Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 December	26 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Collins (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Although at first glance this appears to be heavily referenced, I doubt that it meets WP:NBIO as many of the references are in-passing or about companies related to this individual. The entire section "other contributions" is a good example: most of the links are to author profiles in blogs and such; this and this are good examples. Overall one gets the impression of some kind of vanity biography. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline vanispamcruftisement as presently written. Nearly fifty references but most of them some combination of self published, unreliable, primary, trivial or deadlinks. The "best entrepreneur under 30" award (which is mentioned in several other sources) comes from Anthill Online, "one of Australia’s largest online communities for entrepreneurs, business builders and innovators" - I'm not even certain they would be independently notable, therefore an award from them certainly wouldn't be. I'd suggest merge into Mailman Group, but that article isn't any better and is of similarly unclear notability. Probably a bare pass of GNG with this from The Australian, but it doesn't make much of an assertion of notability - he founded a few companies of uncertain notability and got an award from an online community, also of uncertain notability. In its current state I think it's a delete; may change !vote if a successful effort is made to rectify spamminess and other issues. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Borderline, yes, but in my view there seems to be sufficient breadth of coverage to just get over the WP:NEXIST line. Yes article could do with some rewrite. Aoziwe (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep but would love to delete it. I feel like this article is an impressive instance of how Wikipedia can be gamed. It is clearly promotional cruft, yet look at all the sources! I clicked on a bunch of them and yeah they're pretty meh, but there they are. He is a marketing guy, so of course. I suspect he engineered 90% of the coverage himself, and also got someone to write the page up for him. Yet how can we delete it just because it is so obviously that? Doesn't it follow the surface of the rules which require multiple independent RS? And I bet if we here deleted it because there is no profile of Andrew Collins, a few months later he will have organized a nice profile from a friendly journalist. I do suggest cutting the piece to 1/3 of the size though, if possible...Happy monsoon day 19:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE potentially applies - we don't have an article for every businessman in the world, even if they have a bit of news coverage. He certainly doesn't get anywhere near WP:ANYBIO.Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:IAR. If Wikipedia's rules are obviously being gamed, they're not ironclad. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Delete. Thanks for those policy links. I think while ANYBIO is relevant, what this one comes down to is really just IAR. We're all looking at this article and agree that it's simply a waste of space and want to get rid of it because is so obviously pure promotional cruft, but it can be a little tricky to hang it on a particular policy when they've gone to the trouble of digging up a zillion references. But yes, I personally think it should be done away with. Ironically if the fellow and his PR team had simply kept the promote to a single paragraph, no one would have bothered to AfD it, because it wouldn't be so offensive.Happy monsoon day 20:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy monsoon day: To help the closing admin, could you please strike/remove your initial keep vote above. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious spam article with no good version to revert to. I agree with the nomination statement and Yeti Hunter's assessment. The article is written in PR prose, includes irrelevant material and puffery (for instance, "Collins partnered with China Branding Group in 2012 to launch Fanstang.com,[23][24] which is an international celebrity social network connecting global stars with China. It has connected Hollywood stars and musicians like Alicia Keys, Avril Lavigne, Taylor Swift and more to social media users in China.[25] Fanstang is regarded as a leader within the China celebrity and entertainment industry.[4]" - only the first half of the first sentence is relevant) and none of the sources provide in-depth coverage of this person: most are very lightweight marketing type websites or listings of this person at various events or businesses. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 28 December 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 redirect to Prozor-Rama. There is no sourced info for merging, but in any case, the content is still available in the history. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prozor, Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

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

Redirect: This isn't even a proper place, its a part of Prozor-Rama. --Audi1merc2 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the town that is the center of the municipality, we just don't have any substantial content about it. Many Bosnian municipalities are eponymous with their main settlements, which are in turn often much more substantially notable than the municipalities, and in these cases we have common articles, but I don't think a deviation from this practice is something that needs to be discussed at AfD as opposed to simply Talk:Prozor, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Talk:Prozor-Rama. Anyway, even if this place was entirely subsumed under a different settlement it would still be a gazetteer topic in its own right, and eligible for its own article per WP:5. In any event, I would advise withdrawing this from AfD since the nomination metadata seems to reference "Montreal School for the Deaf", this is not an appropriate level of diligence... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2018

(@Joy I fixed it now. --Audi1merc2 (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere. After some research there isn't a need to have an article about both the municipality and the town: not that it's binding, but for instance, the Bosnian and Serbocroatian wikis don't even separate the two. There's nothing at Prozor-Rama that wouldn't also be at Prozor, for instance. SportingFlyer talk 21:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's not an article, not even a paragraph. It's just a line with no sources,better to merge to another article about Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alex-h (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prozor-Rama – if no sources, content cannot be merged. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 15:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Ciara. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Me (Ciara song)[edit]

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

No apparent credible assertation of notability at this time. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ciara discography per WP:NSONGS. This song has failed to receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Charting in one or two countries does not establish notability. Hayman30 (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having just marked this as reviewed, I realize I probably should have nominated this myself; the song has charted but that alone doesn't cut it, and it doesn't look as if there's enough material out there to sustain an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anything, this should have been requested a Full Page Temporary Protection first, but since we are here now, the situation needs to be completely shut down by a deletion. 'UPDATE: Will cite myself from the talk page response "It is just that I feel the full deletion would solve this much better. This AfD is just going in an obvious path, redirect again like it was used to be, so that is my question here. It's not like there would be a big loss of content here and would prevent IP users to meddle with the article (as they cannot create articles)" Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with AFD-backed redirect confirmation, possibly sealed with PP if ignored? Tried and true method. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easily could be redirected back as any other redirect sadly and seeing how IPs change, blocking will not change the status quo here, and then Page Curators would be fighting over and over and over.... So something HAS to be done. I do agree PP is a solid alternative, but I do not think it will fix the issues unless it is at least a 1 year protection (admins accessed only). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is generally not suitable for songs because after that someone else (most likely new users) will create an article/a redirect anyway. Creation protection is not appropriate (or likely) either. In my opinion, redirect plus extended confirmed/admin edit protection would be ideal because the title is still a valid search term. This anonymous user has been restoring the page multiple times using different IPs, simply deleting the page isn't gonna help. Hayman30 (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your general reasoning here, I thought IPs were not allowed to create articles here? Same goes to newly created accounts, in both cases they would have to go through AfC from which it can be controlled easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have provided some sources in the following list; I am not providing a vote either way though, and I will leave it up to the other editors to determine whether or not they contribute to notability. I hope this is somewhat helpful. The sources are: Billboard, Vibe, Capital XTRA, Essence, Idolator, Essence, The Fader, Rap-Up, ABC News Radio, and HotNewHipHop. Even if the article is deleted, these sources could be useful for the main Ciara article, or an album article if this song is released as part of an album in the future. In my personal opinion, it seems that this song was overlooked in favor of Ciara's other two singles "Level Up" and "Dose", which both received far more coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Ciara - the song itself did not make the Top Twenty, so is probably not notable enough for a standalone article. Vorbee (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. Changed my vote per a good point of Hayman30, fails WP:GNG but is appropriate to redirect to the artist. For Aoba, those sources are either passing mentions, PR or WP:ROUTINE for the release. None of those are indepth enough to help the case here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: I thought so. I would personally not feel comfortable/confident enough to make an article with just those sources; however, some of them may be helpful for the main Ciara article (or an album article if that ever happens). I think a redirect is a better answer than deletion. If I had to vote either way, I would agree with you that redirection and protection is the best approach. The coverage on this song is rather limited; I listed all of the sources that I could find from reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 27 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

League of Lyons[edit]

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

No indication of independent notability; sources consist of in-house productions and product listings. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't seem to have attracted the reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable , no reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 16:46, 30 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Swiss Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP Cabayi (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV available for such an old company. Orientls (talk) 05:23, 29 December 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. The fact that only a few editors participated in this debate is to be regretted. No prejudice to bringing this to AfD again in a couple of months. Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special Counsel counter report[edit]

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

This surely fails WP:CRYSTAL; it's an article about something that doesn't exist yet, with the assertions that it will exist coming from figures who are perhaps not universally regarded as trustworthy.

Until such a report does exist, it does not seem to me to merit a page. Some of the material on the article could perhaps be used in pages about things that do exist. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Pinkbeast: You are correct. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but does however allow such contents survive here. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable (Done, there are various citations from The Atlantic, Washington Times, Washington Post, etc.) and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. (Again, the Wikipedia that I created suffices this clause as well. Some of the largest news institutions in the country are reporting it. The President has said it, his lawyers have said it...) It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." The same paragraph further elaborates on areas in which I have not infringed. You also stated "coming from figures who are perhaps not universally regarded as trustworthy." Everything has been citied by either media companies, legal institutions, or the people themselves. (E: For more context, Guiliani has said it, Trump has said it, Jay, Marty has, etc. This has been talked about for close to half a year.)

