that claim. Personally, I doubt that an English language journal whose website is full of grammatical errors is anything near significant. --Randykitty (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair enough. To be honest, I felt that the significance of the journal came from being the first in the field, and that it turned up on a few "these journals are worth reading" lists in regard to terrorism, which suggested that it was important in the specialty. My interest in EBSECO and ProQuest was that they showed the journal was not rubbish, rather than they showed anything about the overall significance on their own (given that there are enough journals that don't meet that bar). Thanks for your help - we'll leave the focus on Academic #1. - Bilby (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For others who arrive, please do see recent examples of the promotional pressure from socking/block-evading IPs, Special:Contributions/190.139.136.123, which has added to its comments the names "Pope" (e.g. diff) and "Bob" (e.g. diff). Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I find the occasional brief post by the IPs to be easily managed. Since it was semi protected, if there have been difficulties working on the article, they have come from established editors unrelated to the subject rather than the socks. - Bilby (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely. I will not respond to you further. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that has been my experience. Sometimes other factors come into play, rather than socking, that make things more combative than we'd like. Nothing has been done in bad faith, or with anything other than the interests of WP in mind, but I haven't found the socks to be the main factor in any difficulties with the article, so much as differing (reasonable) opinions on how best to manage it. - Bilby (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All you did there was repeat yourself, removing the "if". Please review my note to you here. If I need to bring this up again it will be at AN requesting a formal IBAN. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should have better explained my view with the first comment. I thought this second description better explained where I sit. I should note that I was not referring to you with my comment - I unreservedly apologize for failing to make that clear, and I can see how it could be read that way. - Bilby (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim of a "major journal" is problematic. It is a journal on his own idiosyncratic interest started by him and published by his own institution. Major? Zero evidence of that. He is clearly a gifted self-publicist, and gives great attention to bigging up his reputation, but in the end he's a 41-year-old early career academic. The article was started by a sockpuppet. Much of the subject's publication has been in predatory journals or academic vanity press. It'#s resume-padding, and always has been. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Handcounted h-index of 15 from GScholar. Some works have a lot of citations, e.g. 144, 95, 79. Furthermore his work is included in five distinct bibliographical lists from the journal Perspectives on Terrorism which shows peer recognition. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't buy Bilby's argument. Subject fails WP:NPROF. Subject also fails ANYBIO and GNG. This article has been the target of multiple users and IPs seeking to promote the subject, so I'd also ask the closing admin to SALT the title so we're never bothered with this foolishness again. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would you regard as enough to show that an academic has made a significant impact in their field? - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PROF #1 requires independent reliable sources that actually support that claim. The citations you provided seem to indicate the subject is prolific, but that doesn't mean he's had any impact. H-index isn't an acceptable standard, either. Terrorism is my field and nobody here is mentioning Korstanje's work, let alone assigning it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
27000 citations seems significant, as do the two independent journal articles that list him as a major researcher. That said, his field isn't terrorism, it is the intersection of tourism and terrorism. - Bilby (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PROF doesn't use metrics like impact factor or number of citations. Your belief that "27000 citations seems significant" is just that, a belief. I strictly follow the criteria rather than inject my own reasoning. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - we all need to tackle this based on our own understanding of what making a significant impact in a field means - in my case, very high citation count and being listed as a major researcher in independent sources are strong indicators of making a significant impact, but others may differ. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read the notes to criterion #1 in PROF, you'll see that number of citations is a consideration. --Randykitty (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the use of the phrase "highly cited" doesn't come with any metric and Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics essentially warns against most metrics !voters would look at. It says you could consider x or y but it doesn't say what's a high number of citations versus what's normal. Any consideration of things like number of citations without calibration essentially lives in the imagination because that guideline is so vague. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of a way forward with PROF#1 if you won't accept citation counts as an indicator of impact. Would copies of his books held in libraries indicate significance? That at least is listed as a citation metric at the link you provided. (Accordingly to WorldCat, the first one I checked is held in 93 libraries, the second in 172). - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) PROF does not give any firm numbers for the simple reason that these differ per field. For a mathematician, an h-index of 15 is stellar and an article receiving 100 cites is exceptional. In most life sciences, 15 is what you'd expect for an assistant professor and 100 cites for an article is not exceptional at all. I agree that this can become the source of disagreement (I've seen people vehemently argue that someone was very notable because 36 articles referenced their works-not a notable amount in any field). I am not familiar with Korstanje's field, so I don't know whether this is a high-citation density field or not. Even if it is, 2700 citations and an h-index of 25 is nothing to spit at. What is more important here is that Korstanje (according to his GScholar profile) has published a staggering 800 1085 articles. Combined with the fact that 2344 of his 2776 citations (as of this morning) stem from the last 5 years, I suspect something fishy here. Add to that the fact that Korstanje apparently publishes (quite a lot) with disreputable publishers like IGI Global and the whole picture becomes less and less flattering. I did a search in the Web of Science (using all databases, not just the core collection). WoS always renders lower results than GScholar, because the latter will include anything, even absolutely forgettable journals, as well as books and stuff published by predatory journals. So lower numbers are expected, but in this case they are way lower: 90 total publications (note that WoS does not include books and book chapters), h-index of 15, 683 citations (72 of which are self-citations). Fishier and fishier. Looks like somebody is mounting a determined publicity campaign... I didn't intend to !vote here, but writing up this analysis I have convinced myself: delete (and given the history, salting is perhaps not a bad idea). --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I just note that most of the better cited articles in WoS are from another M. Korstanje, a dermatologist. In addition, I forgot to mention that if you look at the citing publications in GScholar, you find extensive self-citation. This makes the whole picture even more dire. --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair enough to me - thanks for looking into it. - Bilby (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randykitty's thorough analysis and the unnatural amount of attention this article has received from socks and Single-purpose IPs, whdoes not suggest genuine notability. PamD 16:15, 16 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unsourced, and sources to support the substance cannot be located. JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two sources were provided, one of which was in a completely different language and had nothing to do with Nakula Samanta Sinhara, and the other one was the Facebook of someone who happened to have the same name, but did not show say of the notable things that the article said. I really think this subject was just made up, but if I'm proven wrong and there is somebody notable when this name, or somebody could find a reliable source about this person, I would hold no objections to keeping it. But it seems like everything on the article that would be considered notable is actually just invented by the author. Regards, --SkyGazer 512talk / contributions / subpages 12:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikipedian,
This article is created based on from the attached External Link'https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yQy5Zrzn9TkQB8vQqbtQMMAPIZW0QULm/view' But that PDF was in language 'Odia'(It is one local language in India).
I understood your points, But I prepared the article from that PDF. I translated to English the main roles & royal responsibilities of 'Nakula Samanta Sinhara' during the period of 1906-1938 Brtish Raj era in Indi. But please find the below thoughts that we have created this articles as
1)Keep the History of Chief Commander of Army of King Hindol during the period 1906-1938
2)This article explain about his early life during the period of 1906-19038.
3)His revolt and death conspiracy
This article only created for keep the History of 'Nakula Samanta Sinhara' that he made during his royal duties for next generation.
So kindly request to Wikipedian to consider this article.
