Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 December	6 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood (upcoming film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, which was started literally as soon as principal photography began a year ago — as of today, however, the film has still not yet been released, and even IMDb has it slated for sometime next year at the earliest. Normally films don't qualify for Wikipedia articles until we can reliably source a firm release date -- while we do make the occasional exception for especially high profile projects, like the Star Wars franchise, that generate a very high volume of coverage throughout, this is nowhere near that rarefied tier: the only sources here are a community hyperlocal and a production announcement on a non-notable blog, so there's no basis to claim that it's already gotten enough coverage to enter that pantheon. So no prejudice against recreation once the film actually has a confirmed release date, but nothing here is enough to deem it already notable today. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also have no qualms against recreation once there is a confirmed release date. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON not much coverage yet Atlantic306 (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with WP:TOOSOON. Not currently enough notability to trigger WP:NFF exception. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:TOOSOON. Once more information comes to light (release date, topic/genre) though independent coverage, it can be recreated. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Outerwear[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP no significant independent coverage, the press releases and blogs are not sufficient to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not saying it's enough, but these (Cengage) seem independent: [1][2][3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is non-trivial, independent coverage in the form of case studies in at least four books. Also, there is some independent news coverage (excluding coverage spawned by press releases).- MrX 🖋 23:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi MrX, can you please provide the titles of the books (or even better, links) that contain the case studies please? Also, please provide links to the independent news coverage you refer to above. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - [4][5][6][7][8][9] By the way, there are convenient links at the top of the page that allow you to do the same Google searches that I used to find these.- Mr X 🖋 19:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets independent coverage and notability requirements. Specifically, see the sources linked to by MrX --DannyS712 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH as per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Dunstall[edit]

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

WP:NMODEL We all know FashionModelDirectory is absolutely not enough for a whole article to stand on at all. I have not found reliable sources to establish notability for an article. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is almost nothing written about her in reliable sources. Fails WP:NMODEL.- Mr X 🖋 20:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a bit of text and six sources to the article. More can be found in newspaper/periodical database searches. Bakazaka (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at those sources I only see mere passing mentions with focus on other models, not significant coverage. Can we get sources from actual fashion magazines? A Vogue? Does she have a cover to her name? A beauty contract? Trillfendi (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated based on WP:NMODEL. Which WP:NMODEL criteria does the article's subject fail, in your estimation? Bakazaka (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily on significant coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're talking about WP:BASIC, not WP:NMODEL. A model might pass WP:NMODEL and still be wiki-notable even if they do not pass WP:BASIC (same for WP:AUTHOR, WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:JUDGE, etc). Do you think that the subject's modeling accomplishments, if verifiable, pass any WP:NMODEL criteria? Bakazaka (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve always factored Basic into NModel when proposing deletion because unlike other careers their work is the most visible and documented. When you’re having a successful modeling career, magazines or newspapers quickly take note of that in real time and start interviewing them or writing about them. Most models’ careers are fickle and that’s where significant coverage comes into play. A girl could be Prada exclusive one year (extremely notable accomplishment) then just disappear the next. If there’s no sigcov then we’re not able to write an article, especially one that meets Wikipedia’s standards. Many models do some notable work but aren’t necessarily notable themselves. If a reliable source can even be found, I’d Balenciaga is the most prestigious of them. Trillfendi (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It makes complete sense to focus on WP:BASIC for subjects whose work is easy to find online sources to support (e.g. recent or superfamous people). But WP:NMODEL provides a way to avoid deleting an article on a notable subject even when such sources are not easy to find online. For this subject, many of the facts of her campaigns, runways, and even magazine covers (e.g. Vogue Homme, Fashion) are verifiable. Balenciaga, Chanel, and Gucci, for example, are already sourced to RS in the article right now, as are multiple ad campaigns. More sources that exist but are not added to the article also discuss her runway modeling (see WP:NEXIST). Other sources already in the article describe her as internationally successful and famous. In my opinion the subject is notable, arguably under WP:BASIC, definitely under WP:NMODEL. But I've already said way too much in this discussion, so I'm happy to hear other editors weigh in. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For almost 11 years this article had been all of 4 sentences. The problem around here is “some” admins don’t believe that “appearance = notability”. For example, I had to fight tooth and nail to prove notability for model Jing Wen’s article even after Vogue itself called her a top model. Even after walking for major brands like Dior, Prada, Chanel and numerous covers. Even after being listed as a “Top 50” model like Dunstall once was. The burden is on the proof. So maybe that is the case. Dunstall might meet NModel but not Basic. It’s up to the closer to decide if she has had: “significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” My conviction is that no matter what job a model does, if we can’t find RS or she only gets a sentence or two in sources what’s the point of an article.Trillfendi (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could only find one passing mention on subject from Vice Magazine, outside of that nothing more. Fails NModel and no WP:SIGCOV PlotHelpful (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage, the sources given are generally minor mentions. That someone has appeared on the covers of fashion magazines or on runways or in campaigns is irrelevant, you need actual articles that focus on the person in some depth. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant independent coverage, fails WP:NMODEL --DannyS712 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Price Johnson[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST for lack of available, independent sources. The article appears to be an autobiography. - Mr X 🖋 19:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced PROMO for a political commentator for whom it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent, reliable sources available. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A promotional article with no evidence of notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who essentially write a few op eds while in law school are not notable in most cases. We would need sourcing about her, not just to her work, to show notability. Johnson may at some point be notable, but not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources, no evidence of notability --DannyS712 (talk) 02:57, 12 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 speedy-delete (G7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NanaWall[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References provide either only superficial coverage of the company's products, or are based on the company's news releases. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG. There is coverage of their products in trade magazines, but most of it seems to be advertorial in nature.- Mr X 🖋 23:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as G11 and likely UPE, per unaddressed concerns on creator's Talk page: [10]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Landau[edit]

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

Fails GNG as there are no reliable, unbiased secondary sources with sufficient coverage to build an article. The article is presently sourced from interviews, blogs, and promotional material. Uninvited Company 18:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The most extensive source I could find was this article in the Chicago Tribune. Almost all of the coverage is routine and/or non-independent. The subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. - Mr X 🖋 23:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability threshold. Lack of citations and/or appearances in any major platoforms, publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cioxx (talk • contribs) 03:56, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kila Siku[edit]

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

Half the article content is not about the organisation but about the situation in the DR Congo. No sources I can see suggest that it is notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any sources. Maybe someone with access to Swahili language sources can find something, but I wouldn't be surprised if a 40 person group is simply not WP:ORG notable.- Mr X 🖋 01:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, I can only find a minor mention in the Chicago Tribune, which reads like an ad. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references or evidence of notability. However, if swahili language references are added per MrX, this automatically becomes an abstention until I get the chance to look at the updated article. But, given that it has been unreferenced since May 2015, that seems unlikely. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Catena[edit]

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

WP:N WP:NOTPROMO Raider1918 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article is somewhat promotional and needs to be trimmed back to the bones, but there are some sources which seem to indicate that she might be notable enough. [11] [12] [13]. - Mr X 🖋 11:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This entry is in appreciation for, and response to, MrX's comment. The article contains only two references: of these, only one is about the subject; the other is an article from an ad agency about an ad campaign commissioned by the subject (it only contains one quote from her). The promotional nature of the entry is further bolstered by the "External Links" section, which contains an oped written by the subject about the aforementioned ad campaign, a link to a TedX talk, and an interview from an alumni publication. Certainly, these sources point to a certain level of professional accomplishment, but as MrX notes, are they (or other sources readily available online) "notable enough"? Wikipedia provides guidelines to help guide us: its guidelines for people says that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The emphasis here should be on "significant" and "reliable." If we take significant to mean widespread, an internet search and a review of the above sources do not support a degree of notability warranting a Wikipedia entry. Most articles appear "reliable," in that they truthfully and accurately reflect facts, but run afoul of another, connected requirement of notability: the need for sufficient "reliable independent sources." Opeds written by the subject and articles from an ad agency commissioned by the subject would have a hard time convincing readers of independence. Many individuals achieve a level of achievement in their respective fields, but nonetheless fail to reach the notability requirements put in place to warrant an entry on Wikipedia; a review of the current entry and other sources suggest that this is the case here. (Raider1918 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I don't know about promotional - in the coverage I find, I see that she has received awards from Italy [14], [15] and France [16], which are not mentioned in the article at all! although the source for the French award is. There is other coverage too: [17], reports of a talk which she had given here [18] and here [19]. I suggest that with the awards and the coverage, she meets WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni Z[edit]