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place....As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient." I am pretty sure the Mueller Investigation and soon-to-be Counter Report are "notable and almost certain to take place." This is a bit of a stretch due to the semantics of "far in the future" however it is fair to say that the Mueller Investigation and the Special Counsel Counter Report will *most likely* be out within a year.

I am not speculating anything. Everything has been cited. Aviartm (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all clear to me that this supposed counter-report is "almost certain to take place"; as far as I can tell the cites on the article amount to Trump saying it's happening, associates of Trump saying it's happening, and newspapers reporting that Trump says it's happening. Statements that originate from Trump are not particularly noted for their reliability.

The Mueller investigation is not "almost certain to take place"; it is already in progress. Perhaps you mean Mueller's final summary of the investigation is "almost certain to take place"? That seems true - it certainly seems far more likely to take place than something Trump tweeted about - but unless I am very much mistaken, we don't have a page about Mueller's currently non-existent final summary of his investigation, either.

I cannot see that there is any content of value in this page that could not be added to pages related to the Mueller investigation. A note to the effect that Trump claims a "counter-report" is being prepared would suffice, if there isn't one there already. Once the counter-report exists, if it ever does, it would merit an article - perhaps even once reliable sources generally agree it will exist, and are willing to at least speculate on its specific contents. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell and have seen numerous tweets by Trump that either occurred or foreshadowed what was to happen. And of course, I was referring to the conclusion of the Mueller Investigation. My apologies.

"we don't have a page about Mueller's currently non-existent final summary of his investigation, either." Because the conclusions will most likely fall into the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) page. But if the conclusions are very lengthy and large, then a separate page might ensue. And the reporting of a counter report being in the works has been reported for close to half a year now. And the progress of the counter report has been reported too. I believe there is more than enough reporting and notability and information regarding the counter report for it to merit a Wikipedia page. Aviartm (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it hasn't been written, I think the report meets the GNG, and if the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) article didn't exist, it would be a viable article. But given the existence of that article, I think this should be merged with that one. Guettarda (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Guettarda. However, we do not know how long the findings of Mueller are. As I stated prior, it might need its own Wikipedia page but we will have to see. And if someone is going to counter you, kinda implies that they are going to counter your main points and more. I believe further down the road, the Special Counsel counter report will need its own Wikipedia page. Those are just my thoughts. Aviartm (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I'm confident that report will need its own article. I believe that deletion would be inappropriate - the report meets the GNG, and almost certainly will eventually need to be spun out into a separate article. But for now, I believe it should be upmerged, "without prejudice", as they say. Once there's more to write, spin it back off into a stand-alone article. Guettarda (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. So, how do we go about doing that necessarily? Do we do a full content or selective paste? Also, what will happen to the current page? Will it be temporarily be offline once there is more info or...? (E: It appears that we "Delete all the text from the source page and replace it with..."with both procedures. If that is the case, maybe I should archive the current page to act as a template?) Aviartm (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the AFD to finish; and don't try and do the merge yourself, you'll make a mess of it. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The process is pretty straightforward. And yes, I am waiting until this concludes. And I am also waiting for Guettarda to respond. Aviartm (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviartm: I'm not sure what you're asking. If the conclusion from this AFD is "merge", I expect that the closer will either do the merge, or tag it for someone to merge. At that point, it's pretty much up to the person doing the merge, and editors on the SC investigation page. Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Aviartm (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) or a related article per Guettarda. AdA&D ★ 15:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section that I have made prior to this AFD on Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). Btw, it says in the AFD process..."After a discussion period (usually 7 days), an administrator then evaluates the response and takes action as needed." How extensive is this action? Just the conclusion or the actual merging of the 2 pages? I have not published the pages yet but I did the merging process if I can.Aviartm (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:02, 25 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bartram (Kent cricketer)[edit]

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

PROD inexplicably removed. Player has not played first-class cricket, as suggested in the article, and all we have is a surname. Fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I assume it's the same case as this AfD? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very clear delete. Never played at first-class level - despite the article stating he did - and we only have a surname to go on so there's no chance we'll ever be able to build a viable biography. As a result we have no way to show notability beyond being a name on a scorecard. The same points as in the AfD Lugnuts links to apply - fails WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:N, WP:ATHLETE etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First class or not first class (CRIN is a community consensus - not policy) - it is clear there is no SIGCOV as we are even lacking a given name. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delte appearing in a massive collection of stats is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no biographical information, and full name is unknown. If we can't unambiguously identify this person there should not be an article on them. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk _YO! 18:56, 28 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birchet (Surrey cricketer)[edit]

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

PROD inexplicably removed. Player has not played first-class cricket, as suggested in the article, and all we have is his surname. Fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I assume it's the same case as this AfD? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very clear delete. Never played at first-class level - despite the article stating he did - and we only have a surname to go on so there's no chance we'll ever be able to build a viable biography. As a result we have no way to show notability beyond being a name on a scorecard. The same points as in the AfD Lugnuts links to apply - fails WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:N, WP:ATHLETE etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First class or not first class (CRIN is a community consensus - not policy - and sport guidelines are very much geared for the modern era, not the 18th century) - it is clear there is no SIGCOV as we are even lacking a given name.Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no biographical information, and not enough sourcing to even know the person's full name. If there's not enough sourcing to unambiguously identify the player, we should not have an article. There's also loads of original research- all that stuff about "this guy must be notable because they wrote down his name and that hardly happened in those days". This is another hopeless case. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk _YO! 09:32, 29 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R. Black (Leicestershire cricketer)[edit]

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

PROD inexplicably removed. Player has not played first-class cricket, as suggested in the article, and all we have is a first initial and his surname. Fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I assume it's the same case as this AfD? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CRIN is not policy (but wikiproject consensus) - and is predicated (as in other sports) on players in major matches surely having coverage in various sport rags. While this seems to be the case in the modern era, this seems to be untrue for players from the 18th century - and the lack of sourcing here - as well as a lack of given name - rather indicate that this figure does not have WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the reasons given above hit the nail on the head. The matches aren't first-class and we can't show any other notability so fails WP:GNG - we're looking at a name on 4 scorecard. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no biographical information, and what sourcing there is is not even enough to unambiguously identify the player. This is not enough for an article. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk _YO! 09:28, 29 December 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 redirect to Ill Communication. Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretzel Nugget[edit]

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

A rare, but otherwise unnotable EP. Based on GNG and NALBUM, there is not much to go by because I failed to find any reliable source that could do more than verify this EP’s existence. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ill Communication, the album that contains almost it its songs. (Or the discography article if people prefer that.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ill Communication as an alternative to deletion. There is no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources for the subject, making it fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandar Jàmsandêkar[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Award may be notable enough. scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of independent notability and the award doesn't seem to be well-known as required by WP:BIO. The article was previously created under Mandar Jamsandekar by a different user which Rosguill moved to draftspace. The single-purpose author almost certainly has a Conflict of interest, which should be declared. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:14, 26 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Week Show[edit]

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

Article about a television series, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. This is completely unreferenced, but even on a ProQuest search I was only able to find a single glancing namecheck of its existence in an article about its network. As always, every television show is not automatically entitled to keep a Wikipedia article just because it existed -- it needs reliable source coverage about it in media, but this doesn't have any. Also a conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username to the names of the show's stars. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. No WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE search. FOARP (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 10:42, 25 December 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 redirect to University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences. Deleted content can be provided to anyone wishing to consider using it to expand the target article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasound Education Group[edit]

