Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 December	29 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 keep. No reasons posited as to why those sources aren't enough. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Davidson (song)[edit]

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

Album track fails WP:NSONGS Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
Delete - the article has no importance. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 09:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:SONGS, why would anyone think that it doesn't? "Songs...are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources"- See the Elle article, others. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: here are some more sources for the song: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – given the sources brought up by Aoba47, seems like this would pass WP:NSONG. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 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 Sweetener. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better Off (Ariana Grande song)[edit]

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

Album track fails WP:NSONGS Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no importance. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 09:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sweetener. Even though the song charted, it does not appear to have received enough independent coverage from third-party, reliable sources outside of album reviews. It is still a viable search term though so I think a redirect would be better than an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sweetener - Nothing of substance here. The song did chart but it should only be split into a separate article from the album if someone will work on it and add information that can't be found elsewhere.--N Ø 12:13, 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Meyer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Cannot find any reliable source that establishes notability for subject. Rogermx (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Delete – I'm not finding any sources on this person using Google News. None of her works seem to have been subject to coverage by reliable sources. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references in the article itself and I am unable to locate any in my personal BEFORE. Author does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR and certainly not the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR. Mu searches are finding nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Dunbar[edit]

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

There are several reasons in favor of this article's deletion...

There are almost zero sources beyond WP:ROUTINE/WP:MILL coverage for candidacies. Other than this one from a satire site, my (thorough) google search, filtering out candidacy-related articles, turned up with just about nothing.
Usually, members of city assemblies are not considered notable. There may be exceptions when it is a global city (which Anchorage is NOT). Debates like this can be found here, in which a failed U.S. Senate candidate in Nebraska was not deemed notable though she served on the Lincoln city council. All of the people in Category:Anchorage Assembly members have other notable characteristics about them, including being members of the Alaska Legislature, serving as Anchorage Mayor, or being famous authors. Dunbar does not.
Even if all of the candidacy articles are counted, there is still not enough sources sufficient for WP:GNG as none are from national publications.

In light of these points, please consider voting DELETE on this article. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough to meet GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candidates for congress are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anchorage is not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors just because of that role itself — while a person who happens to have been an Anchorage city councillor can still be notable for other reasons besides that, such as going on to serve in the state house or Congress, being a city councillor in Anchorage is not an article-clinching notability claim in its own right. Being an unsuccessful candidate in a congressional election, however, is not a claim that automatically makes a city councillor special either, and the referencing here isn't even close to enough to make him more notable than most other city councillors or most other unsuccessful congressional candidates. To be fair, I'll note that this was originally created as a redirect to the congressional election, and then got converted to a standalone article by a different user after the fact — so no prejudice against the recreation of a redirect after deletion if desired, but there's no need to retain the edit history here and a redirect from an unsuccessful candidate to their election is not actually mandatory in all cases. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely for the reason enunciated by Bearcat. City councilors don't have inherent notability and defeated congressional candidates don't either. In the absence of WP:NPOL notability, subject would need to meet the GNG. However, their only coverage is in relation to their offices (sought or held). Chetsford (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say that given how little coverage there is, regardless of whether or not it is WP:MILL or WP:ROUTINE coverage on the candidacy, that Dunbar would not pass GNG. There are only 3 reliable sources, all of which are local and arguably just passing mentions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regarding point number 1 in the nomination above: he did, however, get a fair bit of coverage in a Politico article a year ago: politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/12/how-to-turn-red-state-blue-purple-alaska-politics-2018-216304 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleit Ḵaa (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, points 1 and 3 above. Dleit Ḵaa (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough I did not find that article, however that is one reliable publication (that is also more than just a passing mention) outside of his candidacy. Usually I'd consider three to be sustainable for GNG. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Candidate did not win , fails GNG Alex-h (talk) 08:53, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

88 modern constellations in different languages[edit]

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

Absolutely no encyclopaedic content; it is like an extreme form of WP:NOT#DICT. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages as an example, and WP:FORRED Kevin McE (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails content guidelines per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Delete I agree with Kevin McE. Noahhoward (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of name translations. Ajf773 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 15:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT - agree with all above. ComplexRational (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:FORRED is a red herring because this is a list article, not a redirect. It should be noted that the articles Names of European cities in different languages, Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Names of African cities in different languages underwent DRV and were restored, and then two of them were AfD'd and deleted again, and then one of them was restored again. So there's no clear precedent there regarding how to treat "list of things in different languages" articles. An article like this might fall under the broader scope of Category:Lists of exonyms, which seems pretty encyclopedic to me (though astronomical objects in this context are probably more niche than things like cities in this context). The more relevant policy here is WP:LISTN. Ahiijny (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with WP:NOTDICT - Alex-h (talk) 09:04, 3 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. Sandstein 10:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanja Budde[edit]

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

Article appears to be an attempted promotion for a fairly minor TV journalist. Previous editors have called for more sources, but there really aren't any that I can find beyond social media pages and quick listings in industry directories. She does not meet the notability standard for journalists and the article might also be an attempted personal resume. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This AfD is displaying as "2nd nomination" but the first was actually by me moments before, and I messed up the procedure. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, I'm considering starting a discussion on WP:NBIO to more clearly clarify that reporters' own reporting does not contribute to notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Staniforth[edit]

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

This is one of a group of ancestral sketches previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Staniforth which was declined because many voters were opposed to the bulk nature of the listing.

This subject is perhaps more notable than some of the others but there still isn't much to go on. Uninvited Company 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 14 AfDs in one day by one nom is too much! They may be individual AfDs, but they are still bulk in number, far too many to do proper assessment of, especially when it's not clear that the Nom has done WP:BEFORE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Three books of which I suspect none of us will hear of is not enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether any of us will hear about the books, but whether enough people have already read and reviewed or cited the books - that's what we need evidence for. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, notable author, and the large amount of afds seems suspect.. 2602:306:CF9B:2700:FDB7:2843:D5FA:3F34 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few more Citations that show noteworthiness.StaniforthHistorian (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems sufficient coverage of the books (particularly for the beginning of the 20th century) to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps it's me, but it appears to me that most of the sources don't even mention the subject (or at best just in passing). And a reference (#1) to a book selling website doesn't say anything at all, of course. More debate about the quality of the sources seems to be needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sustained and sufficient coverage/notability of his works shows that this is a keep. JC7V (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep probably. What I have been able to find about this person includes a couple of reviews of The Saint of the Eucharist, in a source which is included in the article (The Irish Monthly, 1908, Volume 36, Page 586) - it's not possible to see any of it in the Google Books view of the actual book, but the search result shows the beginning of a review ("It is based on all the newest materials and the older lives, and Father Oswald Staniforth, O.S.F.C., has very properly not translated but adapted the excellent biography written in French by Father Porrentruy, the Definitor-General of the ...."). Another review that comes up on a Google search is in the The Downside Review, Volumes 27-28, 1970 [1] - none of the review is visible in the snippet, but there's part of a review of another book visible above it). That book is still in nearly 50 libraries over 110 years after its publication, according to Worldcat. I have found two newspaper reports [2], [3] of the lecture series he gave in Oxford in 1928 (the lectures were also published, and I have added that title to the article; if the article is kept, I can add the reports as references). Another source already in the article, The Official Catholic Directory for the Year of Our Lord 1905, does confirm that he was at St Anthony's Mission in Mendocino (I have replaced the url in the citation with one which shows his name). I've also found a newspaper report that he was elected president of the Esperantists' League of English Catholics in 1926 [4]. I have also found a source for his ordination in 1889 (The Tablet, Volume 74) [5], and another source already in the article, The Catholic Encyclopedia and Its Makers, clearly has an entry about him, but all that the Google Books snippet shows of it is his name, so I will take it on trust that the article is an accurate representation of it. I think that all that shows that there is enough coverage of him to show notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:39, 4 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. Sandstein 10:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Televised sex line[edit]

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

This is a good case of WP:TNT. Chock full of original research, promo and directory material. Would take a significant rewrite and would likely be a few sentence stub but as it's currently incoherent and a honeypot for spam, this seems to be the best option. As a side note, all the results I've seen in my WP:BEFORE are pretty much just mirrors. Praxidicae (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an essay fueled by original research and primary sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The text simply has no place in Wikipedia. No encyclopaedic purpose whatsoever. Nothing remotely notable about the subject. The whole thing's reeking of personal work. Show mercy and deliver it from its woes. -The Gnome (talk) 21:21, 4 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Jawitz[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 01:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is too promotional in tone and style, and the sourcing is poor.TH1980 (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as he won an Emmy Award for A Lion's Trail. JC7V (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi JC7V7DC5768 do you happen to know what type of Emmy Award it was?

Scope creep Hi, a documentary that Dan Jawitz produced, A Lion's Trail won an Emmy at the 2006 News & Documentary Emmy Awards for "Most Outstanding Cultural and Artistic Achievement". JC7V (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve I agree that the article is too promotional in some ways (what relevance did he have, as publicist, to a film being nominated for an award?) But it also leaves out work he has done, including producing films such as Glimpse [6] and One Last Look [7], [8]; directing the Zimbabwe International Film Festival in 1999 [9], and he seems to be described as an "eminent film professional", and certainly as the "stalwart distributor-producer" when he participated in a panel discussion of film finance and distribution in South Africa, 'Big dollars, bad DVDs: finance & distribution' [10]. The sourcing could also be better - one of the "sources" for the Emmy is a "What I'm watching" article by Dan Jawitz! (Could this be better? [11] ) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable individual. See sources above. Auto5656 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as he won 27th ANNUAL NEWS & DOCUMENTARY EMMY AWARDS .SalmanZ (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG, as there is no in-depth, independent coverage. Uninvited Company 20:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 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. Sandstein 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fails[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hollywood Park TX (pop. 3K) is not nearly large enough to guarantee its mayors instant notability per WP:NPOL #2 — he could still clear the bar if he could be really well-sourced as markedly more notable than most other smalltown mayors, but he's not automatically entitled to have an article just because he exists. Unsuccessfully challenging an incumbent congresscritter in a party primary is also not grounds for an article, either — a person has to win the general election, and thereby actually become an actual congressperson, to collect notability from the congressional election process. And the referencing here consists entirely of primary sources and routine coverage of the primary process, with no coverage being shown to demonstrate any potential notability as a mayor — which means there's no basis to claim that he passes WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that it was not routine. In the United States it is traditional for the party to support the incumbent. The news was not routine as it was highly unusual. I believe this covers it. I will however work on finding better sources. It's my first article so please bare with my neophyteness. WP:NPOL #2 --Johnston49er (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it not routine for the sitting Governor to endorse an opponent in a primary, none of the sources I have seen make the subject more notable than most (candidates or small town mayors). There could be a case to be made that the election race is notable, as Johnston49er alludes to. --Enos733 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that the argument Bearcat seems to be making is WP:DIDNOTWIN and WP:UNRS, both arguments that should be avoided --Johnston49er (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading both DIDNOTWIN and UNRS if you think I'm violating them. DIDNOTWIN does not mean that every candidate in a party primary is entitled to have a Wikipedia article regardless of whether they won or not — a person who didn't win election to an NPOL-passing office may already have prior notability for other reasons besides the candidacy (i.e. we aren't deleting Hillary Clinton just because she lost the presidential election in 2016, because she was already notable for other reasons anyway), but preexisting notability for other reasons has to be shown, and is not automatically extended to every non-winning candidate for every office just because of the candidacy itself. And UNRS does not preclude evaluating sources for their reliability or lack thereof — in fact, it requires it, because what UNRS actually says is that primary sources aren't assistive of notability and do not support a valid keep argument. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is routine coverage for a candidate for political office. Running for state rep does not make one notable, ever. So there is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Texas has 181 legislative elections per cycle, meaning between primaries and general elections there are over 400 candidates for Texas legsilature, the vast majority of them have nowhere near 18 news articles about them, especially written in major publications like the Chronicle and the Tribune. Furthermore, almost no Texas State Representatives outside of major leadership has 18 articles written about them or their work. Not only is Fails more notable than most small town Mayors, he's far more notable than even most members of the Texas House of Representatives, all of whom have Wikipedia pages Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Kepp~~ The San Antonio Business Journal, which covers a metro area of 2.4 million people, named Fails one of their "2014 People on the Move." I would argue that if he's notable enough to be recognized by the San Antonio Business Journal, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkmcshane (talk • contribs) 00:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Edit to comment above -- The San Antonio Business Journal, which covers a metro area of 2.4 million people, named Fails one of their "2014 People on the Move." I would he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, for the record, you're not allowed to vote more than once in an AFD discussion. You're welcome to comment as many times as you wish, but you may not preface any followup comments with a bolded restatement of the vote you've already given. Secondly, making a local listicle in the local media does not automatically make a person nationally notable. And thirdly, you most likely have a conflict of interest here, because apart from your own autobiography about your work as a political strategist (which you weren't allowed to create for yourself in the first place, by the way), this is the first article you've ever even touched on Wikipedia about a person who isn't already named in your autobiography as one of your paying clients. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other Mayors of Hollywood Park have Wiki articles, people with far less press coverage than Fails, such as Bala Srinivas, how has 2 mentions in major media. It would be very abritary to delete Fails who has 18 articles about him. As previously mentioned, Fails has more press about him than Texas State Representatives, all of whom have Wikipedia Articles. Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nothing stops anybody from creating any article about anything they want to at any time — but we can only delete it if and when the responsible editors see it. So no, the fact that Bala Srinivas has an article does not mean this has to be kept — it means the other article has to be deleted. So congratulations on the backfire — the act of bringing his article up got it placed on track for deletion too. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Chris Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, with only routine coverage in secondary sources and insufficiently high office to merit a presumption of notability. Additionally, note that other editors have repeatedly asked about the apparent COI issue, with no response. Bakazaka (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka can you clarify what apparent COI issue you are referring to? I reread this entire page and checked the talk page and no COI issue has ever been raised. --Johnston49er (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the unanswered questions asked at User talk:Rkmcshane about edits on political figures. Bakazaka (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the first person to bring this up. Right now. Johnston49er (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read it and weep gentlemen. https://ibb.co/ncjpxts https://ibb.co/sbm9Hjp https://ibb.co/bmS7T5t --Johnston49er (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every mayor of every place on the planet can always show a couple of articles in their own local media. The key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not just to show a handful of pieces of local media coverage in his own town's local media — because, again, no mayor on the planet ever couldn't show that. It's to show media coverage that marks him out as special, such as nationalizing into The New York Times. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^Not sure I'd phrase it that way, but this guy is literally on the front cover of a local magazine, was written up in the local business journal, has been written about in dozens of articles, including Texas' top media outlets, and is an elected official. I think it's clear he is certainly notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. 2001:579:9091:7400:9DB:9C36:DA3D:9164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the front cover of a local magazine is not an instant pass to free notability for a smalltown mayor, being written up in the local business journal is not an instant pass to free notability for a smalltown mayor, being a smalltown mayor is not an instant pass to free notability in and of itself, and the article still isn't showing any evidence of media coverage expanding beyond the purely local type that any mayor of anywhere could simply and routinely be expected to receive. The key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not "local media coverage exists", because every mayor who has ever served as mayor in any place that has mayors can always show some of that — the key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is that the coverage demonstrates him as having a strong claim to being more notable than most other smalltown mayors, but that's not being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is rediculous, not only has he recieved more press coverage than almost any member of the Texas House of Representatives -- all of whom have Wikipedia articles, not only has he been on the front cover of a magazine, unlike most even Texas State Senators, all of whom have Wikipedia articles, he has been covered by the Austin American Statesman, Longview Journal, Dallas Morning News, all hundreds of miles away from his city of Hollywood park. Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, being on the front cover of a magazine is not an instant notability freebie that makes him more notable than people who were covered in a publication without being on its front cover — the notability test for magazine content lies in the substance of what gets said in the article, not in whether the subject was placed on the cover or not. And at any rate, it's a local interest magazine in his own local media market, not a nationally distributed magazine on the order of Time or Newsweek or The Atlantic, so the existence of that magazine cover is not an instant notability freebie that would exempt him from actually having to have a strong notability claim just because you uploaded a photo of the magazine cover. Secondly, if he's been covered in all of those newspapers, then why aren't any of those articles actually being used as sources? As it stands, I can't evaluate whether or not you actually understand the distinction between "substantively covered" and "glancingly namechecked" — a distinction people who are determined to get themselves or their friends into Wikipedia for publicity purposes regularly cheat on — because no sourcing to the Austin American Statesman, the Longview Journal or the Dallas Morning News is actually present in the article at all. And thirdly, no, the amount of media coverage shown here is not wildly outdoing what state legislators typically get. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, we agree that him just being a mayor of a smalltown isn't notable. What makes him notable is the serious primary challenge he levied against the sitting State Rep tha received widespread support which we have demonstrated in spades. --Johnston49er (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mounting an unsuccessful primary challenge, "serious" or not, is not a notability criterion — the notability test for politicians is holding an NPOL-passing office, not running for one and losing. There are a few rare exceptions where a person who wasn't already notable prior to the candidacy can become notable on campaign coverage alone, but that's deliberately set as a very high bar — the benchmark a candidate would have to hit to be deemed notable just for being a candidate is Christine O'Donnell, who set off such an international media firestorm — I'm Canadian and she got covered here — that her article is actually at least twice as long as, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, our article about the actual senator she lost to. It's not a bar that every candidate for political office clears just because some media coverage of the primary campaign exists — some media coverage of all primary campaigns always exists. It's a bar that requires the media coverage to explode into the likes of CNN and the BBC, not just to media outlets in Texas which would simply be expected to always cover all Texas primaries. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The WP:BLUDGEON approach here by editors with highly-focused editing histories and unanswered COI questions suggests that we have entered WP:COITALK territory. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with the nominator's rationale -- Whpq (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL is clear that significant, in-depth, independent coverage is required if a political figure is to be considered notable. Moving for a delete, as the sources cited by the article do not indicate this; many reference Fails, but only in passing, and existence does not merit inclusion on an encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 16:06, 4 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 keep. RebeccaGreen saves the day again. Consensus is since very clear. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacque Batt[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Very little coverage of this former Idaho first lady. Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article leaves out many details of her life - strange, as the creator has been active on Wikipedia for 5 years. No, notability is not inherited, but was she notable herself? I don't find much coverage in Newspapers.com, but I do wonder if there was coverage in women's magazines, etc. The coverage I have found is mostly in Idaho papers. It includes: a 2 page spread from 1965 about the 99's, a women pilots association, with 3 photos of Jacque Batt and about a paragraph of text about her; she was president of the Canyon County Republican Women's Club in 1971; their silver wedding anniversary in 1973 (marriage date and place, children, etc); she was president of the Idaho Legisladies (wives of legislators) in 1977; when her husband became governor in 1995 and they moved to Boise, their home didn't have a washing machine or dryer, so she did the washing at a coin-op laundry (this was in a 2008 article, and I wonder how the writer knew that - he was contrasting that with the governor of the time's spending in a time of recession); in 1998, "she had worked as a volunteer calling mothers to remind them about their children's immunizations"; her recipes were published in an Idaho paper and in a Michigan paper in 1998; one article from 2013 says that 12 years previously (so in 2001), she helped the next Idaho first lady Patricia Kempthorne found the Pink Tea, an event to raise awareness about breast cancer and the importance of early detection. However, there is a document online from Boise Soroptimists which says "In 1998, Boise Soroptimists participated in Idaho’s First Pink Tea to support breast cancer research and received a letter from the First Lady of Idaho, Jacque Batt." - and there's a scan of the letter, definitely dated 1998, which indicates that it was Batt who founded it, not Kempthorne. She may have "generally stayed in the background of her husband's administration", as a 1999 article said, but the newspaper coverage that exists suggests to me that there was more coverage of her as a first lady, eg in women's magazines, on TV or radio, of her work for immunization, breast cancer research, her recipes, and how she did her housework. In Australia we have one digitised national women's magazine, but I don't know if any have been digitised in the US - does anyone know? RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, @RebeccaGreen:. I added the information about the Ninety-Nines and helping to found the Pink Tea, using those sources. I was not able to find the information you mentioned about the Idaho Legisladies or immunizations. Perhaps you have different search results since you are in a different county? Not sure. But thank you for the information! --Kbabej (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject held an official office, that being official First Lady of Idaho. She also was active in founding a charity along with Patricia Kempthorne that served women who could not afford mammograms, and held positions in the Ninety-Nines, a piloting organization. --Kbabej (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST, probably. As I noted above, the wording of some of the coverage that does exist suggests to me that there was more, in sources that are not available online. (I have added the other sources I found through Newspapers.com.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen's arguments, although the article needs some editing to read less like a memorial. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:22, 4 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. Sandstein 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Snyder[edit]