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

Promotional article with subject not meeting general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to establish notability for now it's WP:TOOSOON. ShunDream (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I objected to the proposed deletion because: the article has been improved to include several additional reliable sources (current count: 9 unique references); text has been modified to eliminate promotional tone; subject is a notable figure in a category with little representation (comments copied here for your convenience). Also, a challenge with this subject is that many sources are written in the Hebrew language. If permitted to remain, the article could be expanded with additional sources by readers of the Hebrew language. Thank you for your patience as I am new to this process. Terri.T (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has also received attention for his cinematic music videos. I added a Music video section and included additional sources (current count: 19 sources). Terri.T (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Terri.T on this. A quick google search can find many good sources, and as noted, many sources in Hebrew. The article definitely needs some work with more in-line citations and copyediting, but it doesn't need to be deleted.Awsomaw (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your suggestions, Awsomaw. Today, I did some copyediting and expanded the Career section with more in-line citations from reliable sources, including the NY Daily News and the Sun Sentinel. Terri.T (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Awsomaw: What "good sources" were you able to find from your quick good search? Most sources only mentioned him in passing. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Admittedly, most of these sources were on the 3rd page of the google search, so I guess it may not be a super quick google search, but they're sources nonetheless. Awsomaw (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains: additional Hebrew language sources (I had to use Google Translate): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Terri.T (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crealogix[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. While the company exists, this seems to be essentially a paragraph of history based on various press-releases occasionally through churnalism services. Nothing indicates this is anything but a glorified WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES with a list of said press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The routine announcements and Q&A-format piece by a company executive are not sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are finding more announcements of acquisitions and divestments and some speculation in early 2018 but I am not seeing the WP:RS coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleaned up the article, removing some marketing-speak and improving readability. This reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and if another analyst report can be found (or another reference that meets NCORP] then I will change to !vote Keep. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: I am not sure if such reports are not WP:ROUTINE. It's like saying that an investment fund prospect (brochure) is a reliable source for notability about that fund. Such reports may not be independent, and/or can be very routine in some fields. Edison Investment Research, like many companies in Securities research, produces such reports on a routine basis. I'd be very hesitant to say that are sufficient for notability (through I'd consider them reliable for information in general). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: Analyst reports aren't routine. Anyway WP:LISTED says they are acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renée Cinderhouse[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO of the 4 sources presented 2 are affiliated and the other 2 are "local artist" stories. Fails WP:NARTIST nothing in a WP:BEFORE search suggests that she meets any of the criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me how to fix this problem, and help me improve the article so it gets published? This artist does deserve an article on Wikipedia. Genericname23 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The artist CV lists some awards, non-local coverage that could be checked out. Extended profile by NPR another good source not yet in article. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Changing !vote to Weak delete I made some effort to improve based on CV materials, but there does not seem to be enough coverage beyond strictly local interest to satisfy NARTIST or GNG. Maybe just TOOSOON. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the NPR source is based on an interview, and therefore not RS. The CV 'awards' are run of the mill. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage, even if I go to the items in her CV, is entirely local. The CV Awards are all run of the mill items that have been fluffed up. There is nothing notable here, although there may be in future if the coverage expands. for now, it's a GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve The CV indicates that she has received coverage, and had solo shows, out of her home state. The out of Kansas reviews need to be included as references, and the solo and group shows separated, with an emphasis on shows out of Kansas. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles based on a CV but on sources that show they meet notability requirements. Lots of artists have shows outside of their home areas but that doesn't mean they meet the criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that we keep the article based on the CV: I was trying to suggest to the article writer Genericname23 that it would be good to include in the article the coverage mentioned in the CV. Seeing coverage mentioned but not included suggests to me that there is more evidence on which to assess notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:CREATIVE and appears to be a product of undisclosed paid editing, based on the contributions and Talk page of the creator: Special:Contributions/Genericname23. See for example: Draft:Help4u.today. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please help me with this article? I am a Wikipdia contributor on another language, and this one is a lot different that what I am used to, and I really want to publish contemporary artists here because I am doing my Phd on contemporary art and they have to be out there, people have to know about them. But I don't know how to create articles here, so can someone please help me out here? I really need the help and I really want to learn and contribute to Wikipedia with contemporary artists.Genericname23 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone doing a Phd in contemporary art create an article on Draft:Help4u.today, a Dubai "Cleaning, babysitting, pet walking, care giving, car washing, pest control" business? Just entirely curious.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because one of the artits that I studied did an artwork on this company, so i saw it fitting to wriite about it too. I am also a graduated writer, and I like to challenge myself in writing also, so whenever I see a fitting topic, I want to write about it. And same goes here on Wikipedia, whenever I see a fitting topic to write/edit, I jump on that opportunity.Genericname23 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing the necessary (reliable, independent) coverage to indicate the subject meets WP:NARTIST.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies GNG. The first KCUR and The Pitch pieces are detailed and reliable sources. ♟♙ (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that means. Genericname23 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile Recordings[edit]

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

Defunct record label that has had no notable acts on their roster. the bluelinks in the article are mostly redirects or unsourced. A WP:BEFORE search threw up noting very useful and their discog page suggest why [20]. Fails WP:NCORP there are no sources other than affiliated or listings Dom from Paris (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - nom gets it right. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Sandström[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; very little coverage beyond being a Titanic survivor. –dlthewave ☎ 03:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough reliable source coverage of this individual to demonstrate notability - several glancing mentions, but not any significant coverage. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can probably be made into a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:9482:3F05:C247:7F70 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Doesn't look to meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Encyclopedia Titanica, in my eyes, shouldn't count towards notability as their inclusion bar (for Titanic related content) is well below our own. Other than Titanica (reffed in article), I don't see INDEPTH coverage elsewhere - I do see her testimony mentioned here and there. Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Nourney[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; very little coverage beyond being a Titanic survivor. –dlthewave ☎ 03:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see anything in the article that shows he is noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Rather wide coverage of how he upgraded his second class ticket to first and, by impersonated a baron (Baron von Drachstedt).[21][22][23][24][25][26] [27] Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Can't see anything beyond very brief coverage of the same couple facts. Seems like a great use of the article to cover such a story without necessitating a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the books mentioned above, he got some coverage in the US for his intention to sue for the loss of his clothes! One article, in The Tennessean, seems to see through him, and rather makes fun of him - it's called 'A Sartorial Tragedy', and starts "One of the real sufferers by the Titanic tragedy .... Alfred is mourning with a grief that refuses to be assuaged the loss of his entire wardrobe". It gives the amount he claimed it was worth, and lists the items (ending "and ever so much more"!)[28]. Another, in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, takes him rather more seriously, states that he was "an aeroplanist and driver of racing automobiles", and lists the whole inventory of his clothes, all with individual prices! [29] He sounds like a remarkable con artist, and it's hard to believe that he did no more in Germany than become a salesman, car racer, member of a tennis club, marry and have two children. I would say keep, and add the info about his plan to sue for loss of his clothes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because there's enough material to make the article interesting and I can imagine it being used in research. Deb (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Noël Leslie, Countess of Rothes#Titanic disaster. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Cherry[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; very little coverage beyond being a Titanic survivor. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dont see anything in the article that makes her noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Crook1 (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments for deletion following the nomination are a bit weak. Relisting as per WP:NEXIST and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Noël Leslie, Countess of Rothes#Titanic disaster. Cherry has some coverage (including in contemporary NEWSORG reporting - e.g. [30][31], as well as several books) - however almost all of it jointly with Leslie (they were both travelling together on the Titanic, and their account of the sinking is a joint one). Leslie's article already contains a fuller account of the events she witnessed with Cherry (otherwise I would be advocating a merge).Icewhiz (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of German supercentenarians. Yet another old person AfD, with much the same arguments. In this case, clear consensus to delete, but WP:ATD argues to redirect to the obvious target. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edelgard Huber von Gersdorff[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. Basically she lived a really long time, did something with the EU... and that's it. Maybe worth a minibio on the List of German supercentenarians, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I have cited her participation in the "112 emergency number" awareness campaign in the caption to her picture in the German list. Nothing else to preserve once we discard longevity trivia. — JFG ^talk 16:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she was part of an awareness campaign that coincided with her age and had to relearn how to walk due to a disease. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the List of German supercentenarians where they already reside. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found coverage of her before she became Germany's oldest person, and more when she did. She is included in the book Die Weisheit der 100-Jährigen (The Wisdom of the 100-year-olds). What she "did with the EU" was, at the age of 112, to become the face of the pan-European emergency phone number, 112. I see evidence that she, unlike some other supercentenarians, did become notable in her advanced old age.