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

no evidence for the notability of the research group. We rarely make articles for small research groups of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Independent notability of this group appears not to be demonstrable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are only mentions, which does not serve to fulfill notability requirements. Natureium (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences#Research. Not notable in its own right but does deserve some due weight material in its already existing parent's article, that could do with some extra content too. Aoziwe (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the possible merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per Aoziwe. Bondegezou (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be just one research group among many. Why list this group in the article on its faculty and not all the others? And listing all the others, too, would be both UNDUE and against NOTADIRECTORY. --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Clubb[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC Natureium (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 9 papers cited over 100x passes WP:Prof#C1. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this listed somewhere? According to Web of Science, he has one paper that has been cited more than 100 times (Sortase enzymes in Gram-positive bacteria, Molecular Microbiology). There also is no definition of "highly cited" so that's debatable, but a requirement for articles in general is that there must be coverage of them. You'll need to show that there are sources available that can be used to write an article. Natureium (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am using Google Scholar [1]. I agree that what is termed "highly cited" is subjective and may vary based on the field. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While subjective, I think his citation count passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of GNG with nothing anywhere even close to a 3rd party source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACADEMIC is a separate guideline from GNG. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think he does actually pass WP:PROF#C1. But the article is relentlessly picayune (do we really need to know his mother's home town and the name of the guy who showed him how to use an NMR machine?) and I searched but did not find secondary sourcing that could provide more substantive content for the article, like major breakthroughs he might have been part of or even a general flavor of his research specialty. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 30 December 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 to keep after work on article. Michig (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Federico[edit]

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

WP:PERP not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I suspect that Federico murder case (not sure of title - complex - alleged double murder, murder for hire, plot to kill witnesses) would pass WP:NCRIME given the wide national coverage dating back a bit. The BLP subject of this article, if convicted, might warrant a spinoff down the road - but not at the moment. The present article has content was is borderline revdellable (saying our BLP subject committed a crime, without him being convicted + multiple other BLPs mentioned by name) - so I'm somewhat apprehensive at re-titling and re-purposing the present article (which is not too long) - starting the crime article from scratch might be a better route. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - following rename and refactor.Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But rename to Federico murder case. Per WP:NCRIME.BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rename as Federico murder case. The article will be improved as more editors become involved and the story unfolds. Note: I am the originator of the article. Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper and nothing here rises above routine news coveage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — An obvious biography where the subject is known for only one event. BLPCRIME also explicitly warns us about creating biography articles on suspects of a crime.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled and Rewritten - Article rewritten to be about the crime, not the person. Used the Watts family murder article as a guide. Retitled as suggested; now "Federico murder case". Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEYMANN by page creator who has moved page to new title as suggested above, rewritten and expanded it. Meets WP:NCRIME. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, WP:HEYMANN. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:00, 25 December 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. Quite an even split of opinion, and another relist doesn't seem likely to change that. Michig (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Coates (longevity claimant)[edit]

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

Another longevity claim about which there is almost no information. This guy was born at some undetermined time, lived, died... and his longevity claim is still very little-reported. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. The experts say he was a fraud and there is very little reporting on him or anything to say about him except brief information on record possibilities if his already disproven age claim was true. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per WP:GNG. A trivial Google search for "William Coates" Maryland 1889 throws up three further items of substantive coverage on the first page of hits alone: UPI[2], NBC News[3] and the Washington Post[4].

Those three additional items of substantive coverage in reliable sources, plus the one already cited in he article, are more that sufficient to satisfy GNG. It is disappointing that as with other recent AFD noms by @The Blade of the Northern Lights, the nominator makes no claim to have done any of the required WP:BEFORE research to see if there is more coverage. That omission in a single AFD could be discounted as an oversight, but the consistency of of this basic failure across multiple AFD nominations looks more like WP:Tendentious editing.

The invocation by @Newshunter12 of WP:BIO1E is also misplaced. This topic is notable because of a single attribute, whereas WP:BIO1E is about a single event . So that arguments should be discounted.

Similarly, the apparent falsity of Coates's claim does not remove his notability; it merely changes the ways in which the article is written and categorised. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", so the article correctly notes that his claim was unverified and probably false.

That leaves us solely with WP:NOPAGE. Nothing in that guideline recommends deleting an article which satisfies GNG. There is no precedent in any other topic area for the systematic merger of articles on notable people to a list.

I am concerned that this is another in a series of XFD nominations prepared at WT:LONGEVITY#AfDs_of_individual_biographies and pursued as a tag-team by members of that project on the basis of what I can most kindly describe as severe misunderstandings of most of the policies and guidelines which they cite. The members of that project appear to have agreed among themselves that articles on people notable for longevity are inherently and axiomatically "cruft", and that GNG is insufficient. They have no policy basis for doing so, and appear to have decided that their own overt hostility to the topic should override the editorial judgement of respected major news sources. That is blatant POV-pushing, and it is just as incompatible with Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV as the inverse view pushed by of the fans of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) that the mere fact of longevity create a bypass around WP:GNG.

I have supported the deletion or merger of articles on non-notable supercentenarians, and I will continue to do so .. but this is different. This is part of a systematic campaign to eliminate articles on demonstrably notable claimed or actual supercentenarians, which extends even to WP:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian). WP:LONGEVITY's cleanup campaign has taken a wrong turn into organised disruption.

. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a hive mind. I'm doing this of my own volition, and I don't (contra-GRG) have an off-wiki fan site where I recruit other people. I don't find the small amount of coverage (3 news articles) this guy received to be significant, so I nominated the article; maybe I'm wrong, maybe not, that's why I didn't just use PROD. And there's no policy algorithm for determining notability of super old people (or people claiming to be super old people), so it's natural not everyone will agree. And, as I said elsewhere, I maybe have one more AfD I'll be starting, so it's hardly an indefinite onslaught. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights, straw man time: I did not suggest or imply that you have an off-wiki fan site to recruit meatpuppets. I did point to the on-wiki tag-teaming, which has been clearly evident at both CFD and AFD.

I also pointed to the absence of any WP:BEFORE. I can see only two possibilities here. One is that you didn't didn't do a simple Google search for more sources before bringing this to AFD. The other is that you did search, but chose not to mention the other sources. Which is it?

It quite true that there is no algorithm for notability of longevity claimants. But that's the norm; most topics have no special notability guideline beyond GNG, and 4 items of substantive coverage is usually enough to establish notability.

When you nominated the article, there was only one source. Now, a total of 4 have been identified. The fact that neither you nor @Newshunter12 modified your stances in any way when the volume of substantive coverage quadrupled is one of the factors which pushes me to the view that WP:LONGEVITY is tag-teaming towards a predefined goal rather than making a sincere attempt to apply notability guidelines.

Another factor is the responses at WT:LONGEVITY#BIO1E to WP:LONGEVITY's claim to my objections to that project's assertions that longevity is a single event. You haven't commented there, and are of course not obliged to do so, but it is bizarre to see both respondents so far cling to the view that a personal characteristic with no defined start point is a single "event". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl Your false claims about WP:BIO1E have already been refuted in the conversation you cited, so I'm not going to repeat my comments here. Furthermore, you recently accused me of being canvassed in CfD's, some of which were started by The Blade of the Northern Lights, so they are not wrong in denying having an off-wiki fan site where they recruit editors like me. You are the one causing this kind of talk by claiming a disparate "group" of editors are part of some anti-old people scheme. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12: no, I did not accuse you of being canvassed. I did point out that you are part of a tag-team of editors who repeatedly !vote the same way across a slew of discussions.

As to the BIO1E discussion, there is a difference between refutation and rebuttal. You replied to my points there. When I responded[5] with a further critique, you gave up on the substance and went for ad hominem attack.[6]

Same on this page. Number of identified sources quadruples since your !vote, but when I ping you about that, instead of reconsidering of your stance it's another hominen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl So you are saying your account was hacked and you did not write: What are you up to? Is this some form of intentional disruption? Or has someone somewhere canvassed you to come to this discussion and vote for something who effects you don't care about? here in a CfD started by The Blade of the Northern Lights? As I said, false claims. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12: no my account was not hacked. But it's a curious coincidence that you have suggested the possibility only 24 hours after the first ever logged attempt to hack it.

Anyway, as you can see, I didn't accuse you being canvassed; I asked you a question about the astonishing gap between your disavowal of interest and your many actions, and I followed it with by asking whether either of two v different possible explanations applied.

Note that I didn't receive an answer as to why an editor who repeatedly expressed a lack of interest in categories chose to post multiple times in about a dozen CFDs to advocate removal of articles from extant categories whose scope fits those articles. If neither of the possibilities I asked about can be answered yes, then please explain what actually was going on.