Comment "joomag.com" is a self-publication website and the source there appears to be no more than a self-created page, from which the article text was directly copied. It's not a reliable source by any stretch. JohnInDC (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His existence is in doubt, let alone his notability. Maproom (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'"Comment'" Hi wikkipedian,
I understood your points ,But the reference linked PDF is in Odia language, I translated to English. I mentioned the important point in this article related to Nakula Samanta Sinhara.
I tried to give all reference but all is in local language and local publisher.
So kindly requesting to keep this article to undelete in Wikipedia.
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. I really suck at finding sources sometimes....(non-admin closure) 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 14:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a non-notable small town diner company. The only sources I could find were a blurb in this book and this article, which makes passing mention of it. It existed; but I'm pretty sure it simply isn't notable. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 13:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of reliable sources given to back up claims for a diner company that has been in business for over 40 years. Diners are a staple to NJ and most of the northeastern US, even throughout the rest of the country. It has built many notable diners in the NYC area. Tinton5 (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, both books. Topic therefore passes GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:38, 18 April 2018 (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.
Delete. I was actually checking references and searching for further sources to see whether an AfD was justified myself when TheLongTone beat me to it. The following is the nomination statement that I prepared.
This article has been deleted three times, respectively by BLPROD, PROD, and speedy deletion criterion A7, and created for a fourth time. I think it's time to have a discussion to settle the matter.
It is clear that this person does not come anywhere remotely near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Many of the references are unreliable sources such as YouTube, Wikipedia and blogs. Another source is on a web site which says that it offers "solutions" for businesses and publishers: Marketing speak for saying that it is an advertising site. Some of the references don't even mention Reddy Johnson, others barely mention him in passing, in some cases merely quoting a sentence or two from him. None of them is substantial coverage, reliable or otherwise.
In my web searches for information about Renny Johnson, results about this person were lost among hits for other people of the same name: a footballer, a cyclist, a musician, etc etc. Attempts to limit the search to this Renny Johnson by adding other content of the article resulted in getting almost nothing: for example, a Google search for "Renny Johnson" Mundakathil produced a total of 3 hits, one of which again mentioned a different Renny Johnson and, separately, a different person with "Mundakathil" in his name, and the other two were Wikipedia and another wiki. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a truly diligent editor who goes by the book rather than simply tagging things simply because they smell bad!TheLongTone (talk)
Comment, this one smells bad because the refs in the article smell bad, I'm not heading off into google so there is no vote. Szzuk (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2018 (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.
NO evidence of notability, not even any sources. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Organization does seem to be notable and renowned. The issues are currently being fixed by the original editor, maybe because of the AfD request. Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - there is definitely a case of copying going on here - a CSD action is pending I suspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re CSD - CSD was declined, with the following intriguing grounds "(declining csd - believe it or not, there is no explicit disclaimer of copyright on the website, which means db-copyvio isn't strictly speaking compatible with this article. That being said, if its afd'd, then we gain the bonus of deletion and deletion protection (such as it were). Let the afd play out.)". Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A significant COI was confirmed in the process, though after the wave of deletions/edits etc made, I wouldn't say the article is significantly promotional in tone.
As I noted on the 16th, the status of the sources is sufficient for a delete in their own right. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some very minimal edits have been made (more accurately people deleting bits) which has sort of formed some paraphrasing and breaking apart of the plagarism - the blurring of the case I imagine might be the reason the speedy delete is still pending rather than resolving one way or another. Nosebagbear (talk)
The references however are a delete in their own right - 5/6 are primary. The only suitably referenced bits refer to the original history section, which only goes up to 1953. The other non-RRS source just covers that members "attend the International Congress of Radiation Research (ICRR) meeting" (and is primary as it comes from the ICRR site). Surely notability can't be covered from a history section ending over 60 years ago and that they attend some conferences that aren't even theirs? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, and the COI concerns me. At best TNT, at worst lockdown. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:09, 16 April 2018 (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. ansh666 04:12, 23 April 2018 (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. ansh666 04:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article; couldn't find even primary sources. samee converse 01:48, 14 April 2018 (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. Between deletion, merging, draftifying, and the nominator being blocked as a sock, there's nothing even closely resembling a consensus here. ansh666 04:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I am South African myself, I see no point in an article like this about a player (Rabada) still in the early stages of his career. It is a list for the sake of having a list and should be removed under the terms of policy supplement WP:TOOMUCH. I am adding Philander and Shah because they too are below agreed minimum (see below) for a list of this kind. Protea caffra (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My personal belief is this list fails WP:NOTSTATS however we have a category of 50 lists of five-wicket haul articles by other cricketers: Category:Lists of international cricket five-wicket hauls by player. We can't simply single this article out from the other 50 unless we are willing to discuss the criteria of having all other 49. Ajf773 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He may be a young player. But his ability as one of the finest bowlers in modern day is not fade by that. He is the number one bowler in rankings. So how we say that his five wicket hauls are not require. Great Murali, Warne, Kumble like players have achieved the feat and Rabada still counting on that as his partner Vernon Philander. So you can't delete a five wicket haul page. They are no even found in Cricinfo for each player. It is valuable for Wikipedia in that sense. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 9:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
They aren't on ESPN Cricinfo?? You sure about that? [52][53][54]. Ajf773 (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the requirements for these type of lists is a minimum of fifteen five-wicket hauls, per the navigtion template. I'll drop a note on the talkpage of the Cricket Project for further input. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 09:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking you for the figure. I did wonder if there was one. Hadn't thought to check the template. Protea caffra (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the criteria of 15 five-wicket hauls. Recreate when reached. Cheers – Ianblair23(talk) 20:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. This info used to be in Rabada's article, see [55], it was taken out and so someone else created this article. I can see no reason this info should have be removed from the players article in the first place. Szzuk (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there was some kind of RFC at the cricket project and this type of table in player articles was deemed no good, can someone link? Szzuk (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is the info, thank you! The RFC on whether these tables are included in player articles ended in no consensus so I think we default to deciding on a case by case basis, as someone obviously wants these boxes enough to create a separate article and I personally find them useful it is merge all for me. Szzuk (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It did end as a non-consensus, but with the closing note of "However, swathes of numbers or lists of awards, empty of content or context, are not appropriate for Wikipedia", which 99% of these tables (within articles) are. However, I think these lists should be moved to draftspace until a time they reach the 15-mark, and then moved back as articles, if they are of sufficent quality. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 11:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Philander is pretty close to the 15 mark - do we really want to delete/merge and then have to recreate in a month or two, considering the way he is playing? Gbawden (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin
The user that started this discussion has now "retired" after suspicions were raised about them being a sock of a blocked user. I'd recommend this is closed, with no objection to another user raising this at AfD, if they feel strongly about it. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 17:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:19, 13 April 2018 (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. None of the article content has anything remotely to do with Hinduism, and there's nothing in Religion in Cyprus either. Otherwise, nothing else to merge. Can be recreated as a redirect to Religion in Cyprus if desired. ansh666 04:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't discuss Hinduism in Cyprus, they discuss Indo-Cypriot relations and the Indian diasporic community. No indication of notability. Yellow DiamondΔ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Indians in Cyprus and delete the redirect as misleading. The assumption that all Indians are Hindus is quite wrong. Legacypac (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per Legacypac, although I'm not sure how much it will add to the Indians in Cyprus article. There is a *small* amount of actual information on Hinduism in Cyprus (mainly architectural/temple related rather than general details) available elsewhere - however the contents of this page would need to be nearly erased and rebuilt for this to function.Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that Indians in Cyprus did not exist because that what this page was. Just delete this title after merging anything useful over. Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are a string of "Hinduism by X Country" currently in AfD - unlike this one they are generally on-topic, but do so in extremely minimal detail. As they are, it reads more like a broken up version of Hinduism by country . With more detail for each of them they could be either be paragraphs on that page or an odd new page, since the creator clearly is interested in the area. As to Delete/Merge - they are functionally equivalent here, given presence elsewhere Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is simply not there, and the only thing that is sourced is a bit on Cyprus–India relations, which already has that content. Indians in Cyprus also has some overlap, but there is nothing to merge from this article. That leaves deletion. --Tavix(talk) 13:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting this article to say something about Hindusism in Cyprus. About all it does in name drop Mahatma Ghandhi who was a Hindu. The rest says nothing about weather the people are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, Bhudhists, non-religion or what.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Still move/merge, but Religion in Cyprus would be a better, still with the deletion of the relations paragraph. I'm not sure of format for switching in this way with a relisting in the way, so I went rather whole hog on cutting out my previous "vote". Nosebagbear (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There's substantial disagreement on whether this should be turned into a WP:DAB page or kept as is. But, that discussion can continue on the article talk page. The only thing that would require admin (and thus, WP:AfD) involvement would be an outright deletion, and that's clearly not being argued by anybody. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no well-defined or accepted concept of "thermal energy" in physics or thermodynamics. The article lacks reliable sources, and been tagged as needing them since at least 2014. Waleswatcher(talk) 02:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of those three sources supports Thermal energy as a rigorous concept in thermodynamics. The first is a press release using the term in a general sense. The second is about Internal energy. The third uses the term in a general sense. For Britannica, see below. A reliable source would be (say) a textbook on thermal or statistical physics. Waleswatcher(talk) 03:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The notion that this is not a defined term is kind of strange, and the idea to delete the article is absurd. Many physics texts define it quite distinctly, and Encyclopedia Britannica thinks so too. Calculating the total thermal energy of a system is a frequent exercise in problems. The concept of thermal energy comes directly from the equipartition theorem and is usually defined defined in terms of kT. It is essentially provided by (dS/dU)V,N = T–1 (PS: d = delta) Kbrose (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If "many physics texts define it", please list a few. Encyclopedias are not reliable sources per wiki policy as I understand it - they are tertiary, not secondary. In fact there are no reliable sources for this concept that I know of, nor have any been added to the article after four years, because the concept of "thermal energy" (as opposed to internal energy U that you refer to, or heat or temperature or work) turns out not to make sense. I say this as a professional physicist with expertise in this area. I could explain the physics here, but my understanding is that it would not really be appropriate. Material without reliable sources is supposed to be deleted, is it not? Waleswatcher(talk) 03:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have no problem if "thermal energy" is simply synonymous with internal energy, in which case we can just redirect to there rather than delete. That seems to be Kbrose's view, and is the subject of this source Leipzig University[59] as cited by Clarityfiend. Waleswatcher(talk) 03:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate As I understand it; change in thermal energy is used as a synonym for change in internal energy, where thermal energy describes the internal kinetic energy of particles in a system which, when averaged, becomes temperature. It's a useful concept for students trying to relate stat mech to classial thermo.
However, this is not a rigorous concept used in fundamental equations (I'm curious why not - is it redundant with an understanding of temperature?). I think an ideal article would explain this, then disambiguate. SpaceInnovader (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even when this notion covers no well-defined or accepted concept in physics, it is in my perception a broadly (ab)used term (e.g. in connection with sustainability, stability, resilience, ...). Retreating to sound terms of thermodynamics, or a pure DAB possibly would not properly handle the expectations of interested readers. I am roughly aware of the tedious task to watch over a page like this. Purgy (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what the article is (currently) about - it says nothing about "sustainability, stability, resilience". Instead, it (falsely and without reliable sources) states it's about a concept in thermodynamics and gives a specific and (naively) reasonable sounding definition. Waleswatcher(talk) 12:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kardar's textbook uses "thermal energy" as a synonym for the Boltzmann constant times the absolute temperature (p. 243). So do Huang and Reichl and Kittel and Myers and Reif. Landau and Lifshitz do the same, but work in units where (volume 5, Eq. 80.16). Ashcroft and Mermin also use the term (e.g., p. 20 of the 1976 edition). It is definitely, definitely a thing that physicists say, and that is enough reason to have a page about it. However, the current article is not very good, and the easiest fix might be to turn it into a redirect or a disambiguation page. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, it's very useful to have real references to discuss. It's true that kT is sometimes referred to as "thermal energy" and that makes perfect sense in context (kT is indeed an energy, and it sets the characteristic scale for the energies in thermal systems), but that is not at all what the current article is describing, nor does it correspond to the internal energy that Kbrose defined, nor does it correspond to the concept "defined" in the Britannica article. So this simply illustrates the problem. Perhaps another solution besides a DAB is to describe the various ways this term can be used... but would that meet wiki's notability guidelines? Waleswatcher(talk) 17:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, We already have an article kT (energy) which can and should be included on a DAB page if that's what we wind up with. --Steve (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a DAB per Mao suggestion, pointing in particular to heat ("thermal energy" when it's flowing), internal energy ("thermal energy" when it's not flowing), and kT (energy) (cf XOReaster comment). I would concede Kbrose's point that people sometimes discuss "thermal energy of a mode" in the sense of "thermal-equilibrium average energy in a mode", but I think the internal energy link would cover that case well enough. --Steve (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thermal energy could be defined as temperature times entropy. This is no more or less meaningful than Helmholtz free energy which is the internal energy minus the thermal energy. It is important to note that thermal energy is not a conserved quantity, but that does not mean that it is meaningless. Kinetic energy is not conserved; neither is potential energy. But people still talk about them and we have articles on them. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can define whatever you want. Wikipedia, however, is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not original research or ad hoc definitions. Waleswatcher(talk) 00:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reason to delete the article. If you think that thermal energy is ill-defined, are you going to delete the article for heat as well, which is typically even more confused than thermal energy? For more rigorous, and more recent and modern usage of the term, you might like Hans Fuchs (The Dynamics of Heat). Daniel Schroeder also defines it quite definitively, which I believe used to be a reference to the article, but which probably fell victim to previous bouts of deletions (by you?). Frankly, the article used to be quite reasonably sourced, before people started swamping it with all kinds of crap. Kbrose (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heat is a standard thermodynamic concept that appears in every textbook. As far as I cam see Fuchs never uses the term "thermal energy" without "flux" or "current" attached, in which case he is simply discussing heat without using the standard term. Again, heat is well-defined, but it is a transfer of energy, not a property of a system. Waleswatcher(talk) 01:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kbrose, I think Waleswatcher's complaint was specifically that JRSpriggs wrote "thermal energy could be defined as T×S", but didn't say that it actually is defined as T×S by reliable sources. So Waleswatcher read the sentence as implying that JRSpriggs had just creatively made up the T×S definition off the top of their head. JRSpriggs or Kbrose, can you please confirm one way or the other?