I have said on another AfD for a supercentenarian, I think that this campaign to delete articles about supercentenarians is attempting to wear down other editors who want to follow good AfD practice and consider them on a case by case basis. 16 AfDs for supercentenarians in just one day does not give time for research and rational consideration of each individual. 'Delete' voters repeat, over and over, words like "blatantly fails", "packed with longevity fancruft", "I have a pulse and I'm not notable", and I suspect that a lot of emotion, and very little actual research, goes into their votes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- ThatBaileyLad (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator I have looked at the sources above, and concluded that maybe a minibio on List of German supercentenarians could work, but am very much against a standalone page. Nowhere near enough for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not opposed to a mini bio if someone in the fan club wants to write it up with good sources. Getting old is not notable. Legacypac (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom says it all. Dates/places can go to the list article on German supercentenarians. --Randykitty (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. This is similar to other recently nominated articles. Rzvas (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Claiming themselves"? "extraordinary claims"? There is no question about this person's age; this is not someone who had no documentation of their birth, or only documentation dating from decades later. I do wonder whether 'Delete' voters even read the articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Abel[edit]

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

Non-notable author and "content strategist". Article is based on passing mentions, profiles in associated websites and one interview in a marketing blog (ref #1), that is full of uncritical puffery and softball questions - it does not contain substantial biographical information and is not an independent reliable source to establish notability. A Google search revealed only short author bios for his publications, more passing mentions and 1-2 advertorials for his events, but no in-depth biographical information from an independent reliable source. GermanJoe (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as PROMO for a non-notable "content strategist, conference organizer and author" who has published two books with XML Press. He appears to be successful in business [32]. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice to renominating individual articles separately, which would make for a much clearer discussion instead of this mess... Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonestown: The Women Behind the Massacre[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were all created by the same editor and concern the same company's documentaries:

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

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

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

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

This is a group of stand-alone articles for documentaries recently released by A&E Networks, which do not appear to merit being standalone articles per the policies WP:GNG, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:IINFO, WP:NTV, WP:NF (if it applies), and WP:PROMO, or the guidance in the essays WP:E≠N, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:OEN.

All of these articles were created by a single user (contribs), who has created many stubs for TV shows and specials on A&E and A&E-owned channels (Biography, History, Lifetime, Viceland).

All of the sources (listed below) seem to be not independent, not reputable, or not significant under GNG. In addition to the sources cited in the articles, a WP:BEFORE search turned up non-significant mentions of these programs (announcing that they would be airing), but no significant treatment of them as documentaries (for example, reviews). Some sources given discuss the subjects of the documentaries, but not the documentary programs themselves (other than to mention they are airing).

It seems to me to be a case of WP:PROMO, but perhaps I'm being overly strict in my understanding of what "significant" and "independent" mean, and not WP:AGF. Looking forward to reading everyone's thoughts.

The sources for these articles are:

Jonestown: The Women Behind the Massacre

1. A&E: obviously not independent

2. Scott Holleran: Does not appear to be a reputable source within the WP:RS meaning of the term.

3. The Root: A one-sentence mention. Significant coverage?

Elizabeth Smart: Autobiography

1. Biography.com: Self-referencing source (this is an A&E Biography special)

2. Biography.com: Self-referencing source (this is an A&E Biography special)

3. The Wrap: This appears to be about the Lifetime movie, I Am Elizabeth Smart, with the title incorrectly stated as "Elizabeth Smart: Autobiography," which is the A&E Biography documentary that came out shortly before the Lifetime movie. (A&E owns both Lifetime and Biography.) This doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the documentary, Elizabeth Smart: Autobiography.

Warren Jeffs: Prophet of Evil

1. The Salk Lake Tribune A TV review that is much more focused on the difference between LDS and FLDS, and only talks about the documentary to criticize its handling of this one issue. Significant coverage?

2. Heavy.com: a one-sentence mention in an article about Jeffs. Significant coverage?

3. In Touch: The article repeats what A&E says about its own program, adding little if any original content. Significant coverage?

4. Independent: One-sentence mention. Significant coverage?

Waco: Madman or Messiah

1. Realscreen: Realscreen does not appear independent to me because A&E was the primary sponsor of Realscreen's summit in 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014 and that's as far back as I looked. Independent source?

2. BroadwayWorld: This "article" is literally a reprint of A&E's press release.

3. CNN: Two sentences mentioning this documentary. The rest of the article is focused on another documentary, and CNN says that A&E's doc "piggybacks" on the other one. Significant coverage?

4. People: Relays information from A&E's press release (though at least it's not an outright copy-and-paste). Significant coverage? Independent?

Manson: Inside the Mind of a Mad Man

1. Monsters and Critics: A four-sentence article; two about the documentary, two about Manson. Significant coverage?

2. BT: An article from the cable company that is airing the program. It states at the bottom of the article, "Manson Speaks: Inside the Man of a Madman begins Tuesday December 12 at 9pm on History, BT Channel 327." Independent source?

3. Radio Times: A listing of the program with no copy at all that I can see (unless my browser is not working). Significant coverage?

4. Realscreen: See above under Waco -- Is Realscreen an independent source for it's primary Summit sponsor, A&E?

5. UPROXX: Not about A&E's documentary at all and makes no mention of it. Levivich (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of these works have the broad cultural impact to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just a note that notability on English Wikipedia is not particularly based upon whether or not a film has had a "broad cultural impact" (as stated above in the discussion). Rather, notability is often determined in terms of whether or not a topic has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. See WP:NFP for more information. Also, did you perform WP:BEFORE searches for each article, or is your !vote solely opinion based? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Waco: Madman or Messiah. Meets WP:NFP / WP:GNG as per WP:BEFORE searches. Some source examples are listed below. This is somewhat of a weak keep !vote per only finding two independent sources that provide significant coverage, but that's all that is actually needed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

WTVA
People

Comment: I don't think there's an independence or reliability concern with CNN or People, so if the consensus is that the coverage in these articles is "significant," then it seems that Waco would pass under WP:N. (FYI these two examples are cited in the article, #3 and #4 on the list; WTVA is the same article as on CNN.) Levivich (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As they all pass WP:TVSERIES as nationally broadcast they are most likely to pass WP:GNG which requires at least one paragraph on the subject which many of the above mentioned references comply with as a minimum. Also, has the nominator edited under another account as they seem very policy driven for a new editor? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, I have not edited under another account. I hope that bite was tasty! :-) Levivich (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Atlantic306: You are misusing WP:TVSERIES which says just a sentence later In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. Not every national TV show is notable. Either there are reliable sources or they don't. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, the ping didnt work, Im not saying passing WP:TVSERIES means they are definitely notable but that they are very likely to be as North America has shown. The average age of a webpage is only 100 days and many sources are paywalled so I have much less faith in google than others have and offline sources should be sought, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Atlantic306: I totally get it now, no worries. Also I feel this should have been split to separate AfDs in my opinion, messy to assess all noms here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 04:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet TVSERIES because it's merely another of many 'round number year divisible by 5' docs which always seem to come out around these tragedies (and are made merely to target a certain group of people; here, women who enjoy shows about Jonestown). No new information is broken in this show, and not everything on cable that fills 1-2 hours needs an article. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per its wording, Mrschimpf's !vote appears to be only about the Jonestown: The Women Behind the Massacre article. Denoting this because four other article are nominated for deletion herein, and it would be inaccurate for this !vote to be applied to all of them if it only pertains to the first article in the header of this AfD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly was and I'll elaborate further for the other four; the Smart doc at least should be withdrawn because it's an 'in her own words' show where Smart herself tells her story, has complete editorial control, there is new information disclosed, and there's likely many sources for that, so keep on that. The Jeffs and Waco docs would be delete for me as more round number anniversary docs which advance no new information, and I have no real opinion on the Manson doc because it comes at the subject at a different angle than most, so neutral there. I do definitely agree that a separate nom would be better for all five docs. Nate • (chatter) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It comes across that it may have been more productive to have nominated these articles separately, rather than as a bundled nomination. See my comment directly above for an example why. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix it? Levivich (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Since it's already been opened as such, it would just create more confusion and be entirely out-of-process to create new discussions from the discussion herein, and you cannot have two separate AfD discussions for an article running simultaneously. So, I would simply wait until this is closed, and then if you'd like, you can re-nominate separately if any articles are retained that you feel are topically non-notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Thanks. I wasn't ignoring your comment above, but I came to the same conclusion: if I tried to undo/redo, it would be worse than if I left it alone. Apologies for bundling them. I really thought these were all absolute no-brainers. If folks want to keep some of them I don't have a strong objection. I'm not going to re-nominate any that are kept. In fact I'm out of AfDs altogether after this; where these are keeps and the TV schedules are deletes, it's obvious I'm not on the same page as the community on this. Levivich (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elder of Ziyon[edit]

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

Non-notable blog on blogspot.com that doesn't even have its own separate website. All of the secondary sources in the article have just passing mentions of it, none of them are independently about the subject topic. Article seems completely random, surely every blogspot blog that gets a passing mention in a few sources isn't notable enough for its own article? N Ø 16:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - Actually, the more I'm reading the article, all of the "passing mentions" have also been faked and none of the linked sources actually mention this blog anywhere. The only accurate information (and I'm doubtful about this too) in here comes from the primary source which is the blog itself. The whole article is a crufty bunch of lies obviously written by the blog creator and needs to be speedy deleted.--N Ø 16:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citations I spot checked do discuss and cite this blogger, and do so accurately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan, what makes you think that this was "obviously written by the blog creator"? It's been here for 6 years with 45 editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refrain from making further comments because I've not had the time to spotcheck several references but the one Forbes link I checked was cited as having a "picture from the blog" included on it but didn't actually confirm anything like that. I assumed that it must have been the blog creator who added these false claims of notability just to save it from deletion, or fans of the blog.--N Ø 10:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Craig Martin of St. Thomas Aquinas College in his book, Masking Hegemony: A Genealogy of Liberalism, Religion and the Private Sphere, p. 4, engages with this Elder pretty seriously [33].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond being widely circulated (in addition to the blogspot, this is run on this byline in a couple of Jewish newspapers), EoZ has been coverage in this book, roasted by this critic, briefly covered in Sienkiewicz, Matt. "The Carnival’s Edge: Charlie Hebdo and Theories of Comedy." Jewish History: 1-14., as well as coverage by NEWSORGs over a fairly long period - e.g. - [34][35][36][37][38]. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable hate site. Zero^talk 09:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not equal an endorsement. Wolfson5 (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Brown[edit]