Back to this AFD. Four times as many sources as when you !voted, yet when asked to comment on that you have chosen to reply twice without addressing that point. Very odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not try to hack your account. I've had enough of your personal attacks and other stunts against me, so I have no plan to ever respond to you again on Wikipedia. I have better things to do. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per particularized and convincing defense of this entry by BrownHairedGirl whose production of supporting citations confirms subject's sufficient notability. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The substantial coverage in reliable sources provided by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) in articles in United Press International, NBC News, and The Washington Post.
2. Kitty, Alexandra (2005). Louv, Jason (ed.). Don't Believe It!: How Lies Becomes News. New York: Disinformation. ISBN 978-1-932857-06-1. Retrieved 2018-12-11.
  The book notes:
  William Coates was one such piece of living trivia: at 114 years of age, the Clinton, Maryland man was known around the country as being the oldest living man in the United States. It was an unofficial title he had held for the past several years, as was mentioned in the June 2, 1999 edition of the Washington Post
  [three-paragraph quote from the Washington Post]
  Sadly, Coates passed away in February 2004. A mention of his death was made in a February 25 Associated Press story disseminated by hundreds of media outlets:
  [five-paragraph quote from the Associated Press]
  The last sentence should have set off some sort of alarm bells for both reporters and news consumers. While it was not uncommon for those in the 1800s to not have a birth certificate, it certainly was a stretch to consider someone to be the country's eldest citizen in absence of one. By early March, it was revealed that a copy of a 1930 U.S. Census form showed that Coates was listed as being eighteen years old, making him 92, not 114, at the time of his death. Yet even then, some who knew Coates remained firm in their beliefs, as shown in the March 2, 2004 edition of the Maryland Gazette:
  [one-paragraph quote from the Gazette]
  It was noted in some articles that none of Coates' relatives maintained that he was 114 years old, either. [analysis about newspapers and newscasts running the story without independent verification]
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow William Coates to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above; meets GNG Catrìona (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the main source is an article disputing the underlying claims I see nothing at all to suggest notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is no reason to have articles on every unfounded claim of longevity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per BrownHairedGirl. Regarding the point raised about the longevity claim being likely false - this adds to notability, it doesn't detract from it. If someone is reported as particularly long-lived in reliable sources and then is exposed as a fraud and this is reported in reliable sources that clearly adds to their notability because not only were they known for being long-lived but they were also known for pulling a fast-one on everyone. If you can't show they were a fraud in reliable sources then at least write the piece so as not to state their longevity as accepted fact. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem with the so-called Longevity project's program to delete supercentenarians is that they appear to make no serious effort to determine notability guidelines for such articles. I have suggested in other AfDs that a useful guideline could be whether the subject received significant coverage during their lifetime, whether that is coverage specifically for reaching extreme old age, or for other reasons. In this case, I do not find SIGCOV before the subject's death, unlike other supercentenarians like Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian), Edna Parker, Jack Lockett, Bernice Madigan, and others who were deleted despite having SIGCOV (eg James Sisnett, Carl Berner, Edelgard Huber von Gersdorff, Vi Robbins, etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What people claim passes WP:GNG is just WP:BLP1E here. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply to a man who neither is living nor has recently died. As explained extensively by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) here, WP:BIO1E does not apply either.
Cunard (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two more articles from The Washington Post:
1. Getler, Michael (2004-03-07). "Good News and Sad News". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-12-25. Retrieved 2018-12-25.
  The article notes:
  When William Coates died on Feb. 24 at the Southern Maryland Hospital Center, the story made the front page of the Metro section the next day because, the story said, at age 114, he "was believed to be America's oldest man." The story, which was relatively brief, said Coates did not have a birth certificate, which would not have been uncommon for African Americans of his generation. But it quoted the director of a Maryland senior center who had done extensive research on county centenarians as saying Coates was born June 2, 1889. The Post had mentioned Coates before in the news section when he was honored at a 1999 event called the Celebration of Centenarians sponsored by Prince George's County and two other local agencies, and in three or four other stories over the past five years. He was also mentioned in 2002 by columnist Courtland Milloy, who added that other authorities were working to authenticate his age.
  After his death, The Post set out to write a fuller story. On March 2, a front-page Metro story reported that "in a final twist to a long life that is largely shrouded in questions, U.S. Census records indicate that Coates -- who has been celebrated for his supposed advanced age in news stories and public proclamations -- was no older than 92 when he died."
  This was a much longer and more thoroughly reported story than the first effort, including references to earlier Post stories giving his age as 110 at the time. It pointed out that none of Coates's relatives had claimed he was 114 but said, rather, that they knew few details of his life. That second story appeared on the day Coates's relatives were attending his funeral at a Northeast Washington church.
2. Schwartzman, Paul (2004-03-02). "Census Records Cast Doubt On Age of Pr. George's Man". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-12-25. Retrieved 2018-12-25.
  This is per Michael Getler, the "much longer and more thoroughly reported story than the first effort".
Cunard (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's more than enough here to satisfy the GNG. schetm (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I must admit I am weary of independent articles for unverified claims where the person was never official considered the oldest. However this person whether correctly or not at one time was believed to be the oldest man in America. This is not a trivial accomplishment. He has received significant coverage doing so. Sources provided by Cunard and BHG shows this article can be expanded beyond a stub. I believe WP:NOPAGE does not apply in this case. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 09:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) delete While accepting this is a marginal case and thanking BrownHairedGirl for her work, I feel this does come under WP:BLP1E. The one event is the misunderstanding as to what his age was at his death. That's the only reason he has any fame. The coverage offered in support of a GNG argument is all around that. What I don't see is any significant coverage of this person beyond that error. Bondegezou (talk) 18:03, 29 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinesis money[edit]

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

Contested A7/G11. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete More cryptospam! Definitely worth a G11 given the promotional nature. Bkissin (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provisionally. As common as self-promotion is in cryptocurrency articles, this does not look like a case of WP:G11 to me. The article is a basic description and history of the project, not an ad for it. It's also not a clear WP:A7, as the article has a number of references. What we should be asking is do these sources: [7], [8], [9] qualify as independent reliable coverage per WP:GNG? And if not, can we find other sources? Unless both of these questions can be answered in the negative we do not have a valid criteria for deletion. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BenKuykendall: - the claims are WP:CRYSTAL, and there's nothing that comes close to meeting WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi: Most of the article is not the "unverifiable speculation" to which WP:CRYSTAL applies; perhaps the announced collaboration with JFX is speculation, but the rest of the article stands. In terms of WP:NCORP, I need to see more analysis of the existing sources -- of the criteria for sources (significant coverage, independent, reliable) which are not met here? I am not claiming this is a good article or solid sourcing; it is conceivable there is a notability problem. However, you need to argue this and present evidence. We need more than just a policy to carry out a deletion. All the best, BenKuykendall (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious spam, sourced only to press releases. Barely even gets coverage in the crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: where you looking at the page post this edit? There were some marginally better sources previously, which I just added to the article again. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see a couple of press release reprints ... are there any actual news articles in existence on them? - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more discussion of BenKuykendall's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Saudi Gazette article titled "Kinesis Money globally accessible and reliable" looks like it came straight from the company. It says "The vision for Kinesis is to deliver an evolutionary step beyond any monetary and banking system available today." This isn't real news. While not obvious from the name u.today is a crypto news site and given the outcome of WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk and other RfCs none should be used for notability. The Star article is the best but it basically came from press releases: "In a joint statement issued on Tuesday, the companies said" Џ 00:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely press releases and routine coverage. —Madrenergic^talk 16:22, 30 December 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 redirect to Ancient Greek#Modern use. And selective merge from history. Ultimately, only one person wants to keep this around as an article. Sandstein 22:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exploring the Ancient Greek Language and Culture[edit]