Kbrose, would you mind telling us the definition of "thermal energy" used by Hans Fuchs and/or Daniel Schroeder? Is it something distinct from internal energy and kT (energy) and other articles we already have? You wrote above that it's defined by "(dS/dU)V,N = T–1", but I don't get it, are you saying that thermal energy is the reciprocal of temperature? I find that weird, the units are wrong, and also intuitively one would expect higher internal energy at higher temperature. Sorry if you already explained this somewhere. Thanks in advance, --Steve (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the actual answer to this is that Schroeder mentions thermal energy just once, at the very beginning of his book (p.15) where he is building intuition. He defines it as N*f*(1/2)k*T, where N is the number of molecules and f is the number of degrees of freedom per molecule. Of course this is a fine definition as far as it goes, but it obviously isn't very general (for instance, it refers to molecules). Schroeder doesn't point this out, but for real molecular gases f is a function of T even in the gas phase, and that formula cannot be applied at all at a phase transition or to other phases. Schroeder says he will return to this formula later when he proves the equipartition theorem, but when he does so he only ever refers to standard thermodynamic variables (like the internal energy U). As far as I can see (and according to the index) he never mentions thermal energy anywhere other than around p 15. Waleswatcher(talk) 01:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can write (dS/dU)V,N—1 = T, if the inverse is confusing. But you cannot invert the partial differential. It tells you directly that you measure temperature to evaluate changes in thermal energy. But T is intensive while T.E. is extensive. Isn't that a most intuitive definition? It is exactly what it has meant since the days of Joule. That also implies that it is perfectly to ok to define thermal energy as the product of temperature and a change in entropy, as stated above. Thermodynamics only ever deals with a small part of internal energy, and it only ever describes CHANGES in internal energy, even when the system undergoes a nuclear reaction in the process. So, internal energy is often defined in a very restrictive manner, depending on the area of study. Only for the ideal gas is the internal energy identical to its thermal energy. Thermal energy expressions occur in a vast number of physical formalisms, the term ex/kT is ever present. So why would it be so undefined ? I would say it is the very definition in most text books, not just a few. But often it is not emphasized, because it is so fundamental, perhaps, not terribly interesting. There is way more confusion about the term heat in text books than thermal energy, because heat is actually differently defined in physics than in engineering, and the public certainly has a heated opinion about many other topics.
So, given the preponderance of usage of thermal energy as a valid physics concept, I move to end this discussion and fix the article instead. Kbrose (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For years the article defined thermal energy as "the internal energy present in a system due to its temperature" or as the average kinetic energy per particle. That definition was never supported by any reliable sources, despite a request dating back to at least 2014. There is a reason no sources were ever supplied - you cannot define such a quantity in any real system (for instance, because of the latent heat of phase transitions). Even in idealized systems that definition is either not applicable or simply equal to the internal energy. Regarding the discussion here, Kbrose seems to be engaging in original research, which has no place on wikipedia (or perhaps s/he is suggesting thermal energy should be identified as heat, I can't really tell). The other commentators in favor of keeping the article have variously suggested kT, ST, and the internal energy U as definitions of thermal energy - which is fine, I have no objection if the page remains and just says that the term can refer to any of those (with sources, of course). Waleswatcher(talk) 01:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: Although I've seen this term used in textbooks, there aren't significant papers or other sources that use thermal energy, and it covered by heat and temperature. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Widely used concept so it is desirable that Wikipedia has an article. Wikipedia has an article on the luminiferous aether even though it has been determined that it doesn’t exist. Similarly, an article on fictitious forces even though they are fictitious. Wikipedia has articles on these concepts because they qualify as adequately notable. Dolphin(t) 07:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is arguing that "thermal energy" is non-notable per se; the debate concerns whether "thermal energy" refers to a distinct concept, different from the concepts discussed in other articles. (see WP:NAD / WP:CFORK - if a single concept is referred to with multiple different words or phrases, we generally only have one article for it.) :-D --Steve (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say it is "only the transfer of heat between substances at different temperatures". If so, it is not distinct from heat, and it is only defined as a transfer of energy (which is not at all how the article defined it). You also say something rather different, that it is part of the internal energy. That's closer to what the article (used to) assert, but the difficulty is that there is simply no way to define what part that is. That is why thermal energy (as distinct from heat, or internal energy) just isn't a thing (in general, in thermodynamics). Waleswatcher(talk) 21:44, 16 April 2018 (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.
This article violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and seems to have been developed as an advertising vehicle to deliver readers to the boycott website which is the only external link. The entire topic of the Sinclair promos is found in three paragraphs at Sinclair Broadcast Group#2018 journalistic responsibility promos, yet this article is nearly three times as long in order to cover what seems to be a relatively minor fallout that would deserve at most a sentence or two in the main article section. If this was truly an NPOV endeavor, it would cover the entire topic and be titled more appropriately. As it is, it seems to be created in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and propagandize against this particular company. The section "Sinclair journalists" in particular seems to be be there only to cast aspersions against the company, and does not seem to be related to this "boycott" at all. Netoholic@ 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The topic is highly important, with a huge bearing on U.S. politics, democracy, freedom of the press. There are plenty of reliable sources in the article as of this version (23 sources as of April 13 2018 and the list is growing). A "relatively minor fallout"? That's not what critics say, in what appears to be a serious propaganda effort to influence major swaths of the U.S. electorate. Prominent celebrities are boycotting Sinclair as a result such as Amy Schumer, plus numerous Democratic politicians. That said, I have no aversion to merging this material into the Sinclair article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tomwsulcer is heavily involved, having made major inflations of this article. -- Netoholic@ 19:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant to this discussion?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And according to WP policy, that means they can be involved in the AfD discussion all they want, they just can't close it. Booyahhayoob (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sinclair Broadcast Group; this topic has received significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, but works better as a section within the parent article. Neutralitytalk 21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or combine with the section regarding the 2018 Sinclair drama from company's WP page. Since the boycott is related to the promo controversy, it'd make sense to group the two together and make the boycott page a heading. Booyahhayoob (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sinclair Broadcast Group -- Whats new?(talk) 10:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article. This is a subtopic of the patent article and not notable outside of that context. There isn't so much information as to warrant a stand alone article. Springee (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is large enough to warrant it's own article. If it were to be merged with the Sinclair article, most of the important information that only applies to the boycott itself would be removed. Great Great Grandson (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE – blocked sock. Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sinclair Broadcast Group per What's new. Werehilly (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE – blocked sock. Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Once trimmed of POV, promotional content, recentism, etc., it would fit well in the main article. It will have more context there anyway. Deli nk (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2018 (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. Mojo Hand(talk) 14:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable actress, and I am not happy about creating articles on 13-year old girls unless there is a very good reason. Although she has appeared as an actress in the West End, and this is verifiable eg: here, there is not enough coverage in sources to justify a full article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think she deserves recognition. Not only has she been in Annie but she's also been in Les Mis (the worlds biggest musical). And she has been on TV why would you want to delete it? prefix:User talk:Ritchie333/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleytia04 (talk • contribs)