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

due to WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E HardB (talk) 21:59, 28 November 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 November 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep Given that she has continued to appear on television many other shows [39] (e.g. Dancing on Ice) and on the news media right up the the present time [40], also writing a column for the Sunday Times newspaper [41], I'm puzzled by the rationale given, particularly WP:SUSTAINED, which really required assessment over a longer period. She should qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bake Off winner is a major achievement, and Google search shows that she is a "celebrity" with plentiful coverage. PamD 00:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Ms. Brown has written a popular cookbook after winning GBBS, and has appeared on several television shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormpone (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph[edit]

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

This is a relatively unnoteable meme that could just as easily be merged to a small section in the main Ed Miliband article. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Speedy, if you choose). This was no mere meme; this sandwich has the dubious honour of having, arguably, changed UK electoral history; no mean feat for a sandwich of any filling. The article demonstartes the significant coverage the incident recieved at the time, and it has continued to receive persistent coverage in reliable sources as recently as 2018, remaining a political touchstone among commentators—[42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]—and scholarly literature alike—[49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56].
An object lesson in what Richard M. Cook called "Punch cartoons for the Snapchat generation", you, nom, may call it a meme!—Michael Weiss described it as "the worst massacre in history ever perpetrated by a bacon sandwich"^[1] :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/ed-miliband-bacon-british-election/392867/

Keep -- Sources already in article much, much more than establish notability. Also nom fails to state an adequate deletion rationale. Whether or not this photograph is "relatively unnoteable" is not relevant to anything. It meets GNG, which is based on absolute rather than relative notability. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SN. This isn't just a one-off "bad" photo of an MP being mocked, it has a long-lasting impact on his career. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice phrasing :) he was absolutely... (rhymes with Donald Ducked) :D ——SerialNumber54129 17:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. It's a famous incident and a merge would lose a lot of sourced information. SportingFlyer talk 19:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above links providing coverage over a wide timeframe, this is clearly a photograph of historical importance. SmartSE (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Twenty references? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does meet WP:PERSISTENCE, along with the other WP:N(E) criteria. Ralbegen (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was a prominent image documented in reliable sources way beyond the original event in 2015 and 2017 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage over time in reliable sources - meets WP:PERSISTENCE. Edwardx (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talend Open Studio for Data Quality[edit]

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

Non-notable project from non-notable company (see this afd). Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.78.91 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Can not find any coverage in independent sources. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carey (boxer)[edit]

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

Article's one and only source claims he competed at the 2008 Olympics. However, that same article contradicts itself - with "Arthur’s coach is David Carey, the founder of the Alaska Boxing Academy... ...Carey was a member of the U.S. Olympic team that competed in the 2008 Games". So someone else called "Carey" in 2008. Sports Reference has no-one listed as competing with that name in 2008. The Olympics website has no-one of either name. And the only Google Result for "Michael Carey" and Olympics brings back this article, and the one (unreliable) source. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do you think this public radio station is an unreliable source? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, it contradicts itself in the same article. The Olympics and SR sites are reliable sources when it comes to Olympians. Also, there are no other Google hits for someone competing in 2008 which also makes the single source in the article seem less than correct. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further digging shows that he's not listed in the boxing section of the 2008 Olympics article on WP, which has everything sourced from the International Boxing Association, and Sports Ref has no-one of that name ever competing too. It seems inconceivable that the Olympics website, the International Boxing Association and Sports Ref are all incorrect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I don't think the source is unreliable, just that in this case they have not cross-checked the facts. Some local gym owner goes on a radio show, says he is going/has been to the Olympics. Who's to check that? They probably have hundreds of people interviewed each year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source article doesn't specify, but it's quite likely that the piece was produced for Alaska News Nightly, a radio newscast syndicated to over two dozen stations which celebrated its 40th anniversary this year. It airs for a half hour each weekday. So, they produce approximately 260 newscasts per year, with an average of 8 to 12 stories per program, some with multiple interviewees and some with none at all. Those numbers make it rather obvious that they interview far more people per year than what you appear to be implying. More importantly, contrast that piece with the story of Stubbs the cat. In 2012, a variety of national media outlets reported that the cat was celebrating his 15th anniversary as mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska. In various discussions on the matter, my fellow Wikipedians were too busy shouting me down to have noted two important details: first, Talkeetna is not an incorporated community and therefore has no legal authority to declare such a position; and second, there are absolutely no sources in existence whatsoever from those previous 15 years. The latter is key, because it should be obvious that a claim of a cat being mayor for 15 years implies that it was notable long before 2012. In other words, the national media fell for a publicity stunt without performing any fact checking because news editors decided a) it made for a cute human interest story, and b) if they didn't run with the story while their competitors did, it would make them look foolish to their audience, facts be damned. When I attempted to discuss whether WE were being factual to OUR readers, a fellow editor cherry-picked an NPR source to show that NPR didn't take it at face value. That editor failed to note that the source in question was actually a retraction of the original story the day before, in which they did play it off as legit. As Talkeetna's only full-time media outlet is KTNA, an NPR affiliate, I have no doubt that they were inundated with locals commenting "What is this shit?" or words to that effect. The point of all this? My fellow Wikipedians said "How dare you?" when I questioned the veracity of something reported by NPR, while in this discussion, I get the impression that it's perfectly acceptable to question the veracity of something reported by a state-level equivalent of NPR. Is that a stance in keeping with NPOV? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Veracity of the claim is suspect.PRehse (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails verification. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm already seeing a blind-leading-the-blind trainwreck brewing here. It only took a few clicks to realize that Josh Edge is a credible journalist working for a credible media outlet, so the main problem would be with the details in the source and what the article's creator did in repeating it here. The subject is referred to as "Michael Carey" in the caption of the third photo and "David Carey" in the article itself. Michael Carey is a senior statesman of the journalistic corps in Anchorage, a former longtime editor at the Anchorage Daily News and more recently a respected political commentator. The ABA website should make it obvious that we're talking about David Carey here. As for the veracity of his claim, could it be possible that he was named to a Olympic team but didn't actually compete? That has happened at least a few times in history. As sports journalism is still alive and well, is defaulting to the same old cherry-picked web sources or a Google search doing this justice? In other words, has anyone consulted a news archive search? The source does make mention of newspaper clippings. As Edge acknowledges in the source, Nino Delgado was an adult and not a minor like many other of Carey's trainees. As such, should we assume good enough faith that Delgado mentioned these newspaper clippings to Edge without being prompted to by Carey? But wait, there's more! The reasoning behind creating this article is the same as what I've seen before: someone's perception of the importance of the Olympics leads them to create an article that's ostensibly a biography, but is really a directory entry related to the Olympics itself. I normally see this sort of thing with historical Olympic competitors. In this case, this is a BLP subject. Is using a BLP subject as a venue to create an article that's really about the Olympics acceptable BLP behavior? Is the level of sourcing acceptable for a BLP as opposed to an article that's about the Olympics? This sort of attitude and behavior is far more widespread in BLPs than just this one article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only claim to notability is being a competitor at the 2008 Olympic Games. The problem is that I can find no source that supports that claim and many that refute it[57][58][59]. Even the IOC list of athletes named Carey doesn't show a U.S. boxer[60]. There was a David Carey who lost his first fight at the 2008 U.S. trials by a score of 20-7[61], but being at the trials is not grounds for notability. There is no evidence of him meeting any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The only claim to notability is being a competitor at the 2008 Olympic Games." To me, that sounds like your view is that notability is a black-and-white matter of titles, not accomplishments which lead to significant coverage in reliable sources. NewsBank has some hits which make it borderline going by the latter criteria (about DAVID Carey, as I hope I made it clear that the article creator didn't pay much attention to the source in running with a mistake made in the photo caption). Then again, those are in Alaskan media sources. That brings us back to my point above about the cat, in that it appears we're content to obediently parrot patent falsehoods if they're reported by the national media while applying a different standard to more localized media outlets. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does a cat have to do with this AfD? Your continually bringing it up in an irrelevant discussion seems awfully WP:POINTy. Smartyllama (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. NPR article appears to be erroneous and not even about this guy anyway. We shouldn't be parroting sloppy reporting, even if it's from a normally reliable source. Smartyllama (talk) 16:09, 10 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 merge to Lone wolf (terrorism). Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic terrorism[edit]