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

Notability concerns. None of the references mention this event (and all are in Greek). [10] shows that this existed at one point but little more, all other references look to be Wikipedia mirrors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ancient_Greek#Modern_use and cover in one sentence. From p26 footnote 58 it ran between 2001 and 2008. Rationale for redirect rather than deletion is that it was an international competition with thousands of participants from hundreds of schools, and [11] shows some occasional pageview spikes for some reason. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly find more for "European Student Competition in Ancient Greek Language and Literature"; haven't looked to see if there's enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Based on the article's content, either deletion or redirection would be inappropriate. International scholastic competitions seem to be inherently notable. The fact that sources are in Greek is not a valid reason for deletion; valid sources may be in any language. There are questions as to whether the sources support the content of the article; these should be resolved, and additional sources sought to verify the content. However, the fact that such sources have not yet been identified is not itself a justification for deletion. I believe the question is whether independent, reliable sources exist, not whether anyone has identified them or whether the article cites to them. Obviously Wikipedia mirrors are not usable sources, since their content comes from here. But if the competition is mentioned in newspapers or magazines, or on mainstream news sites whose content is normally archived, then there are presumably reliable sources. The logical course of action here is to place {{Template:More citations needed}} or a related template on the page until a thorough search of likely sources can be undertaken. This article should be deleted only if the reliable sources that are likely to mention or describe the competition do not do so, and no other reliable sources can be identified by a thorough investigation (i.e. the competition is shown to be a hoax, or of so little notability that it is not covered by mainstream sources). However, there is no deadline for this; many articles take years for sourcing issues to be fully resolved, without deletion being appropriate. It may be the case that nobody has attempted to update the article substantially since its creation; that's certainly the impression created by the fact that only one year's winners are listed. That may also suggest that the competition is no longer being held. This is one of the issues that should be investigated thoroughly before the article is deleted. P Aculeius (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Greek references don't mention the contest; having only references that don't support any content in the article is a reason for deletion. After a reasonable WP:BEFORE search, the burden is on you or someone else to demonstrate that sources do exist. The page has existed since 2007, the "years" to source this have already occurred. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A source failing to support the statement for which it's cited (whether or not it names the subject of the article is not necessarily relevant) is grounds for removing that source, not for deleting the article that cited it. Having only references that don't support the content of an article is not a reason for deletion, because completely unsourced articles should not be deleted without reasonable efforts to ascertain whether reliable sources exist. The length of time since the article was created is utterly irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. The question is whether reliable sources exist, not whether anybody has located them, cited them, or has had lots and lots of time to do so. Is the competition misnamed or has its name changed or varied by source? That's also a subject to be addressed in the article, but simply deleting it is not appropriate. The burden is not on whoever opposes the nomination to justify the article's continued existence by providing reliable sources; it is on the nominator to make reasonable efforts to determine whether such sources exist. Which, as you've already posted, seem to exist for this article. You're not required to cite them for whatever content they can provide, but you can't delete the article simply because nobody has cited them, or made necessary corrections or other edits to the article. P Aculeius (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence in the article for notability at this point. The content of the article would appear to be an attempt to promote the importance of this event. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article seems to correspond to a 2006 announcement of the Greek Ministry of Education on the Sixth Annual European Competition in "Exploring the Ancient Greek Language and Culture" [12] uploaded in a Spanish (!) website, or to any similar document with the same, standard references to these events (=actually it copies parts of these standard references). I do not know if the abovementioned announcement was originaly written in English, but I couldn't find anything in Greek related to this Competition (its title in Greek sould be "(Εξ)Ερευνώντας την αρχαία ελληνική γλώσσα και τον πολιτισμό"). Only a press release (in English) on "the award ceremony of the 5th Annual European Student Competition “Exploring the Ancient Greek Language and Culture”" by the Athens News Agency in 2006 [13]. I also didn't find anything about the history of the contest, when it started, who were responsible for launching it in the first place, what happened then, if it continued beyond the "sixth" competition etc. Only this en passant reference. According to my findings it looks to me like a rather obscure competition. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk19: The original Greek title is Ελληνική Ετήσιου Μαθητικού Ευρωπαϊκού Διαγωνισμού στην Αρχαία Ελληνική Γλώσσα και Γραμματεία. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydronium Hydroxide: Well, in this case, in the title in Greek there is no "Exploring" and no "Culture". Τhe English title is a somehow free translation of the original Greek one. "Διαγωνισμός στην Αρχαία Ελληνική Γλώσσα και Γραμματεία" = "Competition in Ancient Greek Language and Literature". ——Chalk19 (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 The Greek title is "Ετήσιος Μαθητικός Ευρωπαϊκός Διαγωνισμός στην Αρχαία Ελληνική Γλώσσα και Γραμματεία" = "Annual Student/Pupil European Competition in Ancient Greek Language and Literature". The results of the google search of the Greek title are many references in government websites, school websites, some mainstream media etc [14]. Most, if not all of these references, are either proclamations of the annual Competitions and calls for participation in the contests, or announcements for the award ceremonies. According to a paper on student competitions in Greece, published (in Greek) in the Proceedings of the 2nd Pan-hellenic Congress for the Promotion of Innovation in Education (2016), vol. II, p. 548, this Competition is an example of a failed attempt, of an event that didn't succeed to gain the recognition and acceptance of the teachers community. According to the paper, the Competition was probably discontinued in 2010. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So the competition seems to have run for eight or nine years. I thought I had seen a reference to a 2017 winner, but I think I must have misread 2007. Found the announcement of the 2007 competition mentioned above, describing it as the "sixth annual" one and giving the English title used above. Whether an international academic competition is "obscure" is a matter of opinion, but I agree that it seems to have failed to catch on; reading the document mentioned above I can imagine why. It seems to have been rather rigorous and inflexible in its requirements, and may have overestimated the volume of interest among young Greek scholars abroad. However, not sure that redirecting is preferable to keeping it as a separate article. If there were between six and nine winners, listing them would seem to be beyond the scope of a brief mention in and redirect to another article. The fact that it was an international scholastic competition still argues for notability, even though it's been discontinued. The "some mainstream media" coverage mentioned above probably satisfies the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirement for notability, provided they don't consist entirely of the competition/government's press releases. But the facts that there may only have been a few hundred participants, and that the competition may only have lasted a few years, don't demonstrate a lack of notability. If no significant details can be found to flesh out this article in reliable, independent sources, and all of the details can be fit into a single paragraph in another article, then merging into another article with a redirect may be appropriate. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In a consideration of notability (may be the topic of an article) vs noteworthiness (may be included within an article), I couldn't find a sufficient level of independent SIGCOV to justify keeping as a full article. That leaves arguing for inherent notability and/or likelihood of offline sources, but I'm not reasonably convinced of either. Have inserted some text at the proposed target in [15]. If there were an article on (modern) education in Ancient Greek, then a fuller para might be reasonable, but as it is it's at the upper bound for WEIGHT. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a reasonable summary, given the minimal coverage. If we don't have a list of winners available, then I would say that there's not enough detail to require splitting it from the "Ancient Greek" article. If better and more comprehensive sources come to light later, this article can always be reconstituted. P Aculeius (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ηere is a brief history of the Competition, compiled by the Organization for the Internationalization of the Greek Language (Οργανισμὸς για την Διάδοση της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας-ΟΔΕΓ), one of the societies that co-organized it. According to this account of the events it was them, ΟΔΕΓ, who had the initiative of the project, and later the authorities of Cyprus and of Greece joined the effort. A few of the links listed at the bottom of the page open pdfs that contain the awards given to the winners of the annual Competitions, but not of all years, eg. this is of the 7th Competition, and this of the 6th (schools abroad). ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's actually quite good. Many articles on Wikipedia have less detail than this, particularly in the field of classics, where very little is known about many presumably important historical figures. This competition doesn't rank in importance with a head of state—even an ancient one—but there's enough detail to support a stand-alone article, and even though the competition was suspended in 2009-10 (looks like for financial reasons), it was significant enough to garner some independent, third-party coverage over the course of the years in which it was held. Even if we don't have a complete list of the winners, this article should probably stay. The topic is plainly non-trivial, and it's possible to give a significant amount of detail about it using sources easily located on the internet. There are probably more sources that are beyond our current reach, but which could be cited in the future. The fact that the competition only lasted for a few years really isn't determinative. We have a number of articles about American competitions that only lasted a few years—like the AAA Travel High School Challenge (2003–2007), the Reader's Digest National Word Power Challenge (2002–2007), and the National Vocabulary Championship (2006–2008). Presumably their visibility is higher due to having been held in the United States with corporate sponsorship, but in terms of significance they don't seem that different from this one. In any case, this article now looks like a keep. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I myself lean towards keeping the article. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- @P Aculeius, Chalk19, DGG, and Power~enwiki: Have considered whether to switch to a weak keep (perhaps without prejudice against merging to a future article on modern education in the language), but am still landing at a Redirect. The Odeg history appears useful, but is in no way independent, any secondary coverage appears to be extremely limited, and it's a cul-de-sac. The current text at the proposed redirect target could, however, be tweaked to include the Odeg history link as an additional reference for any interested readers to follow. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very most, draftifyThey fact that we have too few articles on he ancient world can be remedied by having more articles on those subjects, and on the notable scholars and writers who use it as a topic. Additional articles on the teaching of the classics would be good also, and this could include Important student competitions. .But I see no evidence of its actual importance. The references indicated above in the google search seem mainly announcements.Butthey maybe better than it seems, so I wouldn't object to draftification. But frankly, I doubt you will find sufficient sources. Announcements and local celebration of prize winners are not sufficient, no manner how many there may be., DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of identifying reliable, independent sources. They're to establish notability, which was the ground upon which this article was nominated for deletion. The question was whether there were sufficient independent references to demonstrate that the topic had notability; it's not necessary for each fact about the topic to be cited to multiple or independent reliable sources. The contest's own rules or publicity materials are sufficient to establish a number of basic facts; i.e. who sponsored the contest, who was eligible to participate, who the winners were. Coverage in secondary sources doesn't have to be extensive in order to prove that the contest attracted enough attention to justify the existence of the article. "Draftifying" an article is essentially deletion by another method, and altogether inappropriate. If a topic is notable and enough verifiable information exists to say something useful about it, then it belongs in article space. As previously mentioned, there are many articles about other contests that seem to have no greater significance, and even somewhat less; there are many articles about presumably notable subjects about which fewer details are known. So while this may strike some readers as unimportant—as a great many articles about subjects that fail to interest readers do—notability has been sufficiently demonstrated, and it is possible to provide enough information about the topic to justify the article's continued existence. I was on the fence in the beginning of this discussion, but with the additional information linked above, it no longer seems to be a close case. This article is a clear keep. P Aculeius (talk) 06:06, 28 December 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. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 07:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alby gård[edit]