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

Another of several biographies submitted by a new editor. The subject does not appear notable, and the references lack independence. Fails WP:GNG. Uninvited Company 23:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "several biographies submitted by a new editor". The article was created in 2008. Not sure by what standard 10 years old is considered new. --2R0T2E3 (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I support the deletion on grounds of notability (WP:GNG). I agree with the comment by 2R0T2E3 - the nominator's comment about the creator doesn't seem to hold water. Regardless, there is no good reason for this article to stick around. A really paranoid android (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 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. Consensus that subject passes WP:NBOOK. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tiger's Prey[edit]

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

Unnotable. A web search shows little other than bookstore listings. –eggofreason^talk 19:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Flanagan, Margaret (2017-09-01). "The Tiger's Prey". Booklist. 114 (1). ISSN 0006-7385.
  The review notes:
  
  The Tiger's Prey.
  By Wilbur Smith and Tom Harper.
  Oct. 2017. 432p. Morrow, $28.99 (9780062276506).
  Smith (War Cry, 2016), with coauthor Harper (Zodiak Station, 2015), continues to log the seafaring exploits of the indefatigable Tom Courtney as well as those of the next generation of Courtney swashbucklers. Lives and destinies collide in the late eighteenth century as Tom, Francis, and Christopher Courtney set sail for exotic ports located in places that range from the tip of Africa to the rugged coast of the Indian subcontinent. Seeking enlightenment, independence, and revenge, each attempts to conquer his own inner demons as long-buried family secrets and scandals are revealed. In typical Courtney-series style, fashion, romance, action, and adventure await all three as they carve out their own distinct niches on the entangled Courtney family tree. Longtime fans won't be disappointed as another chapter in this cross-continental, multigenerational saga is chronicled.
2. Samul, Ron (2017-10-01). "The Tiger's Prey". Library Journal. 142 (16). ISSN 0363-0277.
  The review notes:
  
  Smith, Wilbur & Tom Harper. The Tiger's Prey. Morrow. (Courtney, Bk. 16). Oct. 2017. 432p. ISBN 9780062276506. $28.99; ebk. ISBN 9780062276568.
  Smith's long-running "Courtney" series continues with Tom Courtney, the son of famed Sir Hal Courtney and hero of Monsoon and Blue Horizon, setting off on another swashbuckling historical adventure that moves from the shores of 18th-century India to Africa. When Tom loses an elegant family heirloom, known as the Neptune sword, he battles through fort sieges, pirate attacks, and even fighting his own family to regain the possession of this treasure. While Tom heads the story, other series cast members play significant roles in the twisted and sometimes dark plot, reminding us that a family legacy doesn't run in a straight line but twists from one place to another. VERDICT This harrowing and exciting epic tale of revenge, betrayal, and hope will thrill Smith's many fans and adventure fiction readers.
3. "The Tiger's Prey". Kirkus Reviews. 2017-08-15. ISSN 1948-7428. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.
  The review notes:
  
  Skimming the surface rather than probing its depth, the story is all sails, swordplay, and sinister betrayal. Descriptions are spare yet proficient: ashore it's mostly monsoon, beastly heat, or cutthroat sultans atop war elephants while aboard ship, sailor-speak livens up the thoroughly cinematic battle scenes. There’s some PG-rated sex, while the fight scenes include multiple dismemberments and a cringe-inspiring method of execution that will become the stuff of nightmares.
4. Doran, Christopher M. (2017-10-16). "The Tiger's Prey: A Novel of Adventure". New York Journal of Books. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.
  The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#New York Journal of Books is that New York Journal of Books is reliable.
  The review notes:
  
  The Tiger’s Prey furthers the tradition of taut adventure novels set against an exotic, constantly changing locale.
  ...
  He cleverly intertwines the decisions, triumphs, failures, and tragedies of earlier generations into the stories of the current progeny. In this the 16th book of the Courtney series, the reader follows Tom Courtney, one of four sons of master mariner Hal Courtney. Filled with nonstop action, heroism, love, betrayal, jealousy, imprisonment, and a smattering of sex and pregnancy, the book continues to follow the style that Smith has made so popular.
  ...
  The Tiger’s Prey begins aboard an overburdened merchant ship beset by pirates along a trading route in the Indian Ocean. By chance and from another vessel, Tom and his crew see the tragedy about to take place and seek to intervene. After a tense struggle and eventual victory, Courtney earns the loyalty of the ship’s captain, which is subsequently essential when Tom himself is then threatened with death and overwhelming destruction.
5. "The Tiger's Prey: Review". The Free Press Journal. 2017-11-05. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.
  The review notes:
  
  All in all, The Tiger’s Prey is a fast-paced read that pays homage to its literary legacy. It’s an amalgamation of strong characters with their head on their shoulders and their eyes on the prize. So much so that you step into their shoes and yearn for their victory. They inspire a sense of loyalty and bravado that make legends. Which is why, they fit so perfectly in a Wilbur Smith novel.
6. "Micro review: 'The Tiger's Prey' is a riveting tale across continents". The Times of India. 2018-03-19. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.
  The review notes:
  
  The Tiger's Prey by Wilbur Smith is another bestseller from the Courtney series. Set in the 1700s, this adventurous tale takes us to Africa and India as the Courtney family battles with the English East India Company. Chronologically, this book would fall between Smith's Monsoon and Blue Horizon.
  ...
  With an intricate plot, well-written action scenes you can picture vividly, and romance, this book is a good read for any adventure enthusiast. Both old fans and those unfamiliar with Smith's work will enjoy the riveting tale across the continents.
7. Sutton, David Lloyd. "The Tiger's Prey: A Novel of Adventure". Manhattan Book Review. City Book Review. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.
  The review notes:
  
  Starting with a stern chase of a merchantman captained by a grimly determined Englishman, rescued (of course) by a Courtenay, we are led, willy-nilly, through the loss of fortunes, the sundering of families, and captivities both degrading and expanding.
  There are faint echoes of Star Wars and of other, more recent plottings. None are diminishing of this rousing tale.
8. Angeli, Regina M. (2017-11-14). "The Tiger's Prey". Iron Mountain Daily News. Ogden Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.
  The review notes:
  
  Set in the early eighteenth century, “The Tiger’s Prey” continues the saga of Tom Courtney and his extended family as they set sail and battle pirates, princes, and each other, in this tale of high seas adventure, family conflicts and romance.
  For a riveting nautical yarn, readers may want to check out Wilbur Smith’s Courtney clan.
9. Lewis, Stephen (2017-10-21). "Tiger's Prey: York author Tom Harper on co-authoring a bestselling blockbuster with Wilbur Smith". The Press. Archived from the original on 2018-12-29. Retrieved 2018-12-29.
  The article notes:
  
  He was offered the chance of collaborating with Smith (who is now in his mid eighties) on writing The Tiger's Prey, a planned sequel to Monsoon.
  He debated with himself for a while - he'd never before considered co-writing a novel, and wondered how he would find it. But it was too good a chance to miss. "I just thought working with someone like Wilbur from a writing point of view was going to be fascinating."
  ...
  He met Smith twice, initially to thrash out a storyline. He was amazed at the complexity of it, and the sheer number of characters. It was interesting, also, in that the book was intended to ill in the gaps between two earlier novels. So they had to take the characters that had survived the events of Monsoon, and, over the course of more than 400 pages, bring them to the point at which Blue Horizon began.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Tiger's Prey to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The substantial reviews in Booklist, City Book Review, The Free Press Journal, Iron Mountain Daily News (published by Ogden Newspapers), Kirkus Reviews, Library Journal, New York Journal of Books, The Press, and The Times of India, clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BOOKCRIT point #1 per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as multiple independent reviews, i would like to thank Cunard for their comprehensive listing above, showing that this is a slam dunk and can be closed early if an admin so inclines. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, Coolabahapple (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no probs:)) (just got back home from work, little shifts mmmmmmmm:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 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. Sandstein 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Time to Live and a Time to Love[edit]

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

A non-notable Soviet film.--RTY9099 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a highly regarded Estonian film, would have had a cinematic release. --Michig (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this written in the article?--RTY9099 (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NFILM. I really thought I could find some good sources to rescue this one, it gets a ton of hits on Google when searching the Estonian name but there's just a few pages of listings on various Estonian film database sites and then the hits appear unrelated. Please ping me if someone is more successful. Ifnord (talk) 04:04, 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 08:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film was released by Tallinnfilm, which is Estonia's major film company, directed by a prominent Estonian director (Veljo Käsper), penned in part by prominent Estonian writer Enn Vetemaa, with music composed by Jaan Rääts, and starred prominent Estonian actors Ita Ever, Heino Mandri, Aarne Üksküla, and Mati Klooren. According to Eesti filmi andmebaas, it won several awards: Film Festival of Baltic States and Byelorussia: Best Art Director, Imbi Lind (1977), International Festival of Red Cross and Health Films: Best Actor, Heino Mandri (Varna, Bulgaria, 1977), and a 1977 Latvian Theatre Association Award for Successful Debut to actress Aīda Aara. I have yet to verify any of this, however. Obviously, the article needs better references and sourcing and is no more than a stub. I think smaller countries are often held to a more stringent standard on English Wiki when articles are created, particularly with older media, which is unfortunate. But, I do see the argument in this case, as little is written about the film and it has such a small digital presence. On a personal note (obviously, not sourceable), I have seen the film broadcast on ETV2. Also, the image on the article's page is wrong. That is a book by Russian author Valentin Rasputin and has no connection to the film or article (other than a similar title) and should be removed in either case. Cheers! ExRat (talk) 20:37, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Committee on Scouting[edit]

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

No claim of notability Rathfelder (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent article Religious emblems programs--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary duplication of content that already exists in list form in related articles (e.g. Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America), Religious emblems programs (Girl Scouts of the USA)). Multiple redirect targets, so redirect would not work, and there's nothing additional here to merge, really. Bakazaka (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 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. Despite the fact some Keep arguments were rather weak (the early ones), there still seems to be a clear consensus that Darya passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG despite two relists. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darya Poverennova[edit]

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

A non-notable Russian actress. No significant roles.--RTY9099 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News results suggest sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's been in twelve films and comes from a famous theatrical family. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unconvincingly.--RTY9099 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Her family's notability doesn't make her notable, WP:NOTINHERITED. Ifnord (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alot of notability found with just a simple Google search. Have added some sources. --TheDomain (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Questions There is a Theatre section, which simply states an affiliation. Does anyone have access to any sources about her stage appearances? The only reference in this section that I can open is more about her love life than her work. Re the Filmography - it is very hard to tell, just from this table, whether the TV series are notable or not, and whether she had significant roles in them or not. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable given accomplishments listed in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion of relevant sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Russian-language Wikipedia article is convincing that she passes WP:NACTOR/WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources at her Russian Wikipedia article, Meets NACTOR as well as GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:41, 2 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. Sandstein 10:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Rebar[edit]

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

The only sources I can find that mention this person are press releases. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC#C1. His work has generated numerous citations per a Google Scholar search. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've haven't looked enough to cast my own comprehensive !vote, but aren't most of these cases where the subject was buried within the long list of coauthors? This wouldn't seem to satisfy C1. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citation in the article suggest he was the lead. It states that "over the last 20 years he has led the development of the Company's zinc finger protein platform." Thsmi002 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:42, 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. In the articles listed in both Google Scholar and Nature, he is, in fact, one of many authors, never the lead. However, he has biographical information (more than in the article) on OMICS International, a database of over 700 peer reviewed, open access articles. Also, The Scientist, a peer reviewed life sciences magazines mentions an article Rebar wrote for Nature Medicine, where he is listed as lead author. He is also quoted twice in the article [12]. I think his article should be linked to the article on Zinc Fingers and, if it exists, Sangamo Therapeutics.