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

Deleted at AfD a year ago. Scripted Violence, a very related concept, and an older one, has just been deleted at AfD. There have been new sources, but those are mostly opinion pieces which are not good here. WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT apply. This term was apparently coined seven years ago by an anonymous blogger with a single blog post. I could not find any serious scholarly articles on this topic. wumbolo ^^^ 23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The concept is discussed in the scholarly book The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism by Mark Hamm and Ramón Spaaij (Columbia University Press, 2017). They devote an entire subsection ("Stochastic Terrorism", pp 85–89) to discussing the concept and describing a few cases. WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT do not apply here. The page discusses the concept and its use in much greater depth than a mere a dictionary definition. Gpc62 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the discussion in Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism is three paragraphs, followed by two case examples.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the last AfD, there have been a multitude of new sources showing lasting impact and that this is not just a neologism:

Quartz (this one is especially in-depth)
Pell Center - see article (also in-depth)
The Verge
Pacific Standard - see article

In addition to this, there have also been print sources:

The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism (published by Columbia University Press)
Out for Queer Blood (published by McFarland)
Bitch Planet Triple Feature (interview of Jamais Cascio published by Image Comics)

As well as multiple other references prior, with Raw Story also going in depth:

Rolling Stone
Raw Story
Vox
Salon
CNN

None of these are opinion pieces. There is a New York Times opinion piece, but the variety, depth, and multitude of other sources is more than enough to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines. Opencooper (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have left an AfD notice on the talk page of User:Chip.berlet, the original re-creator of this article. Opencooper (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into terrorism. Terrorism is often random or unpredictable in nature and so the word "stochastic" is redundant. The issue of incitement is separate and best covered under that title. Andrew D. (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "stochastic" might be redundant if the term "stochastic terrorism" simply referred to random terrorism. But that is not the concept that the term describes, and "stochastic" is not redundant. The issue of incitement is an integral part of the concept, not a separate issue. Gpc62 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep improvements has been made since the last AfD. covers WP:GNG. The concept is discussed in the scholarly book The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lone wolf (terrorism), a far more widely used term for precisely the phenomenon being described by "stochastic terrorism." The two pages are describe a single phenomenon, except that "stochastic terrorism" puts the emphasis on the ideologues whose rhetoric inspires "lone wolves" to commit crimes, while "lone wolf terrorism" focuses on the individuals who are inspired by these ideologues to commit violent attacks. These two sides of the same coin will make a far more useful article when merged. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory tried to make this argument last time as well, and the argument starts off with fallacies, as I argued last time. Lone wolf terrorism is not "precisely the phenomenon described by stochastic terrorism." Lone wolf terrorism invariably refers to the act(s) of violence (conventional terrorism) committed by an individual. It may or may not be a result of being egged on by statements in the media. Stochastic terrorism typically refers to the statements made in the media, which then may lead to incidents of conventional terrorism (most often lone wolf terrorism, but it could also be other types of terrorism encouraged by the media comments). Last time E.M.Gregory argued this was "a distinction without a difference." If that were true, calling Donald Trump a lone-wolf terrorist would be equally appropriate as calling him a stochastic terrorist. Gpc62 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence of this comment conflates the whistler in dog whistle politics with the dogs. But it does show the extent to which this article and its sources -Hamm and Spaaj aside - are dedicated to promoting a neologism defining Donald Trump as a terrorist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamm and Spaaij, your principal source, describe stochastic terrorism as a form of "indirect enabling" of lone wolf terrorism in the opening sentence of the section. Can you specify to what "other types of terrorism" your sources point?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lone wolf (terrorism) per BabbaQ FOARP (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that the coverage and lasting impact and coverage overall is why I continue to think that Keep is the best option. Lone Wolf (terrorism) is to wide of a subject to cover this one as it should.BabbaQ (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per E.M.Gregory. SportingFlyer talk 04:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lone wolf (terrorism). Looking at new sources in google-books (none), google-scholar (not much), and google-news (a bit - but coverage saying "Stochastic Terrorism is a little known term but well utilized strategy to incite violence" is not encouraging for notability) - from 2018+ it does not seem that significant sources have appeared for this NEO since the last AfD. The term is closely tied to Lone wolf terrorism in that this is the encouragement of such. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: Cherry-picking a quote when plenty of reliable sources have been shared in this very discussion is pretty disingenuous. Par for the course for AfD standards of course. Opencooper (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Up above I wrote: ...Last time E.M.Gregory argued this was "a distinction without a difference." If that were true, calling Donald Trump a lone-wolf terrorist would be equally appropriate as calling him a stochastic terrorist.

E.M.Gregory then replied The final sentence of this comment conflates the whistler in dog whistle politics with the dogs. – which shows he has taken pretty much the opposite meaning to the actual meaning of what I wrote. My whole point is that the dog whistle is different from the dogs. In an English sentence with the structure "If X were Y then Z" the verb "were" signals that the speaker considers that X is not Y. (See: subjunctive or counterfactual.) This type of sentence is typically used rhetorically (as I did here) with Z being something that is manifestly absurd or untrue (but which would be true if X were Y). So I'm considering it to be manifestly absurd to say that "calling Donald Trump a lone-wolf terrorist would be equally appropriate as calling him a stochastic terrorist." The absurdity of that part (Z), along with the fact that Z would follow if X were Y, demonstrates that X is not Y (it is not a "distinction without a difference" to point out that "Stochastic terrorism" is not a form of lone-wolf terrorism. Stochastic terrorism not even a form of terrorism in the conventional, limited sense of the word).

To summarize, I used the absurdity of Z to make the point that X is not Y, and the response from E.M.Gregory says I claimed that Z is true.

It is really tiresome to have to argue these basic points of fact (stochastic terrorism is not lone-wolf terrorism) in laborious detail over and over again, in the face of counter"arguments" that keep missing the point or ignoring the point. Gpc62 (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For whoever comes along to decide the fate of this page: I hope they note that among the !votes for Merge, there is one based on a misunderstanding of the term (evidenced by the claim that "stochastic" is redundant); another says "per BabbaQ" when in fact BabbaQ !voted for Keep; and one where the arguments are based on the misconception that "Lone wolf (terrorism) [is] precisely the phenomenon being described by "stochastic terrorism." Gpc62 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Germain[edit]

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

No neutral, reliable sources that indicates this person is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The French article has more references and those can be used to improve this page. Breakfast Club doesn't have an article and they've been around more than 24 years. // sikander { talk } 14:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The references in the French-language article are still not enough. What must be used is 1) significant coverage 2) in reliable sources 3) that are independent of the subject. If those sources can be found, then the article could be kept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely he meets WP:ANYBIO with the 4 awards he has received? In fact, according to the French Wikipedia version of this article, he has received even more than that! RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and flag for referencing improvement. The referencing definitely needs an overhaul, but being named to the National Order of Quebec and the Order of Canada are valid notability claims. Just to be clear, ANYBIO does not guarantee a free inclusion pass to every winner of just any award that exists — minor awards like the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal (a one-off community involvement award that was presented to 60,000 people in 2012) or the Bâtisseur de la revue Commerce d'août 2005 don't clinch anything, but the CM and CQ post-nominals do. The trick is that his most noteworthy accomplishments were in 1994 (founding the organization), 2005 (expanding it nationwide), 2007 (CQ) and 2009 (CM), which means that in 2018 his best sources will be found in news-archiving databases rather than Google (which is only reliable for finding news stories published within the last couple of years). That said, ProQuest seems to be down for me at the moment, so unfortunately I can't check it right now — but conversely, I also checked newspapers.com and did find some evidence of notability-supporting coverage there. I only have search access to that latter database at the moment, not retrieval access, so I can't add it myself, but WP:GNG only requires that better sources exist to improve the article with rather than that they're already in the article. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Whatever was fugged up at ProQuest has been fixed now, so I've gotten in and beefed up the article with much more reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep surely the medals/orders makes him notable? Calefactivefaust (talk) 17:14, 5 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 Withdrawn by the nominator. Per Randykitty. The indexing is enough to make this notable. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery[edit]

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

I don't see how this passes WP:GNG. In my BEFORE search, I did not find coverage of this journal. So no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that cover this in detail. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have updated the article and added some info, including indexing in Scopus (with independent reference), which generally is taken as satisfying WP:NJournals#C1. --Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 5 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 speedy deleted per WP:G7. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Sundays[edit]