I want to delete it because we have a strict policy on biographies of living people, which says we must adhere to privacy and sensitivity. Simply appearing on television and theatre (unless perhaps they have reached the success of Shirley Temple, per my example above) is not necessarily a reason to bypass that. In the real world, there are Ofsted rules and regulations that ensure a safe environment for children; on Wikipedia, it's the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" which means anyone can change this article on a whim (it may be reverted and the user blocked, but only when somebody notices). That's not good. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the user Ashleytia04 seems to have conflict of interest, and a username similar to the subject's identity makes me suspect that this is Goldberg trying to maintain an autobiography. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per User:SNUGGUMS. Also, why have most of this article's diffs been wiped? Ssgem 22:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was me. I removed some uncited personal information per OS1. With young subjects we tend to be a little more aggressive in protecting privacy. GorillaWarfare(talk) 20:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It is unfortunate there's no speedy criterion for films. So whatever garbage about film can be added to Wikipedia. This article for promotion of non notable film was created by the film owner Prosenjit bhuniya (talk·contribs) after his failed attempt to create autobiograpghy for himself using double accounts with the above account and Subho the traveller (talk·contribs) as well as various IP socks that removed speedy deletion tags. Also added above, is the other non notable fim that they created. The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prosenjit bhuniya. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2018 (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. ansh666 04:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any WP:RS to establish notability. Theredproject (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Japanese WP article about her doesn't say all that much about her but does come with sources. Somebody who, unlike me, appreciates this kind of thing may wish to evaluate these sources (after clicking on that first one, I didn't want to continue) and if appropriate to furnish this article with them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, but leaning towards either delete or redirect - A search in Japanese fails to find much significant coverage about her. However, it appears that she's worked as the illustrator of multiple notable projects, many of which have their own articles. With that said, either she could be notable for said work alone (does that count as WP:ENT?), or perhaps it could be redirected to one of the series she's worked on (perhaps Da Capo (visual novel))? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 07:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An alternate transliteration of her name is "Mikeō", which is used by some websites. Searches using that name might be needed here. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 21:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Alternate name search has been requested
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no indications of notability and the provided references are PRIMARY sources, fail the criteria for intellectually independent coverage and fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH HighKing++ 20:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and flag for cleanup. There are indications of notability here — several notable former partners, international offices, etc. — and while it's true that most of the references here are primary sources right now, there are also some citations already present to real reliable source media coverage, and a firm that was established in 1922 and grew as much as this one has in the intervening century will have more media coverage than can be expected to turn up in a simple Google search. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. Law firms have been a problem here, and our usual sourcing criteria are hard to apply, but I think this is over the boundaary for importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 April 2018 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Iffy★Chat -- 12:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the company. no independent notability, and no encyclopedic interest otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 18 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is an official title, single source in article doesn't use, it no reliable sources for it's existence, never used in official communications. Being married to a ruler or head of state does not automatically create this position. Heliotom (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm came up with atleast two RS [60][61] which demostrate that title indeed exists and is under usage. The Ruler of Dubai is the Prime Minister the UAE so I assume First Lady of Dubai is equivalent to First Lady of the UAE. --Saqib (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your second source albawaba.com is a synidcated Daily mail article, which is a prohibited source as it's notoriously inaccurate.
Assuming never got anyone anywhere on wikipedia. The ruler of Dubai is the prime minister of the UAE, but the President is the ruler of Abu Dhabi. The title is not used domestically, or on any reliable sources that I can find, everything on google is circular feedback from wikipedia or pinterest. Being the wife of a ruler does not automatically create the title First lady.
In addition, Sheikh Mohammed has two wives, both of whom are given this title in the exceedingly poor sources that do exist for its existence.Heliotom (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The title is for sure is being used domestically. For example, Al Bayan is a Dubai-government run newspaper and is major one and they in one of their news story mentioned Sheikha Hind Al Maktoum as the "First Lady of Dubai", but unfortunately it is in Arabic language and you may need to G Translate it. --Saqib (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be the terminology used for the award, not a reflection of an official title. And again, one source from 12 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2018 (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. Mz7 (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of non-notable entries (albums, people) and the sources are primary and not reliable with some looking like promo (Suara Music, Drumcode). It has no encyclopedic value and is better off merged with similar articles (e.g. 2018 in music, List of 2018 albums).
Also nominating the following related page(s) for similar reasons:
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. Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't able to find sufficient independent secondary sources for WP:GNG, mostly passing mentions and primary - maybe other editors will have more luck than I did - otherwise there is probably a more general article this can redirect to... Seraphim System(talk) 07:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in present unsourced form. I don't see too many news items or book coverage on this secondary MOS (so something someone does in addition to their main "thing"). I suspect an article on Marine Corps water survival training would be notable (either standalone - or merged into United States Marine Corps Recruit Training and other training articles) - but I'm not picking this up from this article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be an long-running impression among some editors that Wikipedia needs to duplicate the US military's HR guides. It doesn't: this is not an encyclopedic topic, especially as few such positions are individually and independently notable. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's little or nothing there. If we have a list of USMC MOSs, then this one should be included, but that's it.--Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 14:13, 13 April 2018 (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.
Record producer that does not meet any notability criteria. Online search could also not verify notability. Livilnius (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Prolific musician/producer who has worked with a plethora of acts, some of which are among the most renowned in their genre. Seems like a no brainer, my dudes.Soul Crusher (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to closing admin that Soul Crusher is the author of the article in question. Livilnius (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being prolific does not make one notable. It's called working. Searches turned up very little on this individual. Nowhere near enough to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969TT me 16:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea is that he isn't simply prolific, but who he has been prolific and produced/recorded with, including charting, award winning artists (Neurosis, Melvins, Sleep) who have had albums released on major labels. Soul Crusher (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable figure in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions on Herbert Schendl and Herbert Koziol. This is a BLP of a non-notable academic, which fails WP:PROF, and is written by a user who has an obvious conflict of interest. See discussion here. Sources are poor primary references. Polyamorph (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See this strange edit by an IP claiming the author of the page was Stefan Dollinger himself [62]. Polyamorph (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. I don't think his work on the DCHP is sufficient in itself to confer notability on him . I'm not seeing the multiple independent secondary sources about Dollinger required to show notability. Meters (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on search results from Web of Science he seems like a fine academic, but nothing sufficiently out of the ordinary to satisfy NBIO. Cnilep (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Small production company in an industry that has hundreds, maybe thousands, of such companies. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Its founder is notable but that does not make the company notable. bonadeacontributionstalk 06:13, 13 April 2018 (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. Yes, AfD is not cleanup, but removing almost the entire contents of a 4-year-old article per WP:NOT (with the possibility of redirecting it) seemed like a reasonable thing to discuss on this board. However, this discussion is clearly going nowhere. (non-admin closure)power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It gives me no pleasure to XfD this. I feel the term must be maintained as a redirect (possibly to Oskar Schindler, but there are other possible targets), but am unwilling to BOLD-ly do so without a discussion.