Delete I thought more about this last night and realized he really doesn't have enough mention in secondary sources to keep the article (and one source I quoted isn't reliable, as mentioned below). Aurornisxui (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, OMICS online is the epitome of predatory publishing, so anything from them should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Aurornisxui (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are not required to meet WP:ACADEMIC.Thsmi002 (talk) 21:44, 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 00:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Uninvited Company 21:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ACADEMIC is a separate from WP:GNG. From the sheer number of citations of publications he is associated with, I believe he meets ACADEMIC#1.Thsmi002 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four of his publications have over 1000 citations each. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the best cited papers he's rarely the corresponding author. For the others he seems to be acting in his capacity as chief technology officer for Sangamo Therapeutics. It's an unusual situation, companies don't tend to publish many papers in the first place but I've never seen one where the head of R&D appeared to be putting his name on everything going out.--Project Osprey (talk) 10:38, 4 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 Red Dead Redemption 2. Sandstein 10:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Morgan (character)[edit]

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

The character is not independently notable from Red Dead Redemption 2. Video game characters usually require some real world association (such as Pikachu, or Sonic), however this character only appears in one game series, so is not any more notable than any other character. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Dead Redemption 2 and merge relevant details, like the development information. JOE BRO 64 19:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Easily identifiable as WP:GAMECRUFT and in-universe-only topic. Lordtobi (✉) 20:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect), not a notable character, no independent, stand-alone notability (WP:INHERIT). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not inherited from his parent game. Lacks sufficient coverage of the character itself to support independent notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Dead Redemption 2 and merge any relevant details that don't already exist there. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Dead Redemption 2. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Dead Redemption 2. Notability is tied to Roger Clark and Red Dead Redemption 2. wumbolo ^^^ 16:24, 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. Sandstein 10:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (disambiguation)[edit]

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

At the end of the day, there are only two notable topics that can reasonably be called "Santorum" alone: the politician and the neologism. Santorum Amendment is a WP:PTM, though I'll leave it for now so we can discuss the page is. Looking at previous deletion discussions, it seems like this WP:TWODABS page only exists to avoid the unseemly and WP:BLP-questionable move of hatnoting to Campaign for the neologism "santorum" from Rick Santorum. Fine. The former is linked to in the body of the latter, and always will be as long as it's an article. This Potemkin disambiguation page does a disservice to readers by suggesting more than two topics called "Santorum". BDD (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TWODABS applies here. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: there's only one Santorum, and it's Rick. There's no need for a hatnote: links are in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the arguments in the previous AfD, and the fact that the Santorum Amendment (also known as the "Santorum language") is in fact a WP:PTM. The latter was not sufficiently examined in the last discussion, and even some keep !voters agreed that it is a partial match. We're left with just the politician and the neologism redirecting to the campaign. This scenario has been well discussed now in all three AfD debates, and should be a good enough consensus to delete the disambiguation page completely. wumbolo ^^^ 10:52, 2 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Greenwood[edit]

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

Article was PRODded with the rationale "This subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. He has never played in a competitive match for a fully professional club or for a senior national team.". PROD was removed by an IP without any attempt at an explanation. The PROD rationale remains valid. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The delition PROD was removed for a valid reason, and the explanation can be found on the entries talk page. The player meets GNG as he is being widely reported in the press to be one of the best players of his age in the world, and to be making his professional debut in a matter of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.169.154 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft Not far off from GNG in my opinion, but currently fails WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. If someone is famous for being a footballer but hasn't actually ever played a professional game, there needs to be some exceptional reason why they should have an article (e.g. Sonny Pike); this isn't the case here. Number 5 7 22:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I posted the original PROD on this article, and my reasoning has not changed. – Pee Jay 18:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:54, 2 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Western F.C. (Thailand)[edit]

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

No claim or evidence of notability, nor of meeting the standards of WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Western F.C. (Thailand) has appeared in Dailynews newspapers Media of Thailand. It is national public news. Amateur teams of Amateur league, which there is team history, have team wiki articles. Amateur teams of Amateur league don't team history in public news. they haven't wiki articles. You may not all teams in Amateur league haven't any articles Aquaelfin (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The may become notable when Somjets Kesarat actually plays for them rather than just signing. Until then, they're a non-notable amateur team in a regional league. Cabayi (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:55, 2 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. Sandstein 17:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Box Killer[edit]

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

insufficient evidence for notability.Film reviews in Indian news sources are unreliable for the purposes of notability DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Note this is not an argument that the article should be kept) DGG, perhaps you meant book reviews, instead of film reviews, since this is a book not a film. Also, why are Indian news sources unreliable for the purposes of notability? Point 1 of wp:NBOOK specifically includes reviews in its list of published works that support notability, so your objection must be to the fact that the reviews are in Indian news sources; but where else would such reviews appear? What makes Indian sources inherently less reliable than sources from other countries? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This should be covered by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raakshas: India's No 1 Serial Killer, which was a bundled nomination, and should be a candidate for G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my error---I know that film reviews in Indian sources are unreliable; I however have less knowledge wheather or not their of book reviewing is true third party independent.

but for books published in the US, which I do know about, the question about whether a book review shows notability is usually whether it is actually independent, and whether it is substantial. For example reviews that are just mentions in a list of new book with a sentence about each are not substantial, just as similar sources would not be in any other field. Reviews arranging by the publishers PR dept are not independent. There's often a good deal of dispute in individual cases whether a particular book review qualifies or not. One of the factors that I would consider showing a failure of independence is any book review that seems to be by a paid editor,. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G5. All edits since aren't substantial, consisting of only gnoming edits. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:46, 2 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 keep. Clear consensus that subject passes WP:ARTIST. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Staniforth Hext[edit]

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

This is one of a group of ancestral sketches previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Staniforth which was declined because many voters were opposed to the bulk nature of the listing. The article appears fail WP:GNG by a wide margin. Uninvited Company 21:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Multiple sources:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1487168?c=people
http://www.artnet.com/artists/charles-staniforth-captain-hext/
http://staniforthfamily.com/CharlesStaniforthHext.html
https://www.joseflebovicgallery.com/pages/books/CL181-38/after-charles-staniforth-hext-british/military-barracks-sydney-cricket-match/?soldItem=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaniforthHistorian (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article also does not contain all the information that would help establish the subject's notability. In this case, his lithographs are held in the National Gallery of Australia [13], the National Library of Australia [14] and the National Museum of Australia [15], so he meets WP:ARTIST #4 "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." There is also a biography of him, Charles Staniforth Hext. Soldier and artist, by George Deas Brown, 1981. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he is notable, but to be clear the items mentioned above are all lithograhphs created by lithographer C Hutchins, of the original drawings by Hext.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ARTIST, works held in several notable museums/galleries, listed above by RebeccaGreen (thanks:)), there are also some lithographs by Charles Hutchins based on Hext's drawings in the Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts - listed here, (Hutchins also produced a lithograph, based on another Hext drawing, of a cricket match at military barracks, sydney, apparently the first depiction of a cricket match in australia, print held in the Dixson collection of the State Library of NSW, thats pretty significant:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Art works held by major institutions. Subject of 3rd party publication/s. Alll easy to find. Seems insufficient BEFORE. Aoziwe (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely mentioned in sources, although not in much depth. His drawings are not included in any collection as far as I can see: what is included are lithographs of his sketches, created any another artist, and books that include his drawings. However, his work has been accorded importance through reproduction and multiple mentions. This is enough for GNG given the era.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough info to pass WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs development, and it should be kept as he is notable per WP:ARTIST. I added a new section for Collections, three listings + citations that User:RebeccaGreen found and listed above. There are other citations to add, mentioned by editors above, that could be added to the article. Netherzone (talk) 15:43, 3 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. Sandstein 17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Ritchie[edit]

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

Non noteworthy AIowA (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete. On the one hand, per WP:BASIC, I can see a good keeping argument that this guy has been the subject of sustained coverage in what might be called reliable sources. On the other this is purely for celebrity gossip, and notability =/= fame. FOARP (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AIowA, it is important to notify the creator, and your deletion reason is vague. He meets WP:BASIC - he may not have media coverage for highbrow activities, but there is sufficient media coverage. He has been an integral part of two television series; if it was one, he would merit a redirect under WP:BLP1E, but this is a WP:BLP2E situation, i.e. there is no reason for deletion, as he has been in multiple notable shows, meeting WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films...television shows. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject meets WP:GNG at the very least. There are multiple, good references which focus on the subject. As Boleyn points out, the subject may only be notable for base reasons but notability guidelines such as WP:ENT do not require projects to be works of art. Ifnord (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 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. Sandstein 17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cashman[edit]

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

One of several biographies on marginally notable individuals, all submitted by the same new editor. No real claim of notability. Fails WP:GNG, sources are not independent, generally interviews; nor are they high quality. Uninvited Company 23:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please re-state your nomination reasons; a simple click on history shows that these articles were started in 2008, 2013 and 2015 and are not from a new editor. A basic understanding of an article's history is required to nominate articles for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that page creator made 8 edits between 2012 and 2015, creating 3 pages, then disappeared.[16]. presumably a paid PROMO editor. the other 2 articles are also at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, while this is clearly a Linkedin article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for a headhunter / career coach / Forbes blogger who may have had professional accomplishment but who fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 3 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. Sandstein 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeful: The Real Show Choirs of America[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary. Most sources found in a before search are only passing mentions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as has some reliable sources coverage such as a Guardian piece already in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I recommend the closing admin to read what the votes are saying (including the nominator which counts) instead of closing this as no consensus. Apart from that Guardian coverage there is not much here. Weak keeping the article based on 1 good reference is not a valid thing in my opinion, because it is still a WP:GNG failure which needs multiple secondary reliable sources covering it in detail. I do not see that here. In my search just like the nom I only found this https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-previews/gleeful-real-show-choirs-america-226743 which is not even covering the thing in detail. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:33, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. V. Savitri Gunatilleke[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG, and they simply don't meet any of the requirements of WP:NSCHOLAR. The article claims they are a fellow of NAS, but this search did not turn up that fact. I tried several variants of spelling, but the google scholar search clearly has this spelling. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wouldn't her election as Honorary Fellow of the top scholarly association in her field satisfy C#3 of WP:PROF?

Comment - I don't think so. That's not a notable organization.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable org - it's the top scholarly society in her field. Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. But that's neither here no there, what I should have said, is that in terms of the 3rd criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR, this does not appear to meet that notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this Google Scholar profile which indicates an H-index of 35, but I don't know how well it is curated (husband also publishes) or how the order of authors comes into play. She won UNESCO's Sultan Qaboos Prize for Environmental Preservation with members of her department rather than individually, and I am not sure how notable that is. Here her colleague says she was a member of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka; their website is down right now (I also searched the US NAS site and there are no foreign associates in Sri Lanka under any name). I notice that the ATCB does not even have a WP entry, and I wonder if that is because it's not a notable organization. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that she and her husband both seem to publish together does complicate things like her h-index, but the fact that the ATBC picked her as their Honorary Fellow is noteworthy. As for the society itself - speaking as someone with a PhD in tropical ecology, it's clear to me that it is the premier professional society for tropical ecology. That's a difficult thing to document because people don't write a whole lot about professional societies, but see this, for example, where they are described as the world’s largest organization devoted to the study and conservation of tropical systems. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of people have frequent co-authors. Why is it a complication that she's married to hers? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ten publications with over 100 citations each (on Google Scholar, searching for author:CVS-Gunatilleke) is enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC #2 and #3, with the Honorary Fellow award from the ATBC and as a member of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka (the external link to the American NAS is clearly wrong). She appears to meet #1 as well. She only needs to meet one of these criteria to be notable according to WP:NACADEMIC, and she meets 2 or 3. I don't know why she was nominated for AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF as argued in the !votes above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a solid keep based on her contributions to the field and reception of her work and research. Passes by way of WP:NACADEMIC #2, WP:NACADEMIC #3. WP:PROF#C1. May be worth investigating variations of her name. Netherzone (talk) 16:10, 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. Sandstein 16:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Staniforth (gentleman)[edit]

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

This is one of a group of ancestral sketches previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Staniforth which was declined because many voters were opposed to the bulk nature of the listing.

I have speedied several of the articles. This is one of the better ones, by comparison, and I feel obligated to list it separately, for due consideration, since there were objections to dealing with these articles on a wholesale basis. You decide. Uninvited Company 21:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man was definitely significant during the English Civil War, noted in various sources.StaniforthHistorian (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any particularly "significant" role in the English Civil War, and he doesn't inherit any notability from his association with the Earl of Arundel. The speculations about what he may have done or whom he may have married underline the lack of good sourcing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the sources available, it doesn't seem that he would meet notability guidelines. Being an agent of an earl is not inherently notable - if histories wrote about his work in that role, that might be different. Similarly with the protection from the Earl of Newcastle. I don't find it relevant that there is no clear sourcing about his marriage - that is normal for that period, except for royalty and nobility, and in no way reflects on his notability or lack of it. What does matter is that we don't seem to know anything more than that he was an agent, and he received protection. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 4 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 speedy delete. G11. Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Ses[edit]

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

Unsourced biography that appears (by the username) to be at least in part autobiographical (including adding the trademark information...). Not seeing enough to satisfy WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 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. Sandstein 16:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max O. Stephenson Jr.[edit]

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

No real claim of notability Rathfelder (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any sources other than the staff bio from his employer. There is no clear indication in the biography in what way he would pass any of the six notability prongs for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria (or WP:AUTHOR, or anything else). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 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. Per WP:TNT (banned user, copyvios). No prejudice against recreation if adequately referenced (and, obviously, without copyvios this time). Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-conservatism[edit]