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

A bi-monthly concert of non-notable musicians in a non-notable hotel. -- Longhair\^talk 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logan (2010 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, dubious sourcing. — JFG ^talk 11:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I honestly thought on first glance that it was the X-Men film that was being referred to! The only reference that could possibly be considered an independent RS cited in the article is the River Front Times, but one reference is not enough. Everything else appears to be blogs, self-published, or otherwise not an independent RS. Searching for Logan whilst limiting to articles including the name "Kyle Lawrence" brings up nothing in the way of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the Dove source would be seen as an independent source unless the Dove Foundation was involved with the film production or release. It's just not the strongest source out there and wouldn't keep it on that basis alone. If the Uproxx wasn't clearly written in jest it would be usable, but the piece is pretty obviously satire. (I have to kind of chuckle that it's listed in the article as a serious reaction.) In any case, the only two usable sources would be Dove and the RFT piece, which aren't really the strongest. I'll see if I can find anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's just nothing out there and what is in the article isn't enough. And again, I have to laugh that the Uproxx source was used seriously when it wasn't meant to be serious. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:26, 5 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. Hopefully someone will perform the cleanup that most editors here agree that the article needs. Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Leslie Gold[edit]

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

I nominate this article for delection on the grounds that it reads like a promotion piece, and that the subject matter lacks notability. -Wwallacee (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines, through adaptations (#3) and awards, no doubt also with reviews of her works. AfD is not about the quality of the article, though I don't see this as promotional (the quotes in the section "Recognition as a Holocaust chronicler" are evidence of WP:AUTHOR #1: "The person is regarded as an important figure"). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete. She sometimes gets quoted by journalists, and one or two of her books have been cited in other people's books, but I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV of her. Or of her books. 51% of page created by User:AuroraMax109 who looks like an SPA. Page certainly reads like PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. The article needs a lot of work, but the subject's work (as creator or co-creator) is well-known and reviewed in multiple independent periodicals, which is what WP:AUTHOR#3 requires to establish notability for an author. The Clairvoyant was reviewed in Times Literary Supplement, Publishers Weekly, Chicago Tribune, James Joyce Quarterly, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, The New York Times Book Review, and others. Devil's Mistress was reviewed in The New York Times Book Review, USA Today, and Publishers Weekly, among others. Anne Frank Remembered was reviewed in the Chicago Tribune, Publishers Weekly, Houston Chronicle, The Globe and Mail, and (separately) The New York Times and The New York Times Book Review, among others. Bakazaka (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:AUTHOR#3. Article do indeed need some re-writes and additional information but that is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 01:30, 12 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. In the absence of any !votes apart from the nom, and with more discussion obviously not forthcoming after 2 relistings, I am closing this as a soft-delete. WP:REFUND applies (pinging E.M.Gregory). Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Ryukyu Islands earthquake[edit]

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

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

Low intensity (this event was felt only)
No injuries, deaths, or damage

This USGS entry for the event tells part of the story:

M 7.5 - southeast of Taiwan – United States Geological Survey Dawnseeker2000 00:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Nom is mistaken, the earthquake project has an WP:ESSAY, not a Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:34, 5 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. But convert to article about the company Outfittery. Sandstein 20:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Bösch[edit]

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

non notable businessperson. Current sources are not RS and other sources not found to demonstrate notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or convert to article about the company Outfittery (currently a redirect to her). Forbes and Handelsblatt Global seem good enough RS. Co-founder Anna Alex gets a fair bit of coverage eg here, so an article on the company might be better. PamD 12:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and convert to Outfittery. There's almost nothing to verify any of Ms. Bösch's biographical details (I'm not sure if the Forbes profile is self-written). Conversely, there are at least two reliable sources that describe the company in detail - it makes more sense to have an article on the company rather than the person. Richard3120 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)m[reply]
Comment a redirect and conversion of the article to be about Outfittery makes some sense to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete as noted above the company is sizable. Raising 50m is impressive. Victuallers (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to an article on the company Outfittery. W C M_email 12:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and convert to article about the company per Richard3120. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 9 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) 05:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GeoSure[edit]

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

notices, but not substantial sources, so there is not adequate evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; corporate spam on a nn company. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 6 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 merge to Professional boxing#Scoring. Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 Point System[edit]

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

Already covered under Professional boxing#scoring so this is a WP:CONTENTFORK that isn't needed. CNMall41 (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Professional_boxing#Scoring - Unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a lot of it seems to be about scoring/judging in general rather than this particular form of scoring Abcmaxx (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eden: the Deceit[edit]

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

Reach Out to the Truth correctly tagged this as lacking references of any kind almost a decade ago. The Earth has now completed eight revolutions around the Sun and still no sources have materialized. A basic BEFORE (newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google Books, Google News) fails to find any sources. The corresponding entry in Italian isn't much better, boasting only two sources which are both non-RS. Over the course of many, many years every possible opportunity has been extended to salvage this article; it's time to end its suffering. Chetsford (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One thing the native Italian version of the article does have going for it is that it has a citation to show the game won an award at the Lucca Comics & Games convention. I have no idea of the value of the second source in the Italian version of the article. BOZ (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, (a) the citation in question is not a reliable source so we must treat it as non-existent, (b) WP:NPRODUCT does not offer us inherent notability for a commercial product winning an award, in the same way we have inherent notability under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NATHLETE for award receipt, (c) an award at a regional comic book convention is not exactly the Pulitzer Prize or an Olympic Gold Medal or some of the other awards generally envisaged when we imagine inherent notability for a "major award." Chetsford (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources completely, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianna Papell[edit]

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

Delete 2+ year-old contested PROD with no improvement in the interim; most refs. are dead, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's clearly a well-known brand, but I can't find any coverage outside tabloids, sales sites, blogs, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a relatively detailed article about the company and its strategy in WWD in 1988: [62] – via HighBeam (subscription required) . Not enough in itself but may contribute to WP:NCORP with other sources. AllyD (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known brand but privately held company, which probably explains relative dearth of sourcing, although searches in wsj and NYTimes get useful hits. I'm not sufficiently interested in fashion to source it. But deletion seems silly as it discourages those who might be so inclined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. A directory-listing only, with no possibility for expansion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep what's verifiable. 82.132.186.90 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Capra[edit]

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

A WP:BLP supported only by an extremely thin IMDb entry. The referencing is no better than when the article was created in 2006. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing WP:RS. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too could find nothing to substantiate notability in this case. She appears to have worked on this film as a writer and that's it. FOARP (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FILMBIO. Article seems to have been created by someone wishing to publicize the Capra family. — Wylie pedia @ 02:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Boguinia[edit]

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

The sources are too weak to show he passes WP:GNG, they are mostly affiliated, a couple of passing mentions and an article in a local paper from when he was a 16 year old music student. He does not seem to meet the criteria WP:COMPOSER or WP:MUSICIAN. This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely WP:TOOSOON. Most of the sources mention him in passing (or not at all), even with the addition of many more sources after this AfD was started. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: user also has a liking to adding classical-music-download.com crosswiki — billinghurst sDrewth 09:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that created simple:Charles Augustin White — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that we may have a case of wp:paid editing. If you look at c:special:contributions/ThirdPicardy we have the image as a close-up front of house glam-shot, so we have close long term relationship between subject and contributor. We also have relationships with another set of artists. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt, at best we have a conflict of interest, if not paid editing. Further we have https://www.ascap.com/playback/2015/10/faces-and-places/concert/music-sustainable-planet which is the same image uploaded to Commons and deleted as File:Music For a Sustainable Planet Concert at Symphony Space.jpg. Note the surnames of the two younger gentleman and see if you notice the surname here. Also compare the gentlemen in the photo with the upload— billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this informed opinion presented here, because what I see in the article easily satisfies notability, My own familiarity with contemporary composers is rudimentary, but the mention of Kronos quartet and the ÆON Music Ensemble amongst the other notables that have performed his work strongly suggests his own notability. And that is what I reading in the linked guidance, the article is notable. Secondly, a living person who has sought to contribute content on this matter has been directly accused of "paid editing", which is then dialled back to "Without a doubt, at best we have a conflict of interest, if not paid editing," This may be so, but my own opinion, supported by years of evidence and experience of the admonisher, is that this is more likely to be ill founded as a concern and that broader community input is need to make those assertions. The wiki-thug and I have a history, to declare my COI and admit my own shit, but I am judging this proposal on its own merit. So it goes, a tangential concern, back to the discussion: I expect this comment will convert to keep, but I'll wait to see other views as the OP's interpretation of guidelines might be in accord with similar deletion discussions and they may be more familiar with this field of music. As a crude test, @OP, I don't know that I have heard of Charles Boguinia, I might have heard him played sometime, but were you familiar with say Kronos Quartet when you listed the article? cygnis insignis 03:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boss amero[edit]

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

Non-notable songwriter/rapper. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. —teb728 t c 07:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have sources that match my credentials — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highergiftedness (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even ignoring the fact that the article is poorly written and appears to be an autobiography that is riddled with spammy external links, the subject simply does not meet the notability requirements for musicians. There are no reliable sources, let alone any with significant coverage of the subject. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Blatant vanity page. No reliable sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to see why the speedy delete was originally declined, and I see that it actually wasn't - the original author removed the CSD template. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before opening this AFD nomination, I considered restoring the speedy, but it seemed to me that there might be just enough claim of significance (which doesn't require a source) to get by A7. —teb728 t c 19:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a self-promoted artist who has gotten his tracks on the usual retail/streaming sites but has not been noticed by any independent media source. The article barely even attempts to support a notability claim except by pointing out that the guy was born during a blizzard and was influenced by Michael Jackson. Those are some pretty big leaps. It's a clumsy attempt at promotion of the type that has no place at Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, wikipedia should not be used for promotion Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I laughed at loud at the references. Kind of ingenious to have accurate references for content that has nothing to do with the topic of article. Fake it 'til you make it? Everyone above has noted the specific WP guideline failures. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 18:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uninvited Company 21:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithers Divide[edit]