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

Listed almost a year ago with multiple issues, particularly notability. No attempt has been made to address these issues. In fact there has been no material edit since 2016 when it was created. Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like a beautiful farm, although there are no citations in the article itself. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found some info, here is an article about the farm from a Moss region website, and a tourist website, even if there isnt deemed to be enough for a standalone article, a redirect to a couple of sentences at Jeløy may be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be the sort of building that would be protected by cultural heritage legislation and would therefore qualify under WP:GEOFEAT. I can't find the Norwegian architectural heritage register online (maybe someone else can?) but I'm still going to say this would appear to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Did a basic Google search and a couple sources did come up. The article not having it does not mean it is not notable. Plus, it also has a better article in another language. So, it's a matter of expansion. Passes WP:NPLACE. Sir Tragedy (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question - I don't know how much better that article is. It is an old garden but nothing I can find mentions it being a landmark or tourist attraction. The fact that it is old does not automatically make it notable, in my opinion. I'm not convinced it passes WP:NPLACE without something stating its significance other than it being the oldest garden in a region. If nothing can connect its age to giving it historical status or some form of landmark, does it really qualify as notable? DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 05:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the absence of any sources, I find the "keep" !votes not very convincing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I notice that most of the content was deleted 2 1/2 years ago, leaving the article as the stub it currently is - the reason given was "Saving content to history pending sources". I'm really not sure how deleting content helps find sources for it! While the Norwegian versions have more information, even they don't seem to cover all the aspects suggested by available sources. Eg one of the sources found by Coolabahapple says "Gallery F 15 is one of the oldest and most traditional institutions for contemporary art in Norway." This incongruity between the old, traditional setting and the contemporary art it exhibits is mentioned in an article in a 1969 issue of art journal Kunsten idag (Issues 87-90 - Page 38) [16], translating " Already outside of the idyllic exhibition hall, Alby farm on Jeløen, Hasior put in its shock-opening: concrete sculptures with distorted human-like forms burn in living flames!" I also found that it features in a 1911 festschrift for Henning Frederik Feilberg [17], roughly (very roughly, I think) translated: "From Alby Farm, he tried as a literary, and from there he began to publish the three bind of Ordinary Norwegian Moon Writing in 1830, once again anonymously, which in May 1832 brought his language policy thoughts." (That's only a snippet view, so it may well have more about Alby farm.) So, I think there is enough coverage over an extensive amount of time to meet WP:GEOFEAT. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thanks to User:RebeccaGreen for the input. This was relisted last time due to weak keep arguments. The delete arguments are no stronger, just focusing on article quality issues. Relisting in the hope that we get enough quality input to reach a meaningful consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search of Wikipedia.no brings up the Norwegian wikipedia article on this farm. It is, according to an external link, on the Swedish National Heritage Board's Kulturminnesok. This site states "Alby is the oldest farm on Jeløy with roots back to the Viking Age. The current main building dates from 1866. Gallery F15 is here. Garden with baroque prints and alleys from the early 19th century are registered as historical gardens."Aurornisxui (talk) 17:25, 26 December 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 redirect to List of tallest buildings in Romania#Fructus Plaza. I am not seeing any basis on which notability can be established (simply being the tallest building in a city doesn't cut it) and I note that the keep !voters don't actually argue for notability. On the others side, the delete !voters have not addressed making a redirect, part of WP:BEFORE. Having a clear target and a title that is a useful search term both underscore a redirect being a better solution than delete.Just Chilling (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fructus Tower[edit]

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

The tower, while a prominent structure in its city, lacks any notability and is 'merely' a comparatively tall building and as such I believe it fails WP:N, to the extent that the only results for this tower are Wikipedia itself. NoCOBOL (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Romania-related deletion discussions. NoCOBOL (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not great with Romanian sources, but if kept, this needs to be renamed to Fructus Plaza, which appears to be its actual title. SportingFlyer talk 04:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, does not pass WP:NBUILD. Can't find any references. Sir Tragedy (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep If independent sources can be found to substantiate the claim that it is the tallest building in Timisoara, then keep. Emporis perhaps? Bkissin (talk)

17:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 05:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try searching "Fructus Plaza", below, and don't forget to check for Romanian-language sources:

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

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No offense to current nominator in particular, but numerous separate AFDs about individual tall buildings seem wasteful of AFD editors' attention. It turns out almost always there exists a list of tallest buildings in a given country or city, which could be a merge/redirect target, and there is no reason for outright deletion of the nominated article. Here, the Fructus Building is tied for 24th tallest in List of tallest buildings in Romania, and that list also implies it is the tallest building in Timisoara. As such, there will exist documentation/sources, and I expect the article could be developed more eventually. But no way should this be deleted. --Doncram (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you remove sales listings, I've only found one reliable source after extensive searching (Fructus Tower, Fructus Plaza) in multiple languages. The building fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To SportingFlyer, it is one of the tallest buildings in the country and appears to be the tallest in its city. There is no way this should be outright deleted. We are obligated to consider good alternatives to deletion (wp:ATD), and here there is a good alternative, if it is not kept outright. At worst it could be redirected to its row in the national list-article, i.e. specifically to List of tallest buildings in Romania#Fructus Tower, and if there is further coverage at a later date then the edit history at the redirect can be used to recreate the article. --Doncram (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fructus Tower isn't even the proper name of the building, as I've noted above. Just because a building is tall doesn't make it notable, especially when I can't find any other reliable sources to get it past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's possible for the tallest building in a city to be entirely unremarkable to the extent it fails to satisfy WP:GNG, and that appears to be the case here.--Pontificalibus 08:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To Pontificalibus, I don't want to seem repetitive, but it is one of the tallest buildings in the country and appears to be the tallest in its city. There is no way this should be outright deleted. We are obligated to consider good alternatives to deletion (wp:ATD), and here there is a good alternative, if it is not kept outright. At worst it could be redirected to its row in the national list-article, i.e. specifically to List of tallest buildings in Romania#Fructus Tower, and if there is further coverage at a later date then the edit history at the redirect can be used to recreate the article. --Doncram (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment per Bkissins comment above Emporis link found and added. Factually it may be the tallest, but other than that it appears to not really be of note KylieTastic (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SEPTA Routes 101 and 102. Any sourced info worth merging is available from the article histories. Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Avenue station[edit]

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

This page, along with numerous others, depict small stops with no physical infrastructure along SEPTA Routes 101 and 102. These above-ground stops have no shelter, no curb, and only merely a small sign. It is nothing more than a bus stop, which I do not believe makes it notable enough for each stop to have its own page. Additionally, the stop pages are all stubs, and many do not have any citations. There is no content that cannot be displayed in a station list for the line. I propose redirecting these pages to SEPTA Routes 101 and 102 and moving any relevant content to that page. (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/36th and Market station) — C16SH (speak up) 02:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for reasons listed above:

— C16SH (speak up) 02:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - while most stations along the Route 101 and 102 lines have platforms and shelters, these following stations are nothing more than a sign along the street. Therefore, makes better sense to cover them in the list, since there's really nothing else to mention. Dough4872 04:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Providence Road (SEPTA Route 102 station) actually does have a structure, even if it's not used as such. That being said, SEPTA gives the impression they're something more than just mere bus stops. With the exception of the aforementioned station, considering all the crap that has been happening to the station articles over the past couple of years, I'm open to a redirect. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge And you could probably add more from these lines beyond those listed. While stations with infrastructure could certainly have substantive articles, I do not understand the idea of de facto notability for each and every place a train stops. A "List of SEPTA light rail stations" table or list could cover all of these and reduce duplication while presenting all information to the reader together rather than spread apart. Reywas92^Talk 05:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. (And once this is done, most San Fancisco streetcar stops could go, too.) Useddenim (talk) 17:48, 25 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip Retail[edit]

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

This is a long nomination because the article appears to be a carefully designed WP:REFBOMBing.