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

The topic seems to fail the WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article which discuss the topic seem to be blogs or self-published sources. The LewRockwell source does not use the term "anarcho-conservatism", rather the title is "Conservative anarchists" discussing not a school of thought but the role of "traditionalist" values within historical anarchists and existing anarchist schools of thought. UrbanDictionary is not reliable for notability. LibertarianUniverse describes itself as a blog. The Burkean describes itself as a blog. The rest of the citations are for quotes or taken from Christian anarchism to discuss that school of thought rather than this one. Most of the article focuses on distinguishing the subject from other articles we have on related topics like various religious anarchisms or libertarian conservatism. The bulk of the cited sources seem to treat the topic in this way as well. I've done some google searches and haven't been able to find sources that treat this as a topic in its own right either. As a result of this lack, the article seems to rely on a great deal of original research to synthesize a coherent ideology separate from the topics we already have articles on. Once the WP:QUOTEFARM is removed, there's nothing much here that satisfies WP:V and there don't seem to be sources to satisfy WP:GNG so I believe it should be deleted. (AFD requested by 69.204.38.35 (talk · contribs), submitted at their request. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While WP:GHITS is a poor argument - in this case we have only 68 true hits and most (if not all) of them are not RSes - and one would expect much more for an established political school as thought (and even for a borderline notable WP:NEO). I question whether this is distinct from Libertarian conservatism and Anarcho-capitalism - and I'm not even sure we've passed WP:V for "Anarcho-conservatism" being a "thing" (the sources mentioning the term are various blogs - all the rest of the article is various quotes that do not mention the term). Might be some salvageable content for a merge to one of the former, but a redirect should not be created.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per WP:NOTESSAY. The term itself meets the eye as an oxymoron, the essence of conservatism being that the preservation of government that exists is presumed to be a good due to the horrors of anarchy. Stringing together a series of inapt quotes does not help. Sayyid Qutb for example, wanted to impose a single law on the whole world : "To establish God's rule means that His laws be enforced and that the final decision in all affairs be according to these laws." Overall, the article is so bizarre that the more closely I read, the more I suspect it of being a WP:HOAX, or perhaps someone attempting to prove a WP:POINT that I cannot make out. But it does not really matter why it was created, only that so little sourcing exists for "Anarcho-conservatism," except on websites like libertarianuniverse.com.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATD. The blogs cited in the article are published by people notable enough to have their own WP page: Lew Rockwell, Stephan Kinsella, etc. Describing a publication as a blog doesn't mean anything. Paul Krugman has a blog on the New York Times; is it not sufficiently notable for WP? 'Conservative anarchist' and 'anarcho-conservative' are synonymous, as indicated on the article's text, much the same way anarcho-communism is synonymous with communist anarchism. The distinction of anarcho-conservatism to libertarian conservatism is clear in the text, and is symmetrical to the distinction of anarcho-communism to libertarian socialism. The distinction to anarcho-capitalism is also clear in the text. Whether the term is an oxymoron or not is irrelevant; social anarchists also find anarcho-capitalism to be an oxymoron. Contrary to what E.M.Gregory is doing, WP articles are not there to prove a WP:POINT. The article doesn't say Sayyid Qutb was an anarcho-conservative, but simply that his quote therein reproduced is. The same applies to the other quotes listed under "Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors". Finally, yes, the article is heavy on quotes at the moment; of course, it's a new article. Once body text is added in between, and even in substitution to some of the quotes, it won't look so skinny and bony. If you see other problems with the article, please feel free to WP:FIXIT. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
notifying User:Legacypac who approved this new article for inclusion, and User: Diannaa who explained the rules governing creating text to fill this page by cutting and pasting large blocks of text from existing pages to new User:WisdomTooth3, of the existence of this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep. If you have not studied Economics, well, then, of course you may have never heard of anarcho-conservatism. So you may, as the OP, posit: «The topic seems to fail the WP:GNG», and of course be utterly, completely wrong!. But if you know your Misesian Economics (and you should!), then you immediately know where to look for this stuff. So I've just added a bunch of citations, including from World Policy Journal, from the Mises Institute, from The Burkean, and from the book The Political Animal: Biology, Ethics and Politics.^[1] The latter makes explicit that anarcho-conservative thought ranges from Edmund Burke to Agrarianism. People, if this does not meet WP:GNG, I don't know what does. Don't delete a political-economic school of thought just because you don't know about it. Now as to the huge farm quote, hey, I don't it think most of it should be there, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Deal with it some other way. XavierItzm (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Stephen R L Clark (4 January 2002). The Political Animal: Biology, Ethics and Politics (2002 ed.). Routledge. p. 89. ISBN 1134658605. Retrieved 20 December 2018. The fault of anarchy-conservatives, from Burke to the Agrarians, is...

GNG requires more than trivial mentions of the term, and from multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) I'm sitting with The Political Animal in front of me and it mentions the phrase "anarcho-conservatism" twice in the whole book, with little elaboration. The first mention proposes the term as a neologism and you quote the other mention. It's disingenuous to infer that this book discusses the concept "in depth". We've established that the other sources are either unreliable, affiliated, or not in depth. As a proponent of "Misesian economics", which isn't the best bias to bring to a related AfD discussion, you'd be better off building a section on that concept in von Mises's article and adding any related elaboration there summary style. If and when "anarcho-conservatism" becomes an independently notable concept, the sourcing will be bountiful enough to warrant a content split. czar 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I approved the page because it is a notable topic. We pages on cartoon characters and soccor players with only a statsa page to support them. Why are we trying to delete a good economics topic. Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has enough good citations. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete - This appears to be not a Wikipedia article but a collection of quotes on what the author of the article finds to be a common subject. The term "anarcho-conservatism" doesn't even appear in any of the quotes in the massive second section. Instead, it seems to be tying together various intersections of conservatism and anarchism, including with some concepts we already cover. Looking at some of the sources a bit more closely, several of them look like they're coining a version of "anarcho-conservatism" when they use it (such and such "might best be called.."). That's the case with a lot of these fun prefix-isms in academic literature (I've combined a few myself, which makes for a snappy conference slide). Ultimately, we can't have an article comprised entirely of quotes, so there's not much to retain here. Not opposed to Draftifying if people are really confident about being able to dig up in-depth coverage of a singular subject, written in their own words. I'm a little skeptical, though. A Google Scholar search for "anarcho-conservatism" returns precisely three hits, one of which is "speedydeletion.wikia.com". A regular google search isn't much better. Willing to be convinced otherwise by citations to scholarly sources which deal with this as a defined subject. I would expect any article on a notable -ism to have some literature reviews published somewhere that may help. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WisdomTooth3 and XavierItzm; several books and other sources with reputable authors discussing anarcho-conservatism/conservative anarchism...and then clean up the excessive quotes. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: It does not matter if there are 100 fringe sources ("well sourced"?) can someone address concerns of WP:SYNTHESIS? I agree we have silly articles on otherwise non-notable subjects, and recently I learned there is a push to make Wikipedia a dictionary, but inclusion of other stuff is not really supposed to be a valid argument. Jacques Ellul is reportedly a self-professed Christian Anarchist, but Edmund Burke is listed as a statesman, political theorist, and philosopher. In Religious thought of Edmund Burke it states "He sharply criticized deism and atheism, and emphasized Christianity as a vehicle of social progress.". Unless I missed it, how does his "thoughts" on religion (and apparently non-religion) extend to Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors? The lead does state "Anarcho-conservatives advocate the abolition of the state and the wholesale replacement of state law by moral laws". Assumptions seems to be so vague when anyone that support traditional family structures (second paragraph of the lead) is considered "conservative anarchists", and apparently anyone with religious beliefs. What are we really doing here? Are we starting (or continuing) a new wave Wikipedia psychological view? This link, an apparent self-outing reference (entry in Wikipedia: "which yours truly started") mentions Anarcho-Conservative as does Emre Baysoy but what we have here appears to be a mixture of content and references to cover the term that is original research at its best. Why not tie then all together. The lead states: "Anarcho-conservatism has become closely associated with libertarian conservatism and anarcho-capitalism", so it appears that any conservative thoughts, actions, or beliefs would be considered "anarcho". Again, in the lead, there are statements: "much like all right-libertarian orientations", "Like all libertarians", "Like all anarchists". How is this not original research? There is no way to logically or with sources defend these statements. Unless someone can address the above concerns this seems to be a conglomerate of junk appearing as an article and a reason why editors should not use "seems sourced" without investigating. Otr500 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: WP:SOFIXIT

That sentence in the lead is not mine, and it seems poorly phrased to me. In any case, anarcho-conservatism is as closely related to libertarian conservatism and anarcho-capitalism as anarcho-communism is to libertarian socialism and individualist anarchism. The disposition of these orientations is identically symmetrical in the political plane. That you may say is original research, but drawing differences and similarities between related political orientations in the text isn't; they are just restatement of what is already affirmed elsewhere on WP. Overall what I do see in those wanting to burn this page is an aversion to this particular political orientation (which I don't share, btw) mixed with obsessive deletionism. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sofixit should be considered a desperate term to try to throw the monkey off someones back and not one for a deletion discussion. Telling me to fix it, along with other editors concerns over the long list of quotes you have inserted, looking a lot like Reformist Left, would mean I would start deleting a multitude of those quotes, a great portion of the article, and leaving a stub without all the synthesis and biased POV spins. Your editorial spinning is somewhat like trying to paint someone that disagrees with you as a deletionist. I have created at least 79 articles. None of my !votes at AFD are just tossed in. I spend the time to look for sources, comment while I am looking around ---and doing a multitude of other things that include AFC and new page patrol. IF I !vote delete on an article it is NOT because I am inherently a deletionist but that I feel there are grounds that an article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Since you "opened the can of worms", how far would you be willing to allow me to "chop-out-the-crap"? The list of Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors should be completely removed. As with the other article I see you created (with a laundry list of quotes) you are just throwing crap in a pot and steering (not a misspelling but a bias twist for POV) it up. I comment anyone contributing to Wikipedia. I also would like you to consider constructive criticism, from not just me but some that have !voted "keep", and your admission that the article is "heavy on quotes, to remove those that make this junk. Contrary to some that state AFD is not cleanup, that ends up an oxymoron every time an article is deleted by consensus as not acceptable (deletion can be cleanup), it can NEVER HURT to gain improvements on an article, that is a reason we have WP:HEY. The idea of "keeping trash" in hopes that it may someday be improved is comical.

Please note: I have not given a !vote. user:Legacypac moved the article but added Comment: The long quotes are tripping the copyright filter. Does this topic already exist under another name?, (I am looking at this also) and the creating editor has more than doubled those (like 2 1/4 times increase) in the last few days. IF it is not your intention to create a POV spin then why not "sofixit" yourself. Anyway, if editors don't chop it down first, it will very likely revisit AFD, possibly along with "Reformist Left", especially if notions of being a hoax are not addressed. A term can be notable and not deserving an article on Wikipedia. Notability and not using fringe theories are important even on "Philosophical movements" and "Political philosophy", I agree the WP:sourcing is sketchy (Urban Dictionary!) but I am still looking. Otr500 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500:

WP:FRINGE does not apply. Please (re)read the policy:
To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. (emphasis mine)
1. This article is not about a "mainstream idea". In fact, you said that yourself. Therefore, WP:FRINGE does not apply to it.
2. Yes, anarcho-conservatism is fringe — globally! — but not locally in, say, Amish and Haredi communities.
Your charge that I'm "spinning/steering a POV" favourably to both anarcho-conservatism and the Reformist Left makes absolutely no sense to anyone who's familiarised oneself with these ideologies.
how far would you be willing to allow me to "chop-out-the-crap"
"Allow"? I don't have any authority to "allow" or "disalow" you from doing anything. You need only justify whatever you do on WP to the WP community.
Yes, I did say the article is currently heavy on quotes, and that body text should be added in substitution to some of them. I'm just better at 'quote mining' than at synthesising them. If that's your forte, please, go ahead and WP:FIXIT.

WisdomTooth3 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Burke… He most certainly was not an anarcho-conservative. He was a liberal conservative, as that article clearly states.

There aren't any quotes from Burke in the Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors section (or anywhere else in the article, for that matter).
The section's title is Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors, not Quotes from notable anarcho-conservative authors.

WisdomTooth3 (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No redirect. There are many links but none of them discuss the neologism "anarcho-conservatism" beyond a passing mention. We are an encyclopedia of concepts covered amply in secondary sources, not a catalog of phrases mentioned incidentally across the Internet. It's possible to hold anarchist and conservative views simultaneously, the same way that it's possible to hold anarchist and any other view simultaneously, but we don't dedicate articles to that intersection unless it is also subject to significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The article author's claim that "anarcho-conservatism" is distinct from Libertarian conservatism is backed in the article by... Urban Dictionary? Not only are user-generated resources not reliable sources, but I see no reason why any definition of "anarcho-conservatism" wouldn't be covered as related within Libertarian conservatism, despite that article's own sourcing issues. However, I wouldn't even redirect the term as I'm not seeing the sourcing that even discusses "anarcho-conservatism" as a discrete concept.

What's left if we remove the blatantly unreliable blogs and affiliated/primary source quote original research (as we're looking for secondary source analysis of the concept, not evidence that conservative thinkers had anti-state thought)? The Burkean blog's article (unreliable, btw) is titled "ANARCHO-CONSERVATISM – IS THAT EVEN A THING?" His short answer is "no", it's a term used by some bloggers without significant coverage. He concludes, "What’s more, anarcho-conservatism is little more than a subgroup of anarcho-capitalism, a model which defines all human interactions in terms of free market agreements." The rest of our article is refbombed to give the appearance that this neologism has greater currency than it does. If these thinkers have thought important thoughts at the intersection of anarchism and conservatism, cite the secondary sources (that discuss their importance) within existing sections, not the primary sources itself, as to make the claim that these thinkers form a corpus of "anarcho-conservative" thought (with no analysis to back that up) is textbook original research.

Atop that, this quote farm is a stark copyright violation that should never have passed AfC on formatting alone. Wikipedia works to minimize non-free content, and to copy non-PD texts at length in lieu of paraphrase is to violate that principle. I find the other "keep" arguments above to be lacking basis in policy.

czar 18:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: We are an encyclopedia of concepts covered amply in secondary sources … we don't dedicate articles to that intersection unless it is also subject to significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources.
The secondary sources are there. For instance:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Clark, Stephen R. L.; Clark, Stephen R. L. (2002-01-04). The Political Animal: Biology, Ethics and Politics. Routledge. ISBN 9781134658602.
^ Diggins, John Patrick (2015-03-08). Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400868063.
^ kanopiadmin (2006-07-26). "Who Was Gottfried Dietze?". Mises Institute. Retrieved 2018-12-29.
^ 1963-, Wilkin, Peter (2010). The strange case of Tory anarchism. Faringdon, Oxfordshire: Libri Pub. ISBN 9781907471100. OCLC 662410383. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

WisdomTooth3 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is "more than a trivial mention", per the general notability guideline. Books contain many neologisms—the burden of proof is on you as the article creator to show that the concept itself is the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The giveaway, in this case, is overloading the article with primary sources to give the appearance that the neologism has more currency than it does. The phrase "Tory anarchism" at least has some currency, but it should be covered in an existing article as there isn't enough sourcing to establish its difference or independence from other forms of conservatism. czar 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per user:czar, E.M.Gregory, and my comments above because there is a clear lack of notability. Synthesis can be found in the Biblical references (1 Samuel 8 ---REALLY!!) that have nothing to do with the subject and the above mentioned refbombing, like (Chabad.org) "Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over..." and the several links to Tolstoy, is proof this is a travesty. Arguments that performing a search equates to WP:GHITS, in looking to find notability, is pure BS. Just a Google count has been found to be misleading but anyone on Wikipedia that runs across a subject wanting more information will perform a search. Concerning that: Perform a Goggle book search (20 a page x 3 pages) to see a lack of notability. Otr500 (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: The reference to Samuel is copied over directly from the Christian anarchism article (as noted in the talk page). Yes, "really". I fail to see the problem with that. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Note, I'm the technical starter of this AFD, but that was only to help another editor set up the AFD; it was not my !vote.) Looking at the references that earlier posters are claiming make this absolutely essential, I don't find anything of the depth called for. I find stuff like this - a one-sentence mention that is given a full sentence here, and which is linked to an article that mentions the term not at all. (Even if that were not the case, this article would be in need of a serious dose of WP:TNT, as it is almost entirely built from WP:OR claims that these quotes have something to do with the subject.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article probably needs some work, but I believe the subject does pass WP:GNG and is worth retaining. Skirts89 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:RUBBISH -- WisdomTooth3 and XavierItzm have demonstrated that this article is a notable topic that meets WP:GNG. The fact that the article right now is of poor quality is not a valid argument for deleting it. The article can and should be improved to make it more encyclopedic and on-target. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that the closer takes the time to interrogate which "meets WP:GNG" comments are backed in policy and which are arguments to avoid. Also note that the article is a giant copyright violation. The overwhelming majority of text is copied straight from books, rather than paraphrased, and it continues to expand despite warnings above. czar 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright violations and excessive quotations should be removed, but that is irrelevant to the topic's notability. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:

"A giant copyright violation" it is not. The quotes in the article are brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks (WP:NFCCP).
The article is only looking heavy on quotes because it is light of body. It needs more content, not less.
As 1990'sguy noted, these considerations are irrelevant to the article's notability.