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

No evidence that this phenomena has been accepted by any form of peer review and is any more that primary research. Appear to be self promotion of a rather eclectic piece of work by a student. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a WP:BEFORE search of my own makes me agree with nom. SportingFlyer talk 07:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't fault the guy for swinging for the rafters in naming his discovery (if it is one), but the rest of the world does have to take some notice first before we can cover it... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's got gumption, but gumption without secondary sources won't go far in these parts. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jolly (politician)[edit]

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

Recently created through AfC, but as I noted in the comments (and as you can see on the talk page) this article fails WP:GNG. Most of the coverage on him is about him in an electoral context or as leader of a very minor political party and only covers him indirectly and he's never held an office which comes close to passing WP:NPOL, as the Yarra City Council is one of dozens in Melbourne. My comment on the talk page is reproduced here:

This is a difficult one. Per WP:THREE, which are the best sources currently in the article? [63] covers him as an unelected candidate, same with this [64]. [65] is focused on him, this [66] is from an interview in electrical trade union news, and [67] is routine. I'm not sure I'd vote to keep this at AfD, probably would vote to merge what is relevant into the Vic Socialists article.

SportingFlyer talk 07:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of those edge cases. No clear cut meeting of a specific notablity guideline but a lot of coverage and sources. As I said on the draft this is not a page I would seek deletion on. We have a lot of bios that are a lot more weakly sourced than this one where the subject is far less notable. Legacypac (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Why weren't you willing to move it into mainspace yourself? (The tone on that is a bit harsh, I'm just curious.) As I've said, just because there's coverage doesn't mean the article passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he passes WP:NPOL but he has coverage for other things so maybe passes GNG.. As I said it is an edge case and I prefer to accept only pages I'm confident will pass AfD. I've never seen so many reviewers equivocate over accepting or rejecting a page so I figured the creator was entitled to give it a chance in mainspace. Here we are. Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response, thanks. SportingFlyer talk 07:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a list of activists from Melbourne I brought up in the comments which all have Wikipedia articles. He is most prolifically an activist, but also a local councillor and perennial candidate for state government. Passes notability on more than being a politician, the article shows there is more than enough to write about him biographically. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So that's WP:GNG. The list was Mick Armstrong, William Barak, Julian Burnside, Helen Caldicott, Albert Langer, Stephen Mayne, Tom O'Lincoln, Van Thanh Rudd, B. A. Santamaria, Joseph Toscano and Les Twentyman. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it may pass WP:POLOUTCOMES on its own. Although local councillors are not notable on their own, they are if they are a significant spokesperson for a political issue and significant gain press coverage. He has been a prominent public figure for socialism and the 'Change the Date' (an Australian Indigenous rights issue) campaign. These have been covered by national newspapers such as The Australian, the ABC, and The Age, as well as international media such as the Jacobin. However as others have pointed out, there are several other factors such as being a prominent activist and having widespread sourcing that would make it supported by WP:GNG. Catiline52 (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jolly has had significant prominence within not just the Australian, but international, left. Although his current status as a councillor may not be notable enough on its own, there is certainly a large depth of biographic information about him. Given that he has been covered in various media as others point out, the article should be kept, especially considering the lack of information available on other persons with ostensibly greater notability. LeoC12 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:BIO. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable beyond his local council responsibilities for activism and leadership of political parties. -- Longhair\^talk 12:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just wanted to note that none of the keep !votes so far have discussed the actual sources, and he clearly does not pass any SNGs. SportingFlyer talk 17:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the AfD didn't mention anything about the sourcing being inadequate. I assumed you thought the sources of the article were fine and that the issue was about notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources of the article were fine, I wouldn't have gone through them at AfC or made a WP:GNG argument above at AfD (not entirely sure which one you mean.) SportingFlyer talk 04:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's true that neither being a smalltown city councillor nor being an unsuccessful election candidate are WP:NPOL-passing notability claims, and people are not automatically deemed to pass GNG in lieu of NPOL just because some local media coverage exists of them in those contexts — but being the leader of a registered political party at the state level, even a minor one, most certainly can be a valid claim of notability if it's well-sourced. The test for the notability of a political party leader is not the subjective majorness or minorness of the party — regardless of party size, it's a matter of whether or not they have received enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG for being a party leader. I'll grant that "party leader" isn't written directly into NPOL, but that's not because it's an inherent NPOL fail in all cases — it's because the question of whether a party leader is notable or not comes down to the quality of the sources. It's not an automatic notability freebie for all party leaders, no, but it's not an automatic notability fail either — it's contingent on the quality of the sourcing, and is a valid notability claim if there is enough sourcing to pass GNG.
It's true that a lot more AFC reviewers equivocated on whether to accept or reject this one than usual — I was one of them, and my comment was that too much of the sourcing at the time was sitting on the non-notable aspects of his career but a path to notability existed if the sourcing about his political party leadership could be beefed up enough. I'm still not completely sold that all of these sources are what I had in mind, but there are some sources that are striding in the right direction from where it was the first time I looked at it.
But even if he is deemed non-notable when all is said and done, his name should still be retained as a redirect to the party's article rather than simply deleted — but keeping or deleting this isn't a question of whether the party he leads is major or minor, it's a question of whether there's enough sourcing to get him over GNG for leading a party or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the party is a bit of a red herring here: it's possibly what he's most well known for right now, being that the party was formed to contest an election held two weeks ago, but he's a prominent activist with a history (and mainstream media coverage of said history) going back to the 1980s. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as a political spokesperson (per Catiline52) and as a party leader. Sourcing is weaker than what may be preferred, but there does appear to be sufficient sourcing to develop a article that is more than "John Doe served on the city council." --Enos733 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jolly is a long-time activist with a very high profile for someone who has only held local office - he's a very rare case where I'd vote to keep one. I was surprised at how crap the Google results for him were, but the deeper archive of newspapers.com demonstrates that he definitely passes GNG: he's received significant media coverage in a whole bunch of contexts over many years prior to his statewide campaign - perhaps most prominently (but definitely not limited to) his role as the leader of the early 1990s Richmond Secondary College occupation, which was probably notable enough for its own article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, I didn't know there was a site for that. I'll try to uncover more info for the page soon. Catiline52 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're talking about newspapers.com, it's very useful for these kinds of things - you can get free access through the Wikipedia Library - see Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Puccini[edit]

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

Being a FIDE Master doesn't satisfy WP:NCHESS. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject can certainly play chess far better than I can, but I see nothing that meets NCHESS nor GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Filiaggi[edit]

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

This article was prodded back in May 2014, deprodded per Talk:Christina Filiaggi#Importance. It's been tagged with {{Notability}} since October 2014, but no better sources have been found.

Filiaggi has been a part of multiple radio shows, but there's really no independent claim of Wikipedia notability which can be found for her per WP:BIO; the people and stations she's worked with/for seem notable from a Wikipedia standpoint, but any Wikipedia notability she has seems to be mainly derived from them. Most of the sources currently cited in the article local sources, such as newsblogs and trivial type mentions about staff changes, etc. There's nothing to really be found (at least I couldn't do so) which shows she has received any WP:SIGCOV on her own merit. FWIW, I've heard her on the radio a few times, and agree that she's popular with many fans, but none of that really translates into a stand-alone article in my opinion. It might be possible to WP:CHEAP this to another article as an alternative to deletion, but not sure which one would be the best because she's been a part of a number of radio programs and worked at a number of different radio stations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and analysis on talk page discussion. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not meeting notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not established. Appears short of even WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non-notable traffic reporter. Lacks the coverage needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Canada: A[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

No improvement has been made to this incomplete set of lists (these are the only two, and the second list was only just begun) since they were first nominated for deletion over two years ago. That proposal was withdrawn in the expectation that someone was going to take on the task of completing these lists from B onwards. That has not happened and accordingly I am reopening the nomination. The lists have not been worked on since 2006. Cobblet (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Per User:IntoThinAir's suggestion below, I have added the parent page List of places in Canada to the nomination. Cobblet (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cobblet (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's been 12 years now, and still nobody's ever seen fit to complete B through Z at all — even the person who volunteered to work on them two years ago, leading me to withdraw that deletion nomination, never actually followed through on their pledge. This isn't an inherently terrible idea in theory if anybody were actually committed getting it completed, but there's no value in compiling it only up to Barachois and then never expanding even one town further in over a decade after that. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An abandoned project, unsourced and likely to already be covered elsewhere. Ajf773 (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:58, 4 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this page is deleted, then List of places in Canada (the parent page for both A and B) should probably be deleted too. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. It would be too long. Provincial/territorial lists would make more sense anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all of the above Spiderone 20:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, abandoned project. The subject matter is covered better by the category hierarchy, as well as lists of smaller scope. PK T(alk) 14:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little benefit to organsing the information in this way given the work involved to maintain it.--Pontificalibus 08:28, 7 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jebel Ali (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation not required. Every entry is a partial title match of the primary topic and easily available from links on the primary topic article. PROD removed by user:MegaSloth with comment "Removed PROD - case is not clear. Proposer merely states that all entries are partial title matches. The guideline additionally states there must be "no significant risk of confusion or reference" which has not been addressed. See also talk page". My argument is there is no risk: there's only one Jebel Ali, and the metro, port, etc are clearly linked from the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Oppose~~ [Edit: clarification not change of opinion] further evidence needed to support assertions.