The page as it currently stands is not encyclopedic content. The raw list of names would be appropriate for Wikisource but not this project, and the list of translations from German of occupations shouldn't be included in that form. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject. Whether to include the listof names and professions is an editing issue. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Clearly notable topic. The Schindler list Jews are discussed as a group, have acted together as a group (helping Schindler for instance after the war), and have received SIGCOV. Deletion is not clean up - and the some 1200 people are distinct from Schindler himself.Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable, but not the list of names, which should go to WikiSource instead. Acnetj (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:BIO and Icewhiz. Page needs expansion, not deletion. Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this was a stupid nomination. I vote a strong keep for this well-known subject, and vote to give a trout to the nominator. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep, clearly notable, problems can be fixed without deletion if necessary. Talk:Schindlerjuden is the right place to discuss this. —Kusma (t·c) 13:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Suggest that the nom withdraw this nomination. The article needs improvements, but notability is not questioned.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I may revisit this article. I would like to develop an article that reflects on this group's life during and after the war. A list does not give this topic its due.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Directors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR or basic GNG. This one fails both because the director has done only some non-notable short movies. Cited sources are not reliable enough. Google search does not yield anything solid, either. Saqib (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack pf substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most directors of non-notable works are non-notable, no idication he is an exception to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2018 (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. ansh666 04:28, 23 April 2018 (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.
The subject does not appear to meet GNG.. he has got some trivial coverage from independent reliable sources such as here and here but nothing significant. while language isn't relevant to our notability criteria at all but one should expect a bio on a relevant language edition of WP however in this casen no article in Urdu or even Sindhi WP.... I tried WP:BEFORE this nomination, but was unsuccessful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, There are sufficient references to be kept. Jogi 007 21:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. --Saqib (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article has sufficient coverage, it should not be deleted.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please list sufficient coverage here. Merely saying that sufficient coverage exists does not establish the notability. --Saqib (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, He is notable and has sufficient coverage. No need to delete this.--Spasage (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notable and has sufficient references. Arif80s (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I have my way, I would make sure that all IPs, !voting on AfDs, shall be check-user-ed by default. I wonder, what the outcome will be, in that case! ~ Winged BladesGodric 03:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be also kind enough to note that his notification did not violate the canvassing guidelines and am also pretty sure that I and Saqib, had not crossed our paths, significantly, ever before.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, if biased canvassing were a case, I wouldn't be fence-sitting (as below) and/or wishing for an extended time-span to locate sources.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh -I am fence-sitting between keep and delete, at least for now.Anyways, I would advice for a relist, given that all-most all the arguments seem to violate WP:ATA and am not able to retrieve non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.But, that he has been mentioned as the last skilled player of an instrument, somewhat swings it for me.Still, I would be looking for offline sources.~ Winged BladesGodric 03:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)As, described above, in my reply to the IP, I was alerted of this AfD, at my talk-page, which consisted of a notification, IMO, sufficiently neutral, to not fell afoul of our canvassing guidelines and neither have I and Saqib, crossed our paths, significantly, ever before.[reply]
Comment, Please allow this discussion some more time, I am working to find more reliable sources and trying to resolve the concerns raised regarding reliable sources and notability...Thanks...Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 08:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Iqbal Jogi is not living person. He died in 1987. He was a legend musician (Murli Player) of Pakistan. Furthermore, sufficient references have been cited. Thus, more time may kindly be given to Jogi Asad Rajpar for improving article and citation from reliable sources.--Aziz Kingrani (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has sufficient reliable references to establish notability. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pythoncoder: "Article has RS but not sufficient" << would you elaborate how and why you see them sufficient? --Saqib (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only way this can be kept is WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC (although I do feel that standard is generally biased against "folk music") is clearly not met. The references are trivial mentions that merely state he was a master Murli player, or are non-substantial coverage of his albums. Google search gives results about a different Iqbal Jogi [64], but nothing additional on this one. I can't rule out that there are Sindhi-language sources with non-trivial coverage, but based on the English-language sources and the ones present in the article, this does not meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
dear, the above reference man pulling snake in nose isnot Iqbal Jogi Which we are diacussing here, that is an other Iqbal Jogi. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 19:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NMUSIC across the board. That leaves WP:GNG. The coverage here is very thin. While it supports some of the material in the article, it's several bare mentions adding up to an article with nothing substantial to say about a non-notable subject. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's challenging to assess the case on WP:NMUSIC and on WP:GNG, especially for people who can't access offline or read non-English sources. Paradoxically, it's some of the material removed editorially as "cruft" by a recent editor that to me presents the greatest claim for notability, and is sourced to the clearly independent Tariq Rahman source, and (assuming rather than double checking accuracy) pushes me over to the line to keep. In the back of my mind is also that we do need to be careful of cultural ethnocentrism, and while notability and usable sources aren't negotiable, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in situations outside the mainstream of "Western" culture. Martinp (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: I am afraid no significant coverage exist in local language as well. For what it's worth, had it been the case, the corresponding entry on Sindhi WP would have used them. It's irony only a single Sindhi language reference is cited there which is not reliable either. And Notability requires verifiable evidence.. --Saqib (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails our musican guidelines and has no reliable sources. AFDs where a lot of sockpuppets show up are rarely good-faith article attempts, and if this guy was really such a "legend" there would be some sources, at least in the local language. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 17 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no refs in the article, nothing on google I can see, no imdb page, recently created by an spa, prod removed so it was sent here. Szzuk (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2018 (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.
Comment - if this and the IDLC Finance Limited AfD both indicate that they should be delete (I'm neutral on that atm), then IDLC could be created with them being merged under that banner? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I think the best way to deal with this will be to have individual merger discussions for the subsidiaries on the respective article talk pages and merge those for which notability can't be established.Seraphim System(talk) 09:39, 13 April 2018 (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.
Non-notable company sourced entirely to primary sources, not much more found after a WP:BEFORE check Seraphim System(talk) 04:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH based on sources already in article, including multiple newspaper reports on performance [65][66], plus a few weaker sources in the article. While those articles are a little heavy on stats over prose, that isn't uncommon for a financial company, and there are enough other sources to verify key details. There is definitely room for improvement, but coverage is sufficient to demonstrate notability. MarginalCost (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Additional sources not currently included in the article that can be used to establish notability: Journal Article, and a similar but not identical paper. MarginalCost (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider the above sources routine coverage - not what is required by WP:ORGDEPTH. The two academic papers are discussing IDLC (which doesn't even have an article) not IDLC Finance. (Notability is not inherited, of course.)Seraphim System(talk) 05:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this and the IDLC Investments Limited AdD both indicate that they should be delete (I'm neutral on that atm), then IDLC could be created with them being merged under that banner? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think IDLC is most likely notable - this article says that IDLC has changes its name and is now IDLC Finance Limited but the academic article listed above Journal Article seems to treat them as separate entities? It says IDLC is still operating and "some other leasing companies such as ... IDLC Financial Services Limited ... have emerged" - so my comments about IDLC were based on this source that was provided, but the Bloomberg reference given in the article does verify the name change - based on this additional sourcing, I will withdraw the Afd nomination and propose mergers for the subsidiaries were appropriate. Seraphim System(talk) 09:27, 13 April 2018 (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.