— WisdomTooth3 (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but attribution doesn't stop extensive quoting from being a copyright violation. Take your pick: Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Respecting_copyright. And the article's state does affect whether the whole thing will be thrown out. The above, drive-by "meets WP:GNG" comments do not address any of the issues raised with the contents of those sources. I'm not going to repeat myself but I will remind the closer of their obligation to properly weight policy-backed rationale. czar 06:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Ok,I'll pick the first one you cited:

Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use in the United States. ...

The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work. ...
The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject; irrelevant quotations should be removed.
All quotations must be attributed to their source. (WP:COPYQUOTE)

While there are many quotes in the article, none of them is longer than a few sentences, they are all properly attributed to their source and in no way represent a substantial portion thereof. If you feel some of them can be trimmed, or would like to make the article less quote heavy by contributing with body text, please go ahead and WP:FIXIT. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried being reasonable. I'll let someone else explain. czar 07:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check[17] sorry but I'm off to bed but

That looks bad. Doug Weller talk 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's tool is for checking whether content has been copied over, Doug Weller. Of course it has! They are quotes! But they do not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, are attributed to their source, and are specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks. That's what WP:COPYQUOTE and WP:NFCCP require. — WisdomTooth3 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the first one on Earwig was far too long to comply with policy. I thought it was but didn't want to act until I'd checked, which I now have. I've removed the example so it now complies. It certainly wasn't brief. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or maybe redirect in the unlikely event that a suitable target can be identified but definitely no merge).
At a first glance I thought the article was an elaborate joke. Now I am genuinely unsure. (Well, I'm unsure whether it is a joke. I'm still very sure that it is elaborate.) I'm fairly convinced that no such distinct/coherent ideology exists under this name or, alternatively, that it is currently in the process of being created under our very noses and is, at least for now, not notable. If the name does refer to anything both coherent and notable then surely we already have an article for this under its more common name? (If so, a redirect might be appropriate.)
The term has been punted a few times, and it turns up occasionally in reliable sources, but the meaning is not very clear or consistent. In some cases it seems the term is used by Socialists as a term of abuse for liberals and insufficiently statist anarcho-socialists. In other cases it seems it is used sarcastically by conservatives to mock those of their number who flirt with anarcho-capitalism. In a few cases it seems somewhat more in line with that chosen by this article but the choice to go down this route seems pretty arbitrary. What I don't see is anybody identifying their own ideology under this name and forming a movement around it. The sources are thin anyway. (Literally only 2 hits and two citations in Google Scholar! Two in Google News. Zero in Google Newspapers. Google Books is the best one. 135 hits would be more than sufficient if they were almost all talking about the same thing but they are not.) So if the sources are thin, where did this article spring from? What I see here is a whole mountain of Original Research. Even the purported "flag" seems to be the work, and probably the personal invention, of the author. There is no evidence that it exists in the wider world. The large quotations (some of which may or may not be copyright violations) speak of an attempt to cobble together an ideology on the spot. This is where it becomes outright comical. Various things that various people have written are co-opted as "Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors". Many of those people lived prior to modern political terminology. Were we to reach into their afterlives and torment them by making them read this article, far from recognising their own political philosophy, most of them would have not the first idea what it was talking about or why their name was being associated with it. So what we have here is, at the very best, an essay and at worst somebody's personal collection of inspiring quotations with a misleading title pinned to the top. The article seeks to cobble together a load of unrelated sources and the result is, as we say in the UK, cobblers. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal:

What I don't see is anybody identifying their own ideology under this name and forming a movement around it.
Would Orwell be notable enough for you?
The idea of a tory anarchist was first coined by Orwell to describe both Jonathan Swift and himself^[1]
Even the purported "flag" seems to be the work, and probably the personal invention, of the author.
Not sure what led you to think that, but it isn't. I simply googled it and reproduced it.
Many of those people lived prior to modern political terminology.
That's irrelevant; the article doesn't claim those authors quoted were anarcho-conservatives, but that the quotes themselves are. So it's not a matter of self-identification. And even if it were, John Locke and Adam Smith never self-identified as classical liberals and no one with secondary education would question that they were for this reason alone.

References

^ 1963-, Wilkin, Peter (2010). The strange case of Tory anarchism. Faringdon, Oxfordshire: Libri Pub. ISBN 9781907471100. OCLC 662410383. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

~ WisdomTooth3 (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you tell us exactly where you found the flag? There is no guarantee that if I Google it that I will find the same thing as results can change significantly based on location and the exact search term used. If there is a reliable source associating the flag with the name "Anarcho-conservatism" (or an accepted synonym) then that can be used as a reference and I'll be happy to withdraw my objection to the flag.

Please can you tell us which reliable source(s) explicitly identify each of those quotations as exemplars of, or compatible with, "Anarcho-conservatism". If such sources exists, and they really do link those quotes to the description of "Anarcho-conservatism" (or an accepted synonym) then I would agree that the self-identification issue could be overcome in the same way as for the Classical Liberals but I'm not seeing that at the moment. Let me give an example of the inadequacy of the quotation references. The Shmaayah quotation is referenced to https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2165/jewish/Chapter-One.htm where the word fragments "anarch*" and "conserv*" simply do not appear at all. The reference verifies that the quotation does appear in the source but not that it has anything to do with the alleged subject of this article. Without an additional RS source to make that link for us we have a WP:SYNTH problem. Multiply that problem by the rest of the quotes and you should see why the quotations section, at the very least, is entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.

Finally, I'd like to add an additional concern which I neglected to mention before: At no point does the article attempt to cover responses or criticisms to the subject. If you look at any other article about a political ideology you will see coverage of reactions to it. Perhaps it is ironic, but one solid proof that a political ideology is notable is when notable people start criticising it in depth and by name. At a first glance this might look like it has a chance of succeeding. After all, some of the references used are indeed attacking or dismissing something they call "Anarcho-conservatism" but when I check a few of them it seems like the term is often used as a term of mockery or as a strawman for something else. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! And I nearly forgot to mention... I don't have access to the source you suggested but, given that George Orwell was a Socialist, I'd be pretty amazed if he ever described himself as any sort of a Tory and meant it at face value. I suspect that he might have been making a humorous reference to the perceived incongruity of somebody of his background ending up on the left but I'm not in a position to check. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Striking my questions as they are now moot. It isn't really fair to leave them open when the user they were aimed at can't reply and I had a hand in that happening. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

As best as I can tell using Google image search, the same supposed flag shows up two places on the web linked to anarchy and conservatism. One is this Wordpress blog, which has no listed author, just one blog entry, and nine different flag images for "Anarco-conservadorismo" in the sidebar; the other is this essay which is meant as a guide for players of a game, with various clearly made-up flags, and which uses this same flag for "individualist anarchism" and for "fiscal conservatism", and doesn't use any term starting with "anarcho-conservat". And that is sort of symbolic (as flags are meant to be) of the article as a whole. It is the author slamming together several different terms that they claim are the same thing without any verifying source (I can see how they sound alike, but milk chocolate is not chocolate milk), then adding on quotes because they, without any sources to back them up, think that these quotes fall under that descriptor. And voila! Suddenly there's a huge farm of references that supposedly make this a thing, on their say-so. There ain't no there there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Libertarianism The suggestion that this is a distinct tendency of Anarchism is a WP:FRINGE view. The sources provided are few in number, obscure and of uncertain provenance, and no strong case has been made for this not being just another word for American-style Libertarianism. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the copyright violations & it having been created by a sock of an indefinitely banned user. WP:TNT is necessary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reviewing the sources, this appears to be a neologism picked up by some non-RS blogs, though one that is defined in different ways by different people. Add in the copyvios and the massive WP:SYNTH problem and a clear delete vote remains. SportingFlyer talk 02:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note - that subsequent to the banishment of the sock puppet and consequent removal of 30K worth of unnecessary material, the article is now significantly improved, with 3 book sources and quality sources such as the Mises Institute. XavierItzm (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only difference is the reduction of copyvio, as even despite that, overquoting remains. Otherwise, what sourcing has been introduced that hasn't already been discussed above? As for whether the Mises Institute is a "quality source", well, RSN doesn't agree. czar 03:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this is an essay, not an encyclopedic article.Trillfendi (talk) 05:59, 5 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 merge to List of airports in Algeria. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in Algeria[edit]

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

This article is simply a table, and only has one reference, which is not in English. I think Wikipedia:NOTSTATS could apply here. Deletion is one option, or perhaps it could be merged into List of airports in Algeria. – numbermaniac 12:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of airports in Algeria - it's helpful info, but no need for its own page. "Pepper" @ 17:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Pepper Spiderone 15:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as above, unnecessary fork (personally i would like to know the quietest airports:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 18:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as above - Better merging than deleting. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above suggestions. Seems like the most logical thing to do. Ajf773 (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of airports in Algeria. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:23, 4 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. Sandstein 16:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King Sam[edit]

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

Not seeing any real notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as above and seems to fufill CSD U5 ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 04:20, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 15:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BaleDoneen Method[edit]

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

essentially an advertisement. The method is already covered in the article on Amy Doneen, and the description of it here is exactly what would be found in an advertisement for patients. The essence of this method seems to be testing patients regardless of risk, a currently not recommended practice.(The actual test and therapies used are perfectly standard)Studies showing possible value of of this approach are included, but not those that say otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This certainly reads very much like an advertisement, especially as practically all material presented is unabashedly laudatory. However, I am not sufficiently acquainted with the various WP:MEDRS conventions to decide wehther this is undue promotion or just thorough representation of a positive uptake. Seems somewhat excessively detailed, in any case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:35, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OS 0.1[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Assuming the relevant policy is WP:NALBUM, it fails all criteria - never made any real impact on charts or with sales, no evidence of being broadcast on radio or television networks. Main DEPROD concern was that the mixtape was subject of multiple reliable source reviews - a Google search however reveals close to nothing with several search terms. Hiàn (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping Atlantic306. Hiàn (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article already has links to reviews in reliable sources coverage, Allmusic and Progressive Sounds, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306, there's nothing to suggest that Progressive Sounds is a reliable source - the Wikipedia article for it is completely unsourced. As ever with dance music, there may well be sources out there in print versions of Mixmag and the like, but as ever, without any access to these magazines, it's impossible to say with any certainty that the sources exist to keep this article. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how Progressive Sounds is remotely close to being reliable (given that it appears that there hasn't been any activity since ~2015 (and it appears to be closer to a blog than a reliable review site). The fact that the mixtape is logged on Allmusic (and that it has no more information than we already have) and no other reliable source does not prove anything tangible. Unless you can provide any other reliable links, I'm unfortunately not seeing your point. Hiàn (talk)_{editing on mobile account.} 18:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as there are doubts about the reliability of Progressive sounds Ive struck my keep and am neutral pending any other rs being found Atlantic306 (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:31, 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. Although a late one, there is a consensus that Fowler has enough sources that pass WP:GNG while also passing WP:NMODEL. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Fowler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Model with inadequate evidence of notability-- no substantial references DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant sources and coverage. --Danozzz (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE. See here 1 2, Vogue and Harper's Bazaar are both RS publications for fashion. Please do the necessary work to substantiate an AfD, and explain your reasoning (not a one-sentence proposal unless the case is really, really straight forward) before wiping out the work of other editors. FOARP (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be difficult in this field to distinguish between PR and encyclopedic coverage. Of the references mentioned above, perhaps a case could be made for the first being actual journalism, but I do not think it could for the second. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR coverage is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party in-depth coverage. The Vogue article is an interview and not WP:RS for notability purposes. Fails WP:NMODEL. Narky Blert (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lady was featured in two news article in The Sydney Morning Herald and in Arab News and another Australia newspaper; refs added to article.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also here in Harper's Bazaar. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR states notability is met if the model "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Georgia has 780K followers on her Instagram. That seems like a large fan base. The company she models for, Victoria Secret, has the 8th largest following on Instagram.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more references to fashion magazines that feature interviews with Fowler and a couple from News Corp Australia Network. The Victoria Secret Instagram following is over 63,531,983. Would the fact that she's one of their top representatives help her notability case? --the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TV presenter as well as model, meets GNG. MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Victorias Secret Fashion Show is huge. Inclusion in three is a major gig. Definitely keep. Kevinh456 (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three Victoria's Secret shows + presenting Project Runway New Zealand should satisfy WP:NMODEL. Bondegezou (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although some of the references seem like 'fluff pieces', enough are from sufficiently reliable sources to make her notable. Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and enough of the references are good. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:41, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup stadiums[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Content has been copied off from every World Cup article, all this information is is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK from 1930 FIFA World Cup, 1934 FIFA World Cup and so on to current day, We already have all this information across all the World Cup articles. It doesn't make any sense to repeat all that information in one article when you can get exactly the same information on each world cup page. The article hasn't been improved and it's still a mess since the last AfD, I still fail to see any decent rationale to keep this article. WP:ARTN Also applies. Govvy (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a contested speedy keep closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 20.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There was an overwhelming consensus that this was a notable list per WP:LISTN at the previous AfD. I'm not sure what has changed in a mere 5 months since the previous discussion that could possibly lead to a change in consensus, but regardless, the 2 points raised to support deletion add nothing to the previous discussions for the following reasons:

It is a content fork: this is not relevant as this is a list. By definition a list will contain content also covered in other articles. This is not a reason for deletion. The nomiator needs to show how the subject of world cup stadia has not received sufficient coverage to satisfy LISTN.
There has been no improvement of the article. The rebuttal here is simple - AfD is not cleanup. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: At what point of content fork don't you understand? This whole list is a complete straight copy of content we already have on wikipedia, you can't do that, it's bad form of Copy-Effect it's a copyvio within contribution. There is massive issue here that people are not understanding. If people want to list the stadiums used in a list article then I suggest a whole new article. Not one ripped of other peoples work which is already processed on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what a content fork is, what I'm confused by is your deletion rationale, you seem to flip flop from one argument to another. If there are elements that have been copied from other WP articles then they should be attributed properly. That is an issue for the editorial process. Again, AfD is not clean-up. Can you please expand on why you think that this is not a notable topic for a list. That is the only thing we are discussing here. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pretty clear on my argument, all this information about stadiums is at every World Cup page... None of the information has been remove from those pages, I don't understand why you think that it's acceptable to copy all that information and dump it into one article without reviewing the structure. Govvy (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly possible to have information in more than one place, particularly if aggregated into a list. I get it, you don't like the structure, you disagree with some of the content and there are issues around attribution. None of these things are things AfD is set up to deal with. Do you have an argument concerning the notability of the subject matter per LISTN? If so, please state it. If not, it would be best for you to withdraw the nomination, go somewhere like WT:FOOTY and look for some assistance into creating a better list. Fenix down (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN and is a waste of time considering the last AfD was a well attended snow keep but six months ago. SportingFlyer talk 16:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow is when everyone agrees to something, if one person says delete, that's not a snow effect. Also GNG asks for significant independent sources for GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a simple google search shows a vast amount of coverage on world cup stadiums as a subject on its own, obviously the top results are for 2018 and 2022, but there's plenty going back in time. Fenix down (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see what has changed since five months ago. It was notable then, it's notable now. This is disruptive. Smartyllama (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, not disruptive because AfD run under DRV enforcement. If you think it is disruptive, why not comment on DRV on that time? Hhkohh (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is a discussion disruptive? Govvy (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DEADHORSE or Flogging a dead horse; even a polite discussion can be disruptive. No opinion from me on whether that's the case here. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The point of a list is to group a batch of articles that share a significant characteristic and (sometimes) to provide basic information about the articles' subjects. "List of football stadiums with eighth-level concession stands" is trivial, but "List of football stadiums that have hosted World Cup matches" (to which this amounts) is greatly significant. If you're providing basic information about the subjects, the list is necessarily going to include information from the linked articles — that's good. In fact, the ability to provide information about the listed articles is a major reason we still have lists instead of relying only on categories, since categories can't provide any information about the articles that they contain. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rationale is fatally flawed. You can have something be a content fork of 1-2 articles, but you can't have something be a content fork of 20 different articles. The topic easily passes notability guidelines. p b p 21:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article was almost unanimously deemed keepable last AfD. As an aside, rather than worry over whether a second AfD is a bad faith action, I feel the community is best served allowing this AfD to run the full 7 days, as should it run a full 7 day AfD with (presumably) a nearly unanimous 'keep' verdict, it will be less controversial to call a third AfD on this article disruptive. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN. MarnetteD|Talk 20:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is notable. I hope this article over time becomes more useful and relevant to the topic. It could include a sortable list, but a list alone would not be the best use of the namespace. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or create a new article I was looking at Govvy's contribution list and came across this, I never knew how this process works exactly, but I decided to look in to what he was going on about. Govvy is exactly right, to copy all that stadium information into one article is really bad form. You wouldn't see a company like DK, Collins, National Geographic who create books repeat the same information again on another page, why would you create an article, word for word, picture for picture. This is terrible form and shouldn't be done. 31.127.199.226 (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you seem to fundamentally misunderstand firstly what a list is for and secondly that WP is not a print encyclopedia. Neither of your arguments address the notability of this subject. Do you have any comments regarding notability? Fenix down (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:LISTN. Accepting that this duplicates information available in other articles, nonetheless this is a useful list for readers having this class of information in one place. Just Chilling (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Giant Snowman 10:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep mainly WP:SNOW and per previous discussion. Seems like Govvy WP:IDONOTLIKEIT through AN ANI AfD DRV. It passes WP:LISTN. I do not think failing WP:CONTENTFORK because of too many articles. And stadiums are also a symbol of World Cup. Those stadiums itself are mostly notable (pass WP:GNG) Hhkohh (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strike these content Hhkohh (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I guess if the result is keep, Govvy will post it to DRV again. Hhkohh (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck is this, just because I didn't think people understood last time and I simply only wanted to try and put this to AfD again to see if people changed their minds at all. I personally finding these attacks at me sickening, I wish people would understand procedural elements of wikipedia and let the system work instead of this power hungry admins with lack of policy understanding along with poor etiquette. Hhkohh, I wouldn't bother going to DRV again and found it offensive that you would think that. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hhkohh Please strike your remark about the nominator and your second comment. It's an unnecessary personal attack which does not WP:AGF. SportingFlyer talk 06:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per pretty much everyone who has already contributed to this AfD. This is a well written and encyclopedic article and doesn't quite fit into the category of being a content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support keeping the concept of the article, but it needs to transclude these sections from the event articles, rather than being a copy and paste of the text. If the same material is presented in both places it should use transclusion to ensure any edits are applied to both pages rather than having small changes to both pages accumulate and drift. Ideally the list would be a big table of all the venues together to be sortable rather than just a collection of galleries. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but... the format is not appropriate. Simply copying the content from the individual World Cup pages doesn't make sense, and this should be redone as a table. – Pee Jay 11:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but work on format which is clearly problematic. Wasgoalstar (talk) 17:46, 3 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. Consensus to not keep this. No consensus about whether or not a redirect should be created. Anybody can do so editorially (and anybody else can then contest it at RfD). Sandstein 15:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lilblue Linux[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet either WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. All I could find was this source, which does not seem to be substantial from a GTranslate. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software. Possibly soft-delete by redirect to list of Linux distributions or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Penguin Cabal is also now notified, SQUAAARK!

Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After a contested "redirect" closure, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 20.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I previously closed this as a redirect to List of Linux distributions and stand to that. I did not participate in the DRV to explain my previous close because I was unawre that it had been opened. If it is a problem that Lilblue Linux has no entry in this list, then somebody should add it to that list. Redirecting to the list is absolutely compatible with the nom and the above "delete" !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence about this. The problem is that List of Linux distributions is described as containing notable Linux distributions. So, if we've decided that a distro is not notable, then adding it to the list is contrary to the list's inclusion criteria. Perhaps the answer is to change the inclusion criteria to be more permissive, but that's another argument. -- RoySmith (talk) 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. Sandstein 15:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potpie (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable: someone who was famous in their own lunchtime 10 years ago. Page was created in 2008 and has not developed since. Emeraude (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable is an understatement. Should have been speedied the day of its creation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources, although in fairness my search engine keeps insisting to insert a space between words and give me hits for "pot pie." Regardless, the three provided sources are junk. ShelbyMarion (talk) 03:49, 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. Sandstein 15:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaLaw LLP.[edit]

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

No Significant coverage in articles, all it does have is a one sentence mention of someone from the company speaking. I could be wrong but the company was founded in 1998, and the founder is K.P. Sreejith. And the creator is named KPL98. Daiyusha (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear WP:GNG failure Spiderone 15:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:GNG and is also a puff piece. Originally created by the law firm founder. Let's nuke it! Skirts89 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article.Accesscrawl (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources only have passing mentions of firm, no significant coverage —Madrenergic^talk 16:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Only passing mention in reliable sources--DBig Xrayᗙ 05:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious advertisement, the kind of undisclosed paid editing that gives even disclosed paid editing a bad name (additional interesting background at ~~Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KPL98~~ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cbrtutor). – Athaenara ✉ 15:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)– Athaenara ✉ 01:33, 5 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. Sandstein 15:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Akron Zips in the NBA and WNBA drafts[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN as reliable sources do not discuss this grouping. —Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable list under WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. No Akron player has been selected in the NBA Draft in more than 30 years. In the 70-plus-year history of the NBA Draft, only five Akron players have been selected, and only one of those (Bill Turner) saw significant playing time in the NBA. These facts may warrant a brief mention in Akron Zips men's basketball, but they are not sufficient to warrant a stand-alone list. Cbl62 (talk) 11:34, 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. Sandstein 15:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Learnshift India[edit]

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

Excessively reliant on primary sources (Facebook posts), and trivial mentions in insignificant coverage, without any WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Fails WP:CORP, WP:ORG, and WP:NSCHOOL. Plainly used just for WP:PROMOTION. —Madrenergic^talk 08:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG. This is a PR piece. Skirts89 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there don't appear to be any reliable secondary sources available Spiderone 18:03, 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. Sandstein 15:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Princess firsts[edit]

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

Article is nothing but random unimportant trivia rooted in original research with mostly dubious or primary sourcing (Fanpop, Daily Mail, OhMyDisney, blogs). This is not a Disney wiki. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Enormous amount of WP:OR and unenyclopedic trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire per nom. "First Disney Princess to have hazel eyes"??? Not surprisingly, this "first", like nearly all the rest, is unsourced because nobody gives a damn. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the article does not have many references does not mean that they don't WP:NEXIST. For example, searching on "first Disney princess", I find Tiana in Kidding Around: The Child in Film and Media and Movie Bliss: A Hopeless Romantic Seeks Movies to Love as the first Disney princess to have her own professional goals [18] and [19], Snow White as the first Disney princess who set standards the next had to follow in Gender-specific Speech in Disney Animated Movies: Language as an Indicator of Female Inferiority and Politeness? [20], Snow White as the first Disney princess in a full-length feature film, but not the first Disney princess ever in 'Snow White Wasn’t the First Disney Princess', Smithsonian magazine [21], and yes, Belle as the first Disney princess with hazel eyes in '7 things you didn't now about Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast' princess Belle', Independent (Ireland) [22]. The contents of the list could be debated (why have any other characteristics listed under Snow White? She was the first Disney princess, full stop), but the first Disney princess with X characteristic is a notable topic. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got my first period back in sixth grade. That doesn't make it worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, and such minutiae isn't any more special just because it happens to a fictional character. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has that been written up in several books and articles in journals or newspapers, thus meeting WP:SIGCOV?? Were thousands of people around the world aware of it when it happened, or that it was about to happen, and are they interested to read about it now, leading to the aforementioned SIGCOV? Most of the Delete arguments here seem to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any policies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Apologies for interrupting the conversation, but why should this have a separate list? Why can't the information (only the information supported by reliable, third-party sources) be incorporated into the articles on the characters instead? Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If these facts are so important then they could be mentioned in the characters' own articles; I see no reason for this to be a separate article. Just because some reliable newspapers may occasionally print such trivia, doesn't mean that we need to. Spiderone 10:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this does not pass WP:GNG and honestly is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Skirts89 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary and trivial garbage for subject matters not suited for its own article. –eggofreason^talk 16:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It is pure trivia, and any important/notable firsts should be incorporated into the article on the respective character. Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:437:7064:EA7A:6495 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The general rule WP:LISTN for stand-alone lists is that it is notable if there is significant coverage of the elements of the list as a group. This is not true in this case, where the list has been assembled by cobbling various trivia facts about the characters - which indeed also falls foul of WP:TRIVIA. Finally, while some may find it WP:INTERESTING or, alas, WP:USEFUL, these are not standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, perhaps some of the information would be worthy of transfer to the individual articles? NoCOBOL (talk) 09:04, 4 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 12:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DOORS eXtension Language (DXL)[edit]

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

Not notable. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The sources cited in the article are all primary sources (IBM and Sodius company websites) and unreliable sources (Stack Overflow, which is a self-published source). Sources outside of the article are no better. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or else merge to Rational DOORS). There is independent RS mentioning this, see: Roel Wieringa; Anne Persson (16 June 2010). Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality: 16th International Working Conference, REFSQ 2010, Essen, Germany, June 30-July 2, 2010. Proceedings. Springer. p. 176. ISBN 978-3-642-14192-8.; Chris Dale; Tom Anderson (13 January 2009). Safety-Critical Systems: Problems, Process and Practice: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Safety-Critical Systems Symposium Brighton, UK, 3 - 5 February 2009. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 76. ISBN 978-1-84882-349-5.; Paul Grünbacher; Anna Perini (20 February 2017). Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality: 23rd International Working Conference, REFSQ 2017, Essen, Germany, February 27 – March 2, 2017, Proceedings. Springer International Publishing. p. 16. ISBN 978-3-319-54045-0.; Farhad Arbab; Marjan Sirjani (4 October 2007). International Symposium on Fundamentals of Software Engineering: International Symposium, FSEN 2007, Tehran, Iran, April 17-19, 2007, Proceedings. Springer. p. 140. ISBN 978-3-540-75698-9.; Bruno Schienmann (2002). Kontinuierliches Anforderungsmanagement: Prozesse - Techniken - Werkzeuge (in German). Pearson Deutschland GmbH. p. 285. ISBN 978-3-8273-1787-2. SJK (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Ni, D. C., Martinez, J., Eccles, J., Thomas, D., & Lai, P. K. M. (1994, December). Process automation with enumeration and traceability tools. In Industrial Technology, 1994., Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on (pp. 361-365). IEEE. Merten, T., Schäfer, T., & Bürsner, S. (2012, September). Using RE knowledge to assist automatically during requirement specification. In Requirements Engineering Education and Training (REET), 2012 IEEE 7th International Workshop on (pp. 9-13). IEEE. Chicago. Rahman, A., & Amyot, D. (2014, August). A DSL for importing models in a requirements management system. In Model-Driven Requirements Engineering Workshop (MoDRE), 2014 IEEE 4th International (pp. 37-46). IEEE. Chicago. SJK (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for providing the Dale/Anderson book. However, I don't think the rest of the books provide significant coverage of DXL. I also don't have access to the IEEE publications. If you can show that an IEEE publication (or another source) provides significant coverage of DXL, and not just as a passing mention while discussing DOORS, then I'll withdraw the nomination. — Newslinger talk 11:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Newslinger: So, of the IEEE sources, the first two just mention it as an example of a requirements management system (RMS) extension language. (Although, the fact that whenever an example of such a language needs to be mentioned in the literature, almost invariably DXL, and DXL alone, is mentioned, may not be SIGCOV, but it is clear evidence of notability.) However, if you read the paper "A DSL for importing models in a requirements management system"–the topic of the paper is developing a DSL for requirements engineering which in principle could be used with any RMS. But, to practically demonstrate it, they choose to implement it with a single RMS, which is Rational DOORS. And in their actual implementation, the DSL is translated to DXL. So, rather than DXL being something they briefly mention, they mention it again and again and again, because it played a key part in the research which their paper describes. SJK (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your description of the Rahman/Amyot paper looks good enough to me. I'll add these two sources into the article. Thanks again for your research. — Newslinger talk 12:19, 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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PSA Airlines Flight 5320[edit]

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

Not a notable incident, its been nearly 2 years since the incident and the references are all dated within a week of the incident WP:PERSISTENCE, no injuries, no major effects on aviation. Covered Locally WP:GEOSCOPE. And sadly based on one of the misplaced reference #4(for another flight in 2010),planes hitting deers seems routine. Daiyusha (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might have been better as a point under American Eagle (airline_brand)#Accidents and incidents. I wasn't quite sure about notability to be honest, though on the point about local scope, it did receive some national coverage through AP syndication and The Atlantic.DontCallMeLateForDinner 28 December 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "More than 1,000 deer have been hit by airplanes across the country in the past two decades, according to FAA data." Until Bambi is the victim, none of them is anything special. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWS -- no lasting coverage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of being noteworthy for a mention in wikipedia never mind a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deer are not oteworthy last time I checked. Otherwise we would need an article every time one slipped it's mortal coil!!--Petebutt (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Plane hits deer - a spurt of coverage in Feb 2017, and nothing WP:LASTING since. Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why is this newsworthy or even "articleworthy" ? ... No lasting damage (other than the poor little deer dying). Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:34, 2 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. Sandstein 15:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Kilman[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable enough per WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO, and I've been unable to find any significant coverage about him that indicates he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Lots of trivial coverage where subject is mentioned by name, but these all seem to be performance listings or blurbs in articles about other individuals. Any notability that exists probably doesn't go beyond local or due to the fact that he's been connected to some well-known radio personalities and has had some bit roles in some well-known movies. Maybe a redirect is a possible alternative to deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not weem to be the subject of any WP:RS. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:14, 2 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. Lourdes 08:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Repchuk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Can find dozens of sources, but they are all self-generated, or are speakers bureaus or are blogs. No reliable secondary sources that establish notability. Perhaps someone else can find something. Rogermx (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, most of Repchuk's books do not appear to have made an impact with a lack of reviews in reliable sources (this includes 31 Days that although is held in almost 200 libraries have been uable to find reviews, is it a bestseller?). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No reviews found in EBSCOhost, where I usually find my reviews. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere PROMO, fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The disagreement centers on whether WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E apply. Those in favor argue that this is about a not-yet-convicted low-profile individual known only for one event. The others argue that the length and degree of media coverage the case has received makes these policies inapplicable. This is a matter of editorial judgment which I cannot decide by fiat, and there are valid arguments on both sides. The article is therefore kept by default for lack of consensus to delete it. Sandstein 15:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew L. Golsteyn[edit]