Ultimatley, it's another article on a startup FinTech firm by an obviously undisclosed paid contributor (this is their only contribution to WP) that provides no info other than details on each of its funding rounds. It appears to exist as an investor relations marketing piece to get around SEC forward looking statement restrictions for when investors Google the company.

About half of the sources are mentions in market analyst reports by WWD, a business intelligence firm which is not WP:RS and the content of which is WP:ROUTINE. There are also a couple user-generated content such as a Crunchbase directory listing and a Bloomberg directory listing which anyone can submit (having submitted some myself). Then there's one or two tiny trade outlets like pymnts.com which are reporting series funding rounds, which is on the extremely ROUTINE end of things.
That leaves two sources. The first is a CBC report which is good and does contribute to WP:N. The second is a Forbes contributor interview, which is not. Even if it weren't a contributor story it is ultimately just a Q&A interview with the company's CEO and is, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT.

A single CBC story is not enough to prove notability. My extensive BEFORE found copious additional references but only of the kind above (i.e. trade outlets reporting on funding rounds, etc.). Wolfson5 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, I am the person who approved the draft through AfC. If you look at the talk page, I actually made a note of the refbombing, but carefully looked through the references prior to sending to mainspace (also note that deletion should not be used for cleanup). There are Forbes contributor pieces, but the interview is NOT by a contributor, it is by staff. I do not consider interviews for notability but there is a three paragraph introduction that talks in-depth about the company that was satisfactory, especially since it came from a staff writer. Then there is the CBC piece, also noted on the talk page. Just a quick questions though. You say that this is an undisclosed paid editing piece. Your reasoning is that this is the creator's only contribution. You also make some strong accusations accusing this company of SEC violations. Can you explain how you know all of this information? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that this is an undisclosed paid editing piece. Can you explain how you know all of this information? Sure. It's basically common sense that articles on companies that are patently not notable and in which the author has never contributed anything else to Wikipedia are generally (not always) undisclosed COI editing. Then, spending 10 seconds running the editor's name through Google finds a match to someone in their marketing department. Wolfson5 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, doxxing is not something we do at AfC and it is not part of determining notability. However, what took you 10 seconds has taken me quite a bit more and I still do not see the username of the creator connected to the company. Your weasel words of "patently" and "obvious" along with your heavy handed accusation against the company strays far from WP:AGF. If the nomination is for notability, say so, instead of creating synth around it being about paid editing. Finally, WWD is not a "business intelligence firm." WWD is a Fairchild Media publication with editorial oversight. As such, that now makes at least in-depth references. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand what just happened. So, you asked the question, got the answer, didn't like the answer and then confess an inability to reproduce the "doxxing" of the author but doesn't stop you from making the accusation anyway. Then you completely ignore the original question and the answer you sought, instead taking the opportunity to criticize the language used in the AfD and make accusations of making OOT heavy handed accusations - finishing up with a "correction" that WWD is not a business intelligence firm (despite it being described as such on the WWD website with a tag line of "Access the most trusted news and analysis of the fashion and beauty worlds", not to mention the description in the Women's Wear Daily article. Not to forget your last point that somehow (despite WP:ORGIND specifically stating there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility, you've doubled down on it as a reference. You can probably tell I disagree with your comment in its entirety. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my comment was towards the nominator who answered the question, but I checked myself and found the answer to be false. The answer was also condescending as if I shouldn't have even asked. Don't put words in my mouth or assume you know what I am thinking. I am trying to get the answer to a simple question; you are attacking editors because someone has a contrary opinion to yours (something that has been a pattern at AfD). I am tired of the incivility and lack of WP:AGF in Wikipedia and your response above falls within that. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now back to the content. WWD is not a business intelligence firm as stated by the nominator. It is a fashion journal as has editorial oversight so it is a reliable source. Just because it says it offers "information and intelligence" on its Wikipedia page doesn't mean it is a "business intelligence firm."--CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The Forbes article is labeled as both contributor and staff which I think means it's advertorial. But giving it the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's straight, I'm not seeing that two pieces of RS coverage (one of which is just a Q&A) establish notability. BIG BURLEY 19:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes has three kinds of posts: staff written, brand voice, and contributors. Contributors are actually paid (they used to be volunteers) but the overall editorial control is unclear so I treat them as if there is none. Brand voice is their advertorial pieces which are sponsored and marked as such. The rest is from staff. This looks like it was both staff and contributors which tells me that the story was likely picked up and published after editorial review or it would have simply gone out as a contributor piece. Since it's not marked as paid, I see no reason to regard it as such. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but since it relies entirely on an interview with the founder of the company and data provided by the company (to the point the reproduce the questions and answers), it fails WP:ORGIND anyway and this type of reference is rejected for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publications rely heavily on information from companies. Journalist don't just wake up in the morning and go knocking on doors looking for a story. The days of Clark Kent and the Daily Planet are over. Journalists rely heavily on PR firms reaching out to them pitching stories. It is then up to them to either engage in Churnalism (basically reprinting the story the company sends them), or providing intellectual information they fact-checked along the way. This is not simply a reprint of an interview. The first few paragraphs meet that threshold since there is editorial oversight we must assume they fact-checked the information unless we have evidence to the contrary. How else is Forbes going to get this information? From another publication? Where is that publication going to get the information? Fact is, it all originates from the company. What it comes down to is the fact-checking. Forbes does so with staff writers. If this were a contributor piece, I would agree with you 100%.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. I think there is notability here. I think the CBC, Forbes and WSJ sources in this article do count to establish notability. (I'm not sure why other contributors to this AfD haven't mentioned the WSJ article?) The Forbes piece has 3 paras written by a Forbes staff member, and an interview with the company founder, which includes some hard questions (like Q: "What kind of results has Toys “R” Us gotten using Tulip? (Answer) Q: "But not enough to keep them out of bankruptcy. What happened?") This Wikipedia article about Tulip Retail does not say much about what the company does - as another editor has said, this article focuses more on funding rounds than what the company provides, but that is a question of article quality rather than notability, and there is more information in the sources.

As well as those 3 sources, I find other, earlier sources which indicate that the company founder Ali Asaria is notable himself, eg 'Former Well.Ca Founder Ali Asaria Raises $2.4 Million for New Waterloo Startup' (2013, Betakit) [18] (quote: "Ali Asaria left Well.ca in the winter to relative surprise, but really you kind of knew he was just going to start some other awesome site."); 'BrickBreaker inventor hopes there's riches in the Well.ca' (CBC, 2011) [19] (quote: "By the time he left [Research in Motion] in 2006, Asaria was credited with a simple little addictive app that's now found on more than 50 million devices — BrickBreaker"); and 'RIM's legacy will be decided by the businesses it spawns' (Financial Post, 2013) [20] (quote: "Among the so-called RIM Rats is Ali Asaria — a classic type-A, serial entrepreneur. At the age of 31, he already has two successful startups under his belt"). Those articles precede the founding of Tulip Retail, and suggest that Asaria has notability dating back to at least 2011, and warrants his own article. (Well.ca, one of the companies which Asaria founded, does have its own Wikipedia article.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are stricter standards for references that can be used to establish notability. None of the ones you've mentioned above meet those standards since none are considered "intellectually independent and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; coverage is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, none of the references meet the WP:NCORP/WP:GNG guidelines for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely refbombing with a slew of routine or self-promotional coverage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:16, 31 December 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 after being listed for three weeks. Last relist didn't result in any further input. Michig (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie van der Graaf[edit]

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

May meet NModel due to Playboy and SI Swimsuit, but I don’t think she meets GNG at this time. Lacks significant coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely meets WP:NMODEL criteria #1, as SI and Playboy are quite notable. WP:GNG is tougher but she's been in several papers, like when she turned down Jon Snow at a party. [21] Ifnord (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both know that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. Even trying to put it in a ref tag is blocked. But then again many non-notable models have also been in Playboy or SI Swimsuit. I think GNG always takes precedence above all professions. That’s why I think it should be deleted until significant coverage happens. Trillfendi (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re: the Daily Mail, which is why I did not add it to the article. But, when I went looking for sources, I found a ton of hits, mainly in Dutch. I had a hard time trying to see if any of them were reliable, Dutch not being a language I speak, but I suspect there's some. Ifnord (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some basic understanding of Dutch, but I’m betting those sources probably don’t cut it because I tried looking at Dutch wiki’s article and it gave no sources at all.Trillfendi (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eurofighter Typhoon procurement[edit]