You want the credits to be merged? The tracks are already there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deana Martin. Good idea by the previous voter, but there is not much to merge because the singer's article already lists all the songs. And since she sings standards, most of the songs already have their own articles where songwriters are listed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 19 April 2018 (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.
Not all albums made by notable artists are notable (Wikipedia:INHERITED.) DB entry at AllMusic (https://www.allmusic.com/album/volare-mw0001346825) has no reviewer rating or review. I'll grant that there may be some offline sources that may support notability, but it's been tagged for sources off-and-on over four years and nothing was forthcoming. I'm left to assume that the album fails WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deana Martin because the singer's article already lists all the songs. And since she sings standards, most of the songs already have their own articles where songwriters are listed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:48, 19 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:CREATIVE & significant RS coverage not found. Coverage is in passing or incidental. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not come even close to being remotely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2018 (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability and no secondary sources. Organization's website is now a spam site, meaning the URL expired and organization is likely defunct. Marquardtika (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, refs were primary, now they are dead. No indication of notability in the article text despite worthy aims. Szzuk (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough to exist, not notable to get reliable and independent coverage, not notable to have an article here. Acnetj (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. --Kinut/c 19:36, 16 April 2018 (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.
WP:BLP of an actress with no strong or properly sourced claim of notability. As always, actors and actresses do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed in the article -- if you're going for "notable because she's had roles", rather than "notable because she won or got nominated for a major acting award", then the notability clinch is not in the list of roles itself, but in the depth and quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to get her over WP:GNGfor the having of roles. But the only reference shown here is the self-published website of a non-notable minor film festival, and even that fails to verify any of this article's content at all: it contains no mention of the subject or any film or television role she ever had, but appears to just be a blank template page. There's no significant media coverage about her to get her past GNG, and nothing claimed in the text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get past GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too reliant on a non-notable source. One of thousands of articles we have on non-notable actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing on news, nothing i can see on google, imdb showing her work but nothing out of the ordinary, refs in the article say nothing. Szzuk (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GNG. She has several mentions in secon. sources, view her IMBD for more info. ACYBERWARRIOR 19:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She was also in the movie 'Scary Movie' which is a very highley rated movie. I don't understand how she is not notable. ACYBERWARRIOR 19:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notability clincher for an actress is not "has had roles", it is "has received enough reliable source coverage about her to pass WP:GNGfor the having of roles" — and having her name mentioned in sources about other things is not the same thing as coverage about her. And IMDb is not a notability-supporting source that gets an actress into Wikipedia in and of itself, because everybody who has ever worked in film or television at all always has an IMDB page. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2018 (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.
She has only been in one film which I do not think merits notability. Makro (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparently entirely non-notable. Even her husband, who seems to have written much of the article, hasn't been able to show why we should have a page about her. Playing an unnamed bit part in a couple of episodes of a TV serial does not come anywhere near fulfilling WP:NACTOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched for her Hebrew name in Google News and found several more sources which I've added to the article. She appears to be regularly reported upon in Hebrew, though her movie JeruZalem has also received plenty of coverage in English. Based on the current sourcing of the article, she passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. She also appeared as a named role (Katie the Water Bottle Girl) in two episodes of Skins (UK TV series), she appeared on the Israeli show Prime Minister's Children, and she was the leading role in the 2015 movie JeruZalem. She also produced and directed Folie à Trois which received critical acclaim in Israel. As a result, I think she also passes WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has the lead role in the movie JeruZalem which was shown in many different contries, got several awards etc. As well as other notable roles in television and film. I think she is notable as an entertainer. --Dynara23 (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The JeruZalem is cheap horror film, that are usually populated with young girls, in this case Jadelyn, with a third co-star slot, which is an early stage career move. most actors go through the horror film stage, as they are always looking for new faces to be murdered in the most horrorful way. The rest are bit parts, shorts, character actor parts, all indicative of an actor, who is still trying to make it. There is zero evidence of awards, and the article certainly does not pass the WP:ENTERTAINER policy. Looking at that specific policy: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. I dont see that, it is not valid. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. There indication of this. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I severly doubt that somebody so early in her career is notable All the evidence indicates that she in non notable, and is perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 21:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I spent most of March and April shoveling this crap from my driveway. Now I get to shovel the article. Seems only fair. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:NOTNEWS. It snowed. The end. The claim of "largest severe weather outbreak of the season" appears to be puffery by Accuweather. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep or redirect - The "year’s most extensive severe weather outbreak" should have a page on Wikipedia, and we are not even half finished with April. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, puffery. It's going to snow again this weekend, possibly a bigger storm; my WP:CRYSTAL ball is unclear. It's unclear to me what the article title is supposed to refer to ("storm complex"?), or why it would be a plausible search term for 2017–18 North American winter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - If the article can not be kept, it should be redirected as a plausible search term, as this is how such articles are usually titled. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A portion of this article is dedicated to when you can catch your postponed flight (!?). If that does not shout WP:NOTNEWS, not much else will. Although it probably will be the "biggest" winter storm of 2018, that doesn't actually explain why this requires a seperate article, given the lack of lasting significance we have at this point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTNEWS. Just another snowstorm. Agricolae (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (splitting up?) - The other "Complexes" have a date range, but this article has become a "Monthly Weather Review" (not the "journal"). I don't think there is an overarching weather system, like the other complexes listed above. While it was a tornado outbreak with many wind events[67], it wasn't the largest tornado outbreak of the season, and is already covered here as a list. It was cold and snowy in some places for "Winter Storm Xanto" [68][69]. This shows the last 30 days of flight cancelations with a big bump March 21 and a smaller April 14. Daily Weather MapsStrayBolt (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of snow and some inconvenience. No great loss of life or extensive property damage. Transient mentions in the news but no lasting significance. Kablammo (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even clear whether the 2 april "natural disaster" (sic!) and e.g. the 15 April snowfall have anything to do with each other. Seems like a WP:COATRACK article more than anything else. Fram (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jax, there is no indication that the early month and midmonth storms were related in any way. So where would you redirect? Separate sections in 2017–18 North American winter? Kablammo (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Sounds good to me, else a section for April like we have for March. It seems users are too triggerhappy to delete instead of redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the content belongs in that article, and it may not need two sections. Including them in the section would April would work, but we should not treat the two storms as part of the same event unless a reliable source says otherwise. Kablammo (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point - it seems rather unlikely someone is going to use that as a search term, and if no text is to be merged no purpose is served by preserving the history of a misfire. Agricolae (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a plausible redirect target, though if the consensus here disagrees I'm not going to mind at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the other "North American winter" articles do extend into April or even May, if there was a major snow event (which might include an outbreak). Other than the two date ranges of 3 months, I don't know if WP editors have created criteria. Most of the big snow events in the north occur during March and April. I didn't find any "North American spring" articles. StrayBolt (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Winter is over? This is what April can look like in the Midwest. Winter and spring are not always determined by the calendar. Kablammo (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, and not every weather event merits an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if one considers these different storms in different places on different days as a single event or topic, it's just this Winter's weather. Deli nk (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Article reads like a CV, with lots of job titles ranging from journalist to mayor to civil servant, but with no real indication of notability for any of them. Everything is related to towns in the department of Santander where Mr. Rodríguez was born, lived and died, suggesting he was never more than a local figure (the description of him as "Bumangues" relates to someone being from Bucaramanga, the departmental capital). I appreciate that Mr. Rodríguez worked in the pre-internet era and that online sources are going to be difficult to come by, but of the two sources listed in the article, one includes him being interviewed about a local custom, and the other reprints some of his journalism regarding a local flooding – neither of them contain any biographical detail about the man himself. Article has already been deleted twice from the Spanish Wikipedia for being little more than a list of job titles. Richard3120 (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think if Spanish Wikipedia already came to consensus on this it's safe to follow their lead. -- Ϫ 12:36, 16 April 2018 (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 09:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The contemporaneous news coverage isn't enough to meet GNG. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability., and I would consider these all to be primary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There is coverage in reliable sources here, and how could they possibly be "primary", it's a swan?★Trekker (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2018 (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.