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

This article violates WP:BLP as its subject does not meet WP:ONEEVENT. The alleged killing is likely notable, but the person is not independently notable. The creator of this article Geo Swan sought feedback on the article at User talk:Nick-D#your assistance please... and WP:BLPN#Mathew L. Golsteyn. I and most of the other editors who commented judged that the article should not be presented as a biography due to the WP:ONEVENT issues. Operation Moshtarak was suggested as a suitable article to cover the incident in. Geo Swan has ignored this feedback, and is now edit warring with an IP account who is seeking to reduce the article to a stub. As such, I think it's time for a more formal process. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem, DGG, CaptainEek, and GRuban: (as people who commented at BLPN or have also contributed to the article). Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the coverage is based around the murder, of which he has not been convicted, so this is a WP:BLPCRIME matter. No sign that he was well-known before this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NatGertler, you write "all the coverage is based around the murder". There is a firehouse phenomenon, and the earlier significant coverage of Golsteyn is being drowned out by the flood of coverage due to the POTUS's controversial defence of him. If we look more carefully how many references from before the charges were laid would you require, for you to acknowledge that he was well-known, prior to the recent charges and POTUS tweet?
  As to your comment on Golsteyn not being convicted yet... No, the Army didn't try to convict him, when his original confession during his CIA job interview was passed on to them. Instead they conducted an "administrative" inquiry. I have never been in the military, but it is my understanding that the usual "administrative" inquiry last hours, or even less. It is my understanding that a GI who committed a very minor infraction, like being late for duty, smoking in a non-smoking zone, or equivalent, who is genuinely sorry, is allowed to verbally acknowledge his guilt, and be given his punishment, verbally, so the personnel record of an otherwise good soldier is kept clean, with no records of a court martial.
  The 2011-2014 Golsteyn inquiry was totally different. Since it triggered surveillance of individuals like Swenson, a friend he hadn't seen since 2009, how much do you think it cost? They sent forensic experts to the camp where the killing took place to search for DNA samples from all the camp's burn pits. No, Golsteyn wasn't convicted, at an actual trial. He wasn't given an actual trial. But don't you think a multi-year inquiry, that consumed considerable personnel hours, and who knows how many millions of dollars, is close enough to a conviction that there is no purpose to treat reports that he killed the suspect outside the rules of engagement as mere unsupported allegations? I have never been in the military, but I have read of GIs who try to demand a court martial, so they can clear their name, after they have fallen under suspicion, or have been, as in Golsteyn's case, subjected to administrative procedures that state he or she engaged in questionable behavior. It is my understanding that, prior to the career-ending letter of reprimand being put in his personnel file, Golsteyn was given a preliminary draft of that letter of reprimand. It is my understanding that a GI has a window of time to draft a rebuttal to the career-ending letter of reprimand. It is my understanding that, when a GI submits their rebuttal, a panel considers it, and, if their rebuttal is considered convincing, the letter of reprimand is not put in the personnel file, after all. So far as I am aware, Golsteyn did not defend himself with a rebutal. If he did, it was not seen as convincing, as he does have the career ending letter of rebutal in his file. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "But don't you think a multi-year inquiry, that consumed considerable personnel hours, and who knows how many millions of dollars, is close enough to a conviction that there is no purpose to treat reports that he killed the suspect outside the rules of engagement as mere unsupported allegations?" No, I don't think an investigation is the same as a conviction. Thanks for asking. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - NatGertler, I never suggested that the very extensive inquiry Golsteyn was the same as a conviction. Replying as if I had suggested is a strawman argument, a rhetorical technique frowned on by our policies and guidelines. I already transcribed the four minute clip from FOX news in the BLPN discussion, and now I will place it on WT:Articles for deletion/Mathew L. Golsteyn#Transcript from the December 14, 2018 Fox News broadcast. I suggested he has admitted the killing so openly that it is not necessary to treat the killing as a mere allegation. Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't ask people questions you don't want answered, and don't pretend that your question wasn't asking for a degree of parallel between the two things. Yes, I know you want to set specific hoops for me to jump through. No, I am not going to leap through your hoops. Meanwhile, I've just called for that big copyright-violating transcription of yours to be speedily deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing more to say. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leave redirect or otherwise Merge and redirect. A standalone page on this person is really not appropriate per BLPCRIME, even though all sourcing is generally reliable, and otherwise BOP acceptable. Should there be a conviction, then a standalone might be appropriate, though it would be better to have the article topic on the event than the person. --Masem (t) 04:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- First, I think a close examination of the references show that Golsteyn is connected to multiple topics, so BLP1E doesn't apply. Even if it were to apply, when an individual's role is significant, BLP1E is not a bar to maintaining a standalone article on them.

Golsteyn is related to the following topics: Silver Star, Duncan Hunter, Donald_Trump_on_social_media#Trump's_tweet_about_Mathew_Golsteyn, Will Swenson, Bing West. When a topic is closely related to multiple other topics we cover, any suggestion that that richly related topic should be covered in a subsection of one of those topics will always be highly problematic. If our coverage of Golsteyn were to be shoehorned into Operation Moshtarak those who maintain that article would rightly complain that coverage of how Golsteyn's online's comments on Swenson triggered an intruvise investigation into Swenson, was off-topic in Operation Moshtarak. Swenson did not serve in Operation Moshtarak, he served several provinces away, in Kunar. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Bing West cited Golsteyn opinions in several publications. Also off-topic in Operation Moshtarak. Congressional Representative Duncan Hunter, a veteran himself, lobbied strongly for Golsteyn, claiming he was being unfairly abused by Army brass -- also off-topic for Operation Moshtarak. Silver Stars aren't that rare. But having one's medal clawed back is rare, rare and notable. Geo Swan (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the connected topics are for anything outside of the fallout of what happened in the Operation. It still remains BLP1E, and with BLPCRIME, advocates we should 1) not have a standalone article on Golstyen, and 2) do not give undue coverage of Golstyen prior to any type ofconviction. --Masem (t) 05:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of THREE conditions is met" Okay, you disagree with me as to whether he meets the first condition. Can you really defend implying that Golsteyn meets the 2nd condition, the "low profile individual" condition? After Golsteyn voluntarily agreed to be interviewed on Fox News TV can you really claim he is a "low profile individual"? Nor does he meet the third condition, "If the event is not significant, or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, we usually ignore them..." Do you think you can defend your implied claim that Golsteyn's role was not significant?
Let's be clear. War is war. When a soldier on the winning side, may have committed a questionable killing, they are likely to escape scrutiny for it. While most US GIs were never involved in a killing that could be considered questionable, there are individuals out there who were never subjected to serious scrutiny, or maybe any scrutiny whatsoever, for various reasons. No one is suggesting we follow up on vague rumors of those questionable killings. I certainly am not suggesting we follow up on vague rumors, because I know the BLP concerns you seem to be arguing protect Golsteyn's reputation do protect those individuals. But anyone who spends a minute googling Golsteyn, and looking at the results, should acknowledge that there is no way he meets the third condition of BLP1E.
While war is war, and lots of soldiers have escaped serious scrutiny for a role in killings that could be seen as questionable, Golsteyn is not one of them. He had a three year inquiry into his role from 2011 to 2014. That 2011-2014 inquiry was well documented, at that time.
You refer to BLPCRIME, which starts "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures..." and I repeat, after choosing to be interviewed on nation-wide TV, why would you claim or imply Golsteyn is not a public figure?
You repeat the claim that the related topics are part of "the fallout" from Operation Moshtarak. And I ask you, again, to explain how Golsteyn's friendship with With Will Swenson is related to Operation Moshtarak, when Swenson was serving several provinces away. I bought Bing West's book, but haven't had a chance to incorporate it into the article. West devotes most of two chapters to the time he was embedded with Golsteyn's unit, and refers to him, by name, almost one hundred times. West is not a nobody, using a vanity publisher. He is a former senior Pentagon official. His book can't be ignored, why wouldn't his coverage of Golsteyn measure up to our requirement for detailed "significant coverage"? Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteering to be interviewed on national TV as to discuss one's potentially criminal past event does not make one a public figure. I'd expect a public figure to be one frequently referred to for a variety of reasons (eg like a Congressperson, leading generals of the armed forces, etc.) We should be asking the need for such an article well after the court process to determine how much weight to give this, which may be a simple summary in the Operation article, or may require a more detailed article on the event. But still, it is the event that is potentially notable, not the person per BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Masem you are the one who cited BLP. But doesn't define "public figure", but it does point to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE which points to WP:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual which has a subsection Characteristics_of_high-_versus_low-profile_figures. It says a high-profile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator." Okay, Golsteyn did that.
  You incorrectly wrote, above, that Golsteyn was interviewed to discuss his "potentially criminal past". Actually, Golsteyn was interviewed as an expert on the combat experience. No offense, but I suggest we stick with the wikidocument, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will still disagree that what interviews Golsteyn had done suddenly makes him a public figure (he wasn't on as a media personality, a self-described expert, or a notable commentator). And BLP stresses to take the most conservative middle-ground approach with people only accused but not found guilty of crimes. --Masem (t) 23:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I direct your attention to "During a special edition of Baier’s show entitled “How We Fight,” Golsteyn gave his description of the circumstances surrounding the killing, telling Baier..." If you look at the caption to that video clip, it says "BATTLEFIELD STORIES: Troops recall deadly operation in Afghanistan" So, Golsteyn was one of several individuals Baier interviewed, as experts, on the combat experience. Geo Swan (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was being interviewed as a eyewitness/participant, but not as an expert. --Masem (t) 18:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose to an article on the event/Keep If the event is notable, then why not re-purpose the article? There's no way to cover the notable aspects of the case (including parts about Trump reviewing it and so on) within the Operation Moshtarak article without it being WP:UNDUE for it - the article is about the operation, not about one alleged killing within it - so it doesn't make any sense to merge there; one really cannot much more to what is already there in the operation article. With national (Washington Post etc) coverage from as far back as 2015 to even more substantial coverage in 2018, the event is very clearly notable enough for a stand-alone article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the IP that originally stubbed this article. It is classic BLP1E. It's not barely a 1E event that hinges on whether a killing during combat is a crime or it wouldn't even be an event. If the killing becomes notable, it can be covered in Operation Moshtarak. It's a news event right now but it has no lasting quality about it that makes this individual notable outside the event. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- IP, the whole premise of your comment, and your two informationectomies is flawed, as you refer "killing in combat".
  You are correct that "killing in combat" is not a crime. Countries that sign the Geneva Conventions all agree that when their soldiers kill enemy fighters, in actual combat, it is not a crime. Even killing a civilian whom your soldier honestly thought was an enemy fighter, is not a crime, in combat.
  Killing prisoners is another matter. The man whom Golsteyn has openly admitted killing had already been captured, disarmed, interrogated. Killing prisoners is almost always a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and of Army Regulation 190-8. If prisoners are rioting, or don't halt when ordered, when trying to escape, deadly force would be authorized.
  If you read the article more closely, read the available references more closely, you would have seen that Golsteyn did not kill him, "in combat". You will see that RS like the Washington Post and the New York Times quoted Golsteyn acknowledging the killing was outside the rules of engagement he was supposed to follow. Geo Swan (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those were simply facts I stated. Whether he was in custody when he was killed is disputed. What is not disputed is that he was killed and the timing was during combat operations. Whether it was crime has not been established nor has it been established who killed him. There are individuals that can be killed on sight per the ROE and is how the whole drone program works. Whether YOU think it is a crime is not relevant. Wikipedia does not create BLPs simply to smear the reputation of a otherwise non-notable person. Even if he is convicted it will still be a single event tht he is notable for and not warranting an article. With rare exception we don't create BLPs about a murder of a non-notable person by a non-notable person. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at present. This a clearly a notable event, and WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E encourage us to cover the event rather than the non-notable person. I think we often fall into a rut of assuming we must either write or delete a biography in these cases. The problem currently is that this effectively is WP:BLPCRIME case, and we normally are cautious about covering prior to criminal liability being established. I am not persuaded that the interview on Fox made the subject a public figure given the subject's low public profile in the years between the incident and the current rash of coverage. If he is not a public figure, BLPCRIME suggests we should not be covering the allegations. Let's wait and see if there's a trial, and whether Trump intervenes. If either occurs, the additional coverage will clarify whether there's true notability here for a biography. And in the event of a conviction, we certainly could write about the trial. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My opinion is that the killing should be covered in Operation Moshtarak and the Fox interview/Trump tweet/reopening of the investigation should be covered in Donald_Trump_on_social_media#Trump's_tweet_about_Mathew_Golsteyn. If Golsteyn is convicted or it's clearly shown that he is the person who killed the "bomb-maker" (as the current revision calls it), then an article covering the crime should be created. That article would cover what effect, if any, Trump's input had. I am not persuaded that Golsteyn's televised "yes" is a reliable confession, and I'm definitely not convinced by the above argument based on the subject's speculated failure to rebut the "career-ending letter of reprimand" that was the product of the inquiry.--Rajulbat (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete What a ridiculous waste of everyone's time. Also, I wanted to highlight that Geo Swan has gamed the system to get the page protected. They have misrepresented this issue and it appears the protecting admin does not care about BLP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swarm#Mathew_L._Golsteyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.231.176 (talk • contribs) — 104.249.231.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep or move to an event article I don't see any of the suggested places to put this as a good target--there is just too much on this particular topic. And that is often a good sign that we need a separate article. But at the same time, I'm not thrilled with having a bio on this person. I think we are past "one event," even though there is one event that triggered all this. And this person isn't exactly low profile. Now that said, I'm loath to have an article on someone who is merely accused of a crime. So I think an event article would be much (much) better. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NCRIME and not a WP:BLP1E situation. This is not a low-profile individual by this point. The investigation into Golsteyn has been covered in 2015, 2016 and 2018; meeting WP:SUSTAINED. See for example: 2015: Inside the stunning fall and war-crimes investigation of an Army Green Beret war hero, Washington Post (added); 2016: Army reopens probe into suspected bombmaker’s death after Special Forces soldier’s Fox News interview, Washington Post; 2018: Former Special Forces soldier, once lauded as a hero, faces murder charge, Washington Post. The nature of the alleged crime is highly unusual; it's rare that US personnel are charged with war crimes, hence the international interest in the subject matter. There's no other article about this crime and the investigation is tied to one person -- the subject of this article. So it's reasonable to have a stand-alone page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The crime being investigated is a RoE violation and the charge is murder. It is not a "war crime" since the crime is objectively against the rules of war but rather the rules of engagement for that particular combatant. RoE violations and killings are investigated all the time and charges are not uncommon. Convictions are rare but there has not been a conviction in this case. Also, it is a single event. The event is notable as stated elsewhere, the person is not. If he is convicted, it would be rare enough to warrant a biography that would inevitably contain trial information. This is the case for Clint Lorance which focuses mainly on the trial and sentence. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, are you seriously denying that a murder of an unarmed prisoner is a war crime? Please be more subtle about it. For your benefit, I added a 2015 source discussing such. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffman are seriously accusing him of committing a crime he has not been accused of? Your 2015 source says a lot of things that never came to pass including a cover up and war crimes. If you don't know the difference in the criminal charges being alleged (hint: "war crime" is not one on his charge sheet) maybe you should sit this one out. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but repurpose to article on the event. Even those !voting delete agree that the event itself is notable, the only decision to make here is whether it should be a stand-alone article or covered as part of another article. Given the coverage, I would say that the former is appropriate. Redirect the BLP to that article. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no problem with retitling the article along the lines Black Kite seems to be suggesting. But the main event Goldsteyn is notable for - the alleged killing - is separate from Operation Moshtarak, so that is not really a suitable article to treat the incident in (and even if it were, that would require a merge, not deletion). But I don't have a problem with leaving the article as is either, per Geo Swan's and K.e.coffman's arguments. Rlendog (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BLPCRIME, non-notable individual, article should have never been created in the first place.— Isaidnoway (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:BLP1E, but a smerge/redirect may be appropriate if the news incident re pardons continues. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto: meets WP:NCRIME and not a WP:BLP1E situation. This is not a low-profile individual by this point. The investigation into Golsteyn has been covered in 2015, 2016 and 2018; meeting WP:SUSTAINED. Bachcell (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but convert to event page. Clearly the event is notable, and the news coverage meets WP:GNG, which is not something that even delete !voters seem to dispute. Per Geo Swan and K.e.coffman, a very strong case could be made that this does not meet the non-inclusion criteria at NCRIME and BLP1E given the current high profile and public nature of the incident and the multiple events (e.g. Fox News interview, charges, Trump tweet, etc.) that stemmed from the original one. However, since we do not have an article about the event, I think it's preferable to convert this to an event page, and let the creation of a seperate page on the individual be decided on the talk page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:10, 4 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. Sandstein 15:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Denning[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Blatant self-promotion. No RS coverage, ergo not notable. — JFG ^talk 02:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