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

@Jurryaany: Queried speedy delete as copyvio of http://newspaperslibrary. org/article/WHEBN0000167667/Eurofighter%20Typhoon (which link is on Wikipedia's blacklist), but User:Jurryaany says that that external page is itself a copy of an earlier version of a Wikipedia article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It looks like Jurryaany took the content from Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without providing the license required attribution. At least some the content was removed from that article by MilborneOne. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a copy and paste content fork from the main article as the user presumably didnt like the change that had been made in the main article. The reasons for not including this stuff in the main article that this is day-to-day marketing activity that is standard practice in the both the defence and aviation industry and is not particularly noteworthy does not support a content fork. Some marketing campaigns are noteworthy by there political nature and these are still included in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very reason this article was created is because MilborneOne would not allow this content on "his" article in the first place. Jurryaany (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which absurd comment pretty much clinches the rationale for this AfD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll elaborate. The case is similar to that of the F-35. The original article Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II had its procurement page Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement spun off as the main article was getting too long with this information. I've opted to do the same for the Eurofighter Typhoon as it is clear the main article would get too long as well. A lot of valuable information is kept in these procurement pages, it'd be a shame to let that go to waste for the sake of brevity of the main article.Jurryaany (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete: ~~copyvio,~~ content fork, etc. etc. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am giving the benefit of the doubt to @Jurryaany:. If the article was indeed copied from an earlier WP article, then this is noteworthy content to the world at large because _someone_ thought it worthy of interest. I, personally, having looked at the article, think it is waaay more interesting than some of the trivia I have found documented in WP. So I oppose this on two grounds. (a) I think the article itself is noteworthy. (b) If user:Jurryaany claim is correct, the reasons why this article is being considered for deletion are invalid. Is there any way to look up the older history of this article? Would the wayback machine help? Not sure how to go about validating this.

FYI - I don't agree that this is marketing material at all. Defense acquisitions can be extremely complex bids, and this sort of history is typical for what happens. I used to work in this field, so this is somewhat of interest to me, but it is easy to imagine that there are many people who would find this content invaluable. A really paranoid android (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Sigh] Yes, some Wikipedia editors get very interested in such stuff, but WP:VERIFY requires that WP:RS also find it notable. This has not been demonstrated through adequate citations of said RS. MilborneOne deleted this stuff for good reason, and recreating it here is not the answer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree at all. I looked through the references in the article and I see a number of very reliable sources being used. I also see, some not so reliable sources, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't the right thing to do. I believe that improving the quality of the references can help preserve a useful article.

I'm not sure why you write "some Wikipedia editors get very interested in such stuff". Is there something wrong with people being interested in such matters? A really paranoid android (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, purrleeeze. Nothing wrong with being interested, everything wrong with plastering your belly-button fluff all over Wikipedia. If significant content is indeed backed by RS then it should be restored to the original article, not recreated here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not weighing in on this particular case as I haven’t read through everything yet, but don’t forget about WP:SS: if there is enough significant, reliably sourced content of one particular aspect of a topic, and inclusion of all of it would unbalance the main article, it absolutely should be split off into its own page and then summarized on the main article. This should have been discussed on the talk page first, and I am not saying that it is necessarily appropriate in this case, but it is a valid option that should be considered. CThomas³ (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid spinoff. The politicking of production/sales is a notable and well covered topic for these types of project (particularly large EU projects - but also boondoggles such as the F-35). I can see how the procurement content would be overly detailed in the the main article - which exactly the situation in which we create a spinoff. World Heritage Encyclopedia (the alleged copyvio) seems like a Wikipedia clone. Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaking the establishment of a fact for the establishment of its significance. The fact of these Typhoon negotiations is documented and undeniable, but in most cases their political and hence encyclopedic significance is not. The few whose political significance is reliably sourced have ample space in the parent article, the rest have no place on Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As they seem to be covered in secondary RSes (and do not run foul of any NOT) they have encyclopedic significance. Is this a vital article? No. But it will cut down on the crud in the main Typhoon article.Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That does not follow. WP:ONUS makes it clear that "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." See for example here, where an aircraft-related article was deleted because the many journal sources it cited established verifiability but were deemed inadequate to establish its encyclopedic merits. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The merits for a mockup (or two) to pass GNG - and multi-billion procurement programs to pass GNG - are quite different. It is quite clear this topic passes GNG, and I don't see a NOT fail. "not encyclopedic" is not a valid notability argument in enwiki. Frankly the dispute on the main page here - Eurofighter Typhoon - is really best resolved by a spinoff. You get to cut down on the nitty-gritty details on procurement in the main article, while the much lesser-seen spinoff gets all the details - this really should be a win-win here. Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many ways to fall short of significance. This is essentially a list article, or contains lists, so guidelines such as WP:LSC and WP:CSC apply. And some NOTs, such as WP:CRYSTAL, do apply to some sections. By the time the crud has been eliminated, the remaining usable content is just a copy of what has been retained in the parent article. But there, I guess you and I must agree to differ on what counts as crud. That's what this AfD needs to decide. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with (talk) and (talk) BlueD954 (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no “benefit of the doubt”, by her/his own statement above Juryaany created the article under discussion as a means of dealing with a dispute over the content of the parent article, and all of the keep !votes are either glossing over or completely ignoring that. There is a lot of information in the article that clearly has nothing to do with procurement, but that can be fixed by editing. Wikipedia should in no way endorse article creation as a method of dealing with a content dispute, hence the outcome here ought to be an automatic delete; it ought to be completely unacceptable to have content forking whenever someone doesn’t like that someone else has removed material from an article. The keep !votes here are evidence of support for the information being included, but it should be in the original article and after a consensus has been reached. I would be editing to remove some of the information. YSSYguy (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some WP policy that backs up your assertions that an automatic delete is mandated? A really paranoid android (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said it ought to be an automatic delete; as far as I know there is no policy (who’d have thought that someone would create an article as a way to stop a content dispute dead?) but keeping the article would create a dangerous precedent in my opinion. If the result is ‘keep’ and it becomes common knowledge, then every man and his dog will think this is an acceptable way to respond to an editor removing text from an article. There should be no deletion discussion, because the content fork should not have happened under these circumstances. As far as I am concerned this discussion should be taking place on the Talk page for the parent article. Perhaps this will create a policy. YSSYguy (talk)

See the approved WP:CFORK guideline, with particular reference to PoV forking and giving undue weight. YSSYguy absolutely has a point here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article, I don't see a PoV fork or undue weight to any particular entity. I quote from the referenced guideline: "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." (emphasis mine). I believe that this is exactly what was done here, and therefore, this should stay. A really paranoid android (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that your belief flatly contradicts; "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight)," and "In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a disagreement about the content belonging to an article, doesn't mean that WP:NPOV was violated or that undue weight was given to some entity / entities within the article. Can you please point me to the areas in the article under discussion where these violations occurred? Because I don't see it. A really paranoid android (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, purrleeeze. MilborneOne made that judgement when they deleted the contentious material. The burden is on you to demonstrate significance, not on the rest of us to disprove it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is read Jurryaany”s keep !vote, in which s/he basically says “I created this article because MilborneOne removed some material from the other article and I think the stuff he removed should be kept”. That seems pretty clear-cut to me, and all of the keep !votes here are disregarding the circumstances under which the article was created. YSSYguy (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What utter tosh! The article under discussion is not the article on which the original dispute took place. The discussion in this AFD centers around whether Eurofighter Typhoon procurement has a right to exist or not. Your claim, in this sub-thread, is that it shouldn't because it violates the WP:NOPV and WP:UNDUE weight policies. Make your case. Please cite the section(s) of the article which have this problem. Its not my burden to prove your statements.

MilborneOne may or may not have been correct in taking the actions that s/he did on the Eurofighter Typhoon. That proves nothing about the WP:NPOV or the WP:UNDUE status on Eurofighter Typhoon procurement. A really paranoid android (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly valid criticism. The WP:VERIFY policy, and particularly WP:ONUS, states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." To give you a suitable forum for that I have started a discussion at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon procurement#Unencyclopedic content. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Icewhiz. Having a separate article for notable content such as this seems much better than either going into this level of detail in the article on the aircraft or excluding it altogether. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 29 December 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.