This list fails WP:NLIST, with no indication as to why its members meet the criterion of being a real estate company of the Philippines. There is also no evidence that the list as a whole is covered in independent reliable sources rather than its individual members. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Article is simply a directory listing with no added value or significance. VelellaVelella Talk 08:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From NOTDIR: "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." This is an indexing list of articles, and when it comes to notable companies there is no more basic way to index them than by industry and country. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The keyphrase there is "....to describe a notable subject." In this case there is not a shred of evidence that this list is a notable subject. The mere fact that each individual article has been deemed notable does not mean a list of such articles is notable. Notability is not inherited. VelellaVelella Talk 16:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The key conjunction before that "keyphrase" is "or", and this list falls in the former part of that sentence, not the latter that you've partially re-quoted. This list is not itself a subject, it is just a format for organizing articles the same as a category. So it is nonsensical to talk about whether the list itself "is notable". Seriously, try reading the relevant guidelines I've cited above. They will help you understand all of this. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Could you try to be a little more patronising ? What ever happened to "assuming good faith" ? And yes I did, and have, read the guidelines - I too have been around for many years. VelellaVelella Talk 18:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing that demonstrated in your comments. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I in yours. And please don't reformat my comments. VelellaVelella Talk 20:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without the article stating the notability of the group it is a directory and not a list, I've just googled for this article and there is nothing to suggest real estate companies in the Philippines has been discussed as a group, all that returns are directory results etc. Szzuk (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have many similar list articles. This is appropriate for both a category and a list--that there are sufficient notable entitites to include is sufficient, for a navigational device such as a list. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly reasonable. postdlf (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2018 (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. Some good sources here ~ Amory(u • t • c) 10:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She might be notable, but currently I do not see it from the article. Two of the references are interviews, none are in media I can recognize (well, I can recognize ELLE - which is a kind of tabloid publishing horoscopes, right?). From the article I do not see why she is notable either. Let us run it through AfD to see whether she is actually notable. Ymblanter (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the precanned google search in the template shows definite sufficient for WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. References do not have to be in the article to demonstrate notability, they just have to exist. I think there is sufficient IRS to also support more article content. Aoziwe (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For BLP articles, references have to be in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment "notability not shown" is not a deletion rationale, rather use wp:Before. Marthadandridge (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement is incorrect, and, in particular, it is incorrect for BLP.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wendy Zukerman is notable as you can see from a basic google search, but this article in its current state is an unremarkable stub that does not do her justice. This needs someone to actually write/edit the article esp. since it's a BPL. Jooojay (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use improvement, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, faulty deletion rationale. The nominator's claim that notability of BLPs has to be shown by sources that are actually in the article is not supported by WP:BLP (which merely says that all challengeable claims in an article must be sourced). And in any case the article has been significantly improved since nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish there was a Science Vs article that I could vote merge and redirect to, but there's limited coverage on her - almost everything I found is about the show - and so she fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 00:51, 20 April 2018 (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. Mz7 (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that suggests this person meets WP:NMUSIC. Just a session musician who co-wrote and produced a few songs, and played in a band of dubious notability. A draft of this article was refused several times and the creator is not responding to COI enquiries. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 01:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nom has it wrapped up nicely. Trying to decide if itsi worth my time to clean it up enough that it can be read. John from Idegon (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2018 (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. sufficient consensus after improvement DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I physically can't believe I had to start an AfD on this because my PROD was declined, but here we go: this is a small local/regional retailer which fails to meet WP:N (particularly the portion that requires at least national if not worldwide interest) and the expanded WP:NCORP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage found on Google search or Google News. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changing to Keep. It's truly Krazy Krazy that Bearcat found (below) so many excellent sources! this article is here, as there are no RS available to establish notability. BUT you might get a great deal on a stereo. 11:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.140.141 (talk)
Keep. A company that's been around since 1983 requires more than just a Google search to establish whether it's notable enough — Google News is not a reliable locator of news coverage that's more than a few years old, and is a complete wipeout for locating anything whatsoever predating the early 2010s. On a ProQuest search for older coverage, however, I am finding a lot more genuinely substantive news coverage than I was expecting to, in sources as diverse as The Globe and Mail, the Ottawa Citizen, the Edmonton Journal, the Calgary Herald and Northern Ontario Business. So for a business based in Winnipeg, that's national coverage pinned and pwned — it's not a purely local retailer, but a formerly much larger national chain that's since shrunk. I can't tackle this right this minute, but I'll buff it up in the next couple of days. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article now significantly expanded and upreffed. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, !vote changed. Dumb question: does Proquest give you the full original articles to read?104.163.140.141 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the publication. For most, it does — but only if you're logged in through either a proquest account or a partner library — but there are some publications (mostly in Atlantic Canada) for which even a logged-in user still just sees an abstract and not the full text. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know! Thank you for this and the article rescue.104.163.140.141 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability well established by Bearcat. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Krazy Krazy Keep – Appears to meet WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH as per sources added to the article by Bearcat. Except for one, the sources are not hyperlinked, so AGF regarding their sufficiency in terms of depth of coverage. Some seem to be routine coverage as per their headlines (e.g. store closures), and the one linked article only has passing mentions, but others do not come across as this. North America1000 10:11, 20 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG. He has not played in a fully pro league and his one appearance for Cambodia was not a Tier 1 match, meaning the article also fails WP:NSPORT. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to voter Please doing a search before sharing your opinion, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Claim in article to two senior caps is incorrect, one match was not a full FIFA 'A' International ands in the other he was an unused substitute. Fenix down (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2018 (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.
Comment:: This article was titled "Moline (Amtrak station)" until yesterday. Some relevant points: According to "Train project still on track" (2018-02-25), "there is no update on a timeline other than 'it is in the state of Illinois' five-year plan.'". But the future train station is actually part of a multi-use building now called the "Q", and overall that development is progressing: An Element Hotel just opened in the building. 
~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