omg delete. Wikipedia is not your CV. Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete More of a G11 worthy promotion. Sheldybett (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, OMK (Oh, My Kitten:)), "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." - from WP:ARTN, did the nominator or any of the above "deleters" bother with even a perfunctory WP:BEFORE? looking at one of Denning's books, The Leader's Guide to Storytelling, WorldCat shows it is held by around 1250 libraries (yes i know this alone can't be used for notability but it is an indication:)) it has been reviewed by IIMB Management Review - listed here, New Zealand Management Magazine - listed here, Corporate Reputation Review - listed here , Training & Development magazine - listed here , Credit Control Journal - listed here , Organization Studies - (subscription required), so has enough reviews for its own article, another book that looks promising is Squirrel Inc. (held by over 700 libraries) but as zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzs are beckoning another editor can look for reviews:)) oh, and happy newyear everyone Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, a bunch of copies of this person's books are sitting around in libraries. How is that relevant to the author's notability? None of these books pass WP:NBOOK, despite routine reviews, and their author does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. — JFG ^talk 22:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of being recognized as a "global leader in the field" would potentially satisfy NAUTHOR if verifiable, however it appears to be uncited. The Harvard Business Review ref (no URL) earlier in the same sentence appears to refer to his leaving of the World Bank, rather than his supposed recognition as a global leader. If this claim can be verified, he's probably notable. If not, he's probably not. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref available on Google Booke here. Denning turns up several times in the context of introducing Knowledge Management to the world bank, but he is not mentioned as a "global leader", at least that I can see in the online version. Other coverage appears limited to KM circles. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no GNG or NAUTHOR. Borderline G11 territory. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "So, a bunch of copies of this person's books are sitting around in libraries. How is that relevant to the author's notability?", i'm not sure how other editors (including nominators who i am sure are extremely thorough in their WP:BEFORE:)) check the notability of prolific authors whose work they are not familiar but one way i do it is to enter their name in worldcat and check the number of library holdings of the titles at the top of the list, then i do a search on those titles that have (relatively) high holdings, hence the reviews i listed above for The Leader's Guide to Storytelling, btw have only been able to find a couple of reviews for Squirrel Inc, PW (here) and Business and Professional Communication Quarterly (here) (which i find rather surprising given the number of copies sitting around libraries, oh well, must be his great PR:)), btw would be happy with a redirect to The Leader's Guide to Storytelling if only 1. there was a wikiartcle on the book and 2. all the reviews i listed above weren't so routine (EBSCO, why do you tease us with your routine review listings?). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 4 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. Sandstein 15:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Manzo[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Possible autobiography. Person fails WP:GNG as having little, if any, significant coverage. Fails WP:NPOL as a candidate for office who has not won an election. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page "Dale Manzo" should not be deleted because I believe that it meets Wikipedias guidelines for notability. Multiple regional news outlets mention this person. There is a reference to official government filings for this candidate's campaign. This page currently has (12) references and that number will continue to grow. Most information on this page is backed up with a citation. I do not see why this page would be suitable for deletion. This page has valuable information on it that comes from a variety of types and sizes of outlets. While this page is not about a candidate that has won an election, it is about a candidate who is running for a statewide elected position and would be the youngest person ever elected to a statewide elected position if they have a successful election. This page is clearly not an autobiography as the language neither shows support or opposal.

I believe that as this page is very new, it will get much better as there is more content and contribution on it.D63025 (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources in the article don't even mention the subject at all. Running for statewide office does not make someone notable, even if he "would be" the youngest person elected. You are saying then that you are not Dale Manzo? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:TOOSOON as well as NPOL and GNG; he's all of nineteen and hasn't done anything noteworthy yet in his political career. No third-party coverage. Article is clearly intended to promote the subject and contained either dubious, irrelevant or primary sources. OP had previously created an article about Manzo's business (Manchester Electrical Contractors Inc.) that was speedily deleted due to lack of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that some local campaign coverage exists is not an automatic WP:GNG pass for unelected candidates that exempts them from having to pass WP:NPOL — covering local politics is local media's job, so some coverage of every election campaign always exists, and no candidate for anything would ever fail GNG if that were how it worked. As of right now, the tests he would have to pass are that either (a) he can be shown to already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article regardless of being a candidate for anything, or (b) he can be shown as the subject of so much more coverage than most other declared candidates in election primaries also get that he'd have a credible claim to being special. But this article, as written, is demonstrating neither of those things at all. If he wins the Secretary of State election in 2020 (and I mean the general election, not just the primary), then he'll qualify for an article at that time since he'll be an actual statewide officeholder — but simply being a candidate is not in and of itself enough as of today. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free public relations platform for unelected political candidates. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from a number of other issues like failing WP:GNG, the page seems purely promotional. SportingFlyer talk 02:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, as well as WP:GNG. Simply not enough coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Also this page was almost certainly created by either Dale Manzo or a member of his campaign, as the creator only edits outside this page and the page for Manzo's business have been to include his name on any possible page for promotion. GPL93 (talk) 18:18, 3 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan[edit]

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

This only ran for a few years, ending 2014 per https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Insurance-Programs/Pre-Existing-Condition-Insurance-Plan.html - PCIP.gov is a deadlink. It is mentioned in the PPACA article and can possibly be mentioned in the context of a broader discussion around high-risk pools, although I don't think it needs an extensive description. II | (t - c) 00:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets WP:GNG and was a notable part of the US healthcare system for a period. A separate merge discussion can be started if needed. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 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. Sandstein 15:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold[edit]

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

Reading the article and its history, and looking at the WP:NCORP guidelines, I do not believe this is a notable topic. The company is very new and doesn't have major investors or regulatory approval, and is one of many blockchain related businesses. R2d232h2 (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this company is non-notable - it lacks the kind of coverage in reliable sources (and non-crypto related sources) that we would expect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON at best - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn’t appear to be a notable company. TheTerribleToess bug me on my talk page! 19:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG. May be later we can have an article for it. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Trial[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cassada, Jackie (2004-09-15). "Star Wars®: Jedi Trial; A Clone Wars Novel (Book)". Library Journal. 129 (15). ISSN 0363-0277.
  The review notes:
  Sherman, David & Dan Cragg. Star Wars®: Jedi Trial; A Clone Wars Novel. Del Rey: Ballantine. Nov. 2004. c.352p. ISBN 0-345-46114-2. $25.95. SF
  Eager to test his growing Jedi powers in the field, Anakin Skywalker jumps at the chance to accompany Jedi Master Nejaa Halcyon as his second in command on a mission to free the planet Praesitlyn from its Separatist invaders. Leading an army of clone warriors, Anakin finds his skills and his commitment to the Jedi code tested to the utmost when he encounters someone who reminds him of his painful past. The authors of the "Starfist" series capture the rush of never-ending action characteristic of the Star Wars® movies in this story that takes place after the events in Star Wars®: Attack of the Clones. A good choice for adult and YA sf collections and essential for fans.
2. "Star Wars: Jedi Trial: A Clone Wars Novel". Publisher's Weekly. 251 (33). 2004-08-16. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  The review notes:
  Human, alien or clone, the characters fight and die, go hungry and thirsty, have hopes, fears and dreams, not unlike the troops patrolling the plains of Iraq today. Count Dooku and Senator Palpatine keep watch for their respective sides, but most of the book stands splendidly independent of the usual concerns of the Star Wars universe.
3. Huntley, Kristine (2004-11-15). "Jedi Trial". Booklist. 101 (6).
  The book notes:
  Sherman, David and Cragg, Dan. Jedi Trial. Nov. 2004. 352p. Del Rey, $25.95 (0-345-46114-2). The action of the latest Star Wars noveltranspires between events in the movies Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, due in theaters next spring. Anakin Skywalker, pre–Darth Vader, is peeved when his mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi, announces that he is going on a mission sans Anakin. During Obi-Wan's absence, Anakin takes up sparring with disgraced fellow Jedi knight Nejaa Halcyon, but the two Jedi aren’t idle long. Separatist troops descend upon the planet Praesitlyn, home to the republic's Intergalactic Communications Center. The republic can't afford losing Praesitlyn, so Chancellor Palpatine dispatches Halcyon and Anakin to the planet with an army of clonetroops. The pair must liberate the planet, with the help of an unusual ally, who happens to be an old rival of Halcyon. With its oddly named heroes and villains and abundant action, Jedi Trial is pretty standard Star Wars fare. Fans anticipating Revenge of the Sith's release, however, will relish the piquing of their appetites it affords.
4. Maddox, David (2005). "Star Wars: Jedi Trial". SF Site. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  The review notes:
  Yet another in The Clone Wars saga, this adventure is set upon yet another remote world that is in dire need of the Republic's help, unaware of the sinister forces stealthily attempting to usurp control of the galaxy. Rife with The Clone Wars canon characters, mysterious Assaj Ventriss appears while Count Dooku and Darth Sidious manipulate events from a distance.
  ...
  In the long run, this novel is a good example of a Clone Wars skirmish. It whets the appetite for the big show, Revenge of the Sith, and the culmination of all these battles as well as the saga itself.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jedi Trial to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The substantial reviews in Library Journal, Publisher's Weekly, Booklist, and SF Site clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, another book that meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG with four reviews found by Cunard, although not all of Shermann's books deserve standalone article (redirects may be okay), it would be nice if the nominators had done a bit of WP:BEFORE ie. gsearch "[book title] by [author] book reviews":)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A World of Hurt[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 09:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Green, Roland (2004-09-15). "A World of Hurt". Booklist. 101 (2). ISSN 0006-7385.
  The book notes:
  Sherman, David and Cragg, Dan. A World of Hurt. Nov. 2004. 320p. Del Rey, $19.95 (0-345-46052-9).The best-selling military sf series Starfist continues with a volume less intense than Lazarus Rising [BKL N 1 03] but in its own way intelligent and agreeable. The planet of Maugham's Station reports an alien life form that uses jets of acid as weapons, which is the hallmark of the deadly Skinks. The 34th FIST is sent out, with Charlie Bass still commanding a platoon, though, as a newly commissioned ensign, with a certain amount to learn about how to lead as an officer instead of a gunnery sergeant. Meanwhile, the navy of the planet We're Here decides that Maugham's Station is involved in an ore piracy scheme that they intend to suppress as quickly and fiercely as possible. It turns out that Maugham's Station is abase for neither pirates nor Skinks, and Charlie Bass is likely to be as good as a junior officer as he was as a senior NCO. Meanwhile, We’re Here’s armed forces resemble the Keystone Kops on a bad day, which keeps the body count low.
2. Cassada, Jackie (2004-11-15). "A World of Hurt". Library Journal. 129 (19). ISSN 0363-0277.
  The review notes:
  Sherman, David & Dan Cragg. A World of Hurt. Del Rey: Ballantine. (Starfist, Bk. 10). Nov. 2004. c.320p. ISBN 0-345-46052-9. $19.95. SF When a mysterious series of fatalities on the colony planet of Maugham's Station reaches the attention of the Confederation's Marines, newly promoted Lt. Charles Bass is assigned to take the 34th FIST to the planet to investigate the possibility of involvement by the hostile aliens known as Skinks. What they find on the planet, however, is a new type of predator and a volatile political situation. Sherman and Cragg continue their "Starfist" series (First To Fight; Kingdom's Sword) with another tale of military action-adventure and planetary exploration. Familiar characters and catchy dialog make this a good addition to libraries with an audience for military sf.
3. "Starfist: A World of Hurt". Publisher's Weekly. 251 (40). 2004-10-04. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  The review notes:
  Injecting freshness into a situation that was clichéd even in the days of Hugo Gernsback, they show how training and esprit de corps can overcome the most terrifying encounters. In contrast, the authors treat the stupidity of the book's comic-opera human antagonists with Swiftian invective. You don't have to be a military SF buff to appreciate this entertaining and instructive exercise.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A World of Hurt to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The substantial reviews in Booklist, Library Journal, and Publisher's Weekly clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG with the three above reviews (thanksyou Cunard :)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 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 delete. Sandstein 15:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Klosky[edit]

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

Another laboured attempt to elevate a very minor "celebrity" to notable status by piling on a shitload of incidental mentions. There's not a single source here that treats them in depth. Nor can I find any. (this ignores for the moment the overt promotional tone and the use of an obviously copyvio image - removed)

This editor appears to specialize in these productions, and I am all but certain that they do undeclared editing for pay. I'd welcome some other people's comments on that aspect too, as I believe it's time to put the kibosh on it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I publish articles of celebrities that are not on Wikipedia. Everything I wrote on that page is backed up with a reference you can go through the references you find it is true I didn’t promote him in anyway. I don’t know what I did wrong that makes you keep tagging my articles for deletion. As for the image I don’t know it already exist on the internet i will upload another one that is not copyrighted that belongs to me particularly.(Ziggy 2milli (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has secondary source references. Everything written there about him you can find it in all the references from online newspaper and magazines. Justin Klosky is notable and deserves to be on Wikipedia. You guys can go through the page yourself and you will know that what I said about him is true. I’m not trying to promote him like I said I love writing biographies of celebrities that are notable but are not on Wikipedia.(Ziggy 2milli (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as apparent PROMO for a non notable actor, author, singer and producer. He is also the CEO and Founder of the O.C.D Experience, a successful organizational consulting firm where OCD takes on a whole new meaning. note that article was created recently by new User talk:Ziggy 2milli. Ziggy, please read WP:SIGCOV, and look at some of our articles to get an idea of of what sort of sourcing WP:CREATIVE bios require.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo or not, totally non-notable. Emeraude (talk) 10:07, 4 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lourdes 08:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dietsmann[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. After a quick check, all I can find are the usual press releases and notices of acquisitions, nothing providing in-depth coverage of this firm. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Seems like an advertisment... –eggofreason^talk 01:10, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lourdes 08:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VictoriaPlum.com[edit]

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

Promotional article for small company. Cannot see how it passes WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 21 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, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and a host of others. Skirts89 (talk) 16:15, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lourdes 08:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JABBER: The Jabberwocky Engine[edit]

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

Unnotable trivial program with barebone sources. –eggofreason^talk 00:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. One of the cited sources, CIAC's Electronic Magazine, appears to fit the parameters of WP:GNG, but since the others are either not independent (the author's profile) or not reliable (dead links to what appear to be university syllabuses), and since GNG suggests "multiple sources are generally expected", this article falls short. Cnilep (talk) 05:10, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lourdes 06:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Vaden[edit]

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

One bestselling book does not a notable author make. This biography appears to fail WP:GNG as none of the independent, reliable coverage is in depth. Uninvited Company 23:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure PROMO. Yes, his book did make the NYTimes bestseller list in the category "Advice & Misc." books. But sources of the page are overwhelmingly PRIMARY, including a great many articles by Vaden. His book did get him interviewed and quoted a few times, but I'm not seeing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 3 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. Lourdes 06:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Albion Typefounders[edit]

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

Not notable. Cited sources are either primary sources, minor references or from company descriptions on font marketplaces (1 is a dead link). Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Samuel Wiki (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a promotional page for a company, for which no independent RS were found in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too could not see any IRS. Aoziwe (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and no reputable sources. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:14, 3 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.

[1] Stephen R L Clark (4 January 2002). The Political Animal: Biology, Ethics and Politics (2002 ed.). Routledge. p. 89. ISBN 1134658605. Retrieved 20 December 2018. The fault of anarchy-conservatives, from Burke to the Agrarians, is...

[2] Clark, Stephen R. L.; Clark, Stephen R. L. (2002-01-04). The Political Animal: Biology, Ethics and Politics. Routledge. ISBN 9781134658602.

[3] Diggins, John Patrick (2015-03-08). Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400868063.

[4] (2006-07-26). "Who Was Gottfried Dietze?". Mises Institute. Retrieved 2018-12-29.

[5] 1963-, Wilkin, Peter (2010). The strange case of Tory anarchism. Faringdon, Oxfordshire: Libri Pub. ISBN 9781907471100. OCLC 662410383. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[6] 1963-, Wilkin, Peter (2010). The strange case of Tory anarchism. Faringdon, Oxfordshire: Libri Pub. ISBN 9781907471100. OCLC 662410383. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]