There's nothing wrong with the basic argument, but in my opinion your case was simply not strong enough to proceed to deletion without a discussion, which is what a PROD amounts to. You are correct that simply having the article title as a partial title match of another article does not mean further disambiguation is needed. But if the topic of the other article is known with sufficiently high frequency by the same name then disambiguation is required, per WP:PARTIAL. The articles Port of Jebel Ali and UAE Exchange (Dubai Metro) both explicitly state that their subjects are or were previously known as "Jebel Ali". The names are mentioned in bold in the introduction, which implies that they are synonyms and therefore possible alternative titles for the article (MOS:BOLDLEAD). The assertion that these pages are linked from the article has some merit, some are not terribly prominent, and would require a reader to perform an unnecessarily lengthy search. At first investigation, it seems that a full reading of WP:PARTIAL indicates that disambiguation is required.

Furthermore, you state without justification that the municipality is the primary topic. This might perhaps be casually presumed but it is emphatically not always the case. For instance, London's Gatwick Airport and Heathrow Airport were both named after settlements in their vicinity, but the airports are the primary topic for these terms and Gatwick and Heathrow link directly to those articles. At first glance, it appears Jebel Ali port is a significant facility and may in fact be the primary topic for the term "Jebel Ali", or sufficiently prominent to mean that there is no primary topic and the dismbiguation page ought to be moved to Jebel Ali. This possibility needs to be discounted with evidence before removing disambiguation completely.

In my opinion, without further evidence, although the other pages are indeed partial title matches, some or all of them are or could plausibly be known and searched for as "Jebel Ali", particularly the transport hubs as some readers may not be aware they are named after a municipality, and as such disambiguation is needed.

MegaSloth (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @MegaSloth:, that a good review of the argument on both sides. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:56, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: all the topics (well, most - perhaps not the refinery) are "Jebel Ali" plus a generic term, not that dissimilar from "mountain" or "river" or even "township", all of which are a kind of partial title match which I think belongs in a dab page. Each of the items could in its own context be referred to as "Jebel Ali". Seems a useful and compliant dab page. PamD 09:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly good DAB page, which will help readers find what they might be looking for - which is all that matters. Narky Blert (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the disambiguation page because I ended up at the page for the municipality while trying to get to the page for the port and saw that there was no hatnote to clarify. As PamD says, several of these topics (the port, the airport, the train station) are referred to simply as "Jebel Ali" in many contexts; I agree that the case is less clear for the refinery, and I don't know anything about seaplane bases (though I suspect that, in context, it, too, would be referred to simply as "Jebel Ali" by a pilot or air traffic controller), but I feel that there is a clear case for at least several of these articles to be disambiguated for readers who, like me, find themselves at the municipality article when they didn't know the name even referred to a municipality. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ITSUSEFUL usually isn't a valid argument, but it is for disambiguation pages. Smartyllama (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Readable English[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find evidence of notability for this, nothing meeting WP:GNG. A verbatim Google search for "readable english" -lorem (excluding a number of pages that explain that "lorem ipsum" text looks like readable English) yields rather few hits, most of which are using the words "readable English" in their regular sense, and nothing meeting the notability guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the article currently portrays "Readable English" as a dialect of some sort, it actually appears to be an Australian company that sells its "readable" form of English as an aid to help students learn the language. See here. But there seems to be little evidence of RS coverage for this subject regardless. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that it has improved notability since the previous deletion in 2016 (but it's hard to search for the "version of English", since this is a common phrase). Readableenglish.com seems to be a commercial site, not independent of the topic. Cnilep (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Apparently an article at this title was speedy-deleted as advertisement in April 2016, about a week before the first AfD nomination, which deleted it on the basis of notability rather than advertising. Cnilep (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:GNG though it is a bit hard to look for sources since "readable English" is not an uncommon phrase. Though the article is careful to avoid mentioning it, I still suspect that one of the goals is to promote the company that invented this system. Pichpich (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it has value to stay. In that it is an alternative phonetic alphabet to others that exist (like the IPA, and phonetically intuitive English - both of which have Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.123.251 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that IPA has been around for more than a hundred years and is widely used in dictionnaries (and encyclopedias including Wikipedia!) in various languages. Phonetically Intuitive English is a better comparable but its article contains links that establish in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. Pichpich (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell, this is primarily about a company and its product. As such it does not look to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wilson 2019 documentary film[edit]

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

Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Planned_films#Coverage_of_planned_films, a planned film can have a Wikipedia article once it is confirmed as having entered principal photography. For example, You Are My Friend (film) came online in September, although the film is not scheduled to be released until October 18, 2019. Mksword (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft as it is WP:TOOSOON as it is still untitled and does not have enough coverage yet. Nearer or after release it can be recreated if it has significant coverage such as reviews or features in reliable sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:21, 8 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 01:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-African Freedom Movement for East and Central Africa[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, the page currently has no references. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is covered in plenty of reliable sources such as Cambridge University Press "Cambridge Core", Jstor, The British National Archives, The Union of International Associations, and here over 1 thousand books on the subject. It is quite evident that the nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. In my opinion, I think the nominator should withdraw this poor nomination and stop wasting everyone's time. I only found out about this nomination when working on related articles. The person who created the article is quite inexperienced going by similar articles they've created - albeit notable. They even resulted to adding sup tags as refs rather than inline because they do not know how to. I've been fixing those using inline citations which in turn led me here when I tried to link another article to this. Please kindly check for references yourself before tagging another article for deletion. Poor nominations lead to a waste of the community's time because we have to stop everything we are doing just to check for references and determine notability etc - something you could have done yourself before nominating. Can someone please close this silly nomination? Tamsier (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've also added reliable sources to the article. Article passes GNG. Tamsier (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to establish notability by means of the internet. We should be slow to remove articles about older organisations which Google may not know much about. Rathfelder (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Goldhar[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has been profiled in Forbes magazine and owns Maccabi Tel Aviv F.C., a team that regularly appears in UEFA competitions. PK T(alk) 16:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a profile in forbes is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not by itself, but a profile in Forbes AND ownership of a well-known sports team/franchise is pretty persuasive. PK T(alk) 19:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SmartCentres, which is notable and owned by the subject (who does not seem to meet our notability criteria). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he passes notability. One of the richest businessmen in Canada. Skirts89 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is significant coverage, including this which credits him for establishing Walmart in Canada, this which is one of many I found associated with a lawsuit, and this one which isn't as in-depth as I like to see but does talk about him in several paragraphs and gives some background on who he is. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed as "no consensus" because of lack of participation. No prejudice against renominating this after a few months. Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Beer Day[edit]

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

I was actually the author of most of this article as it stands and the one who added in most of the sources. "Green Beer Day" as it's listed here isn't about St. Patrick's Day-- it's about a party at Miami University in Ohio which happens every year. Most of the sources are student newspaper sources (which I've seen in previous AFDs be marked as not meeting the GNG) and some sources about the lack of safety with the tradition.

I'm nominating this because it's bothered me for awhile, and I think it'd be better if this was a paragraph in the Miami University article instead of its own thing-- the article title should be redirected to St. Patrick's Day in my opinion. But wanted to bring this to the wider community instead of just going with what my gut says here. Nomader (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miami University or keep. From my cursory search, coverage of the event seemed to be significant, at least in regional, non-student papers and news outlets. While I agree with you that the information is better served in the main Miami article, it appears to meet GNG, in my opinion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgeye Risk Management[edit]

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

Smells of COI, promotion, and a general lack of notability. There are perhaps 2 articles on the company in the refs. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AHBC: To those requesting deletion can I have more feedback as to make it more neutral? Are there any other deficiencies in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewhbc (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references, particularly Bloomberg & Forbes are legitimate and the firm is therefore notable. I'll take a crack at expanding it a bit, I think some of the history section does need some cleanup but deletion is extreme in this case. Markvs88 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those references fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for your opinion, but I disagree. Markvs88 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. In re sources mentioned above, Bloomberg is a non-editorial directory listing, while Forbes is actually Forbes.com/sites which is a "contributor"-submitted area (non-editorial). Neither is suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 11 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. Lourdes 07:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bernardi[edit]

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

Article nominated for deletion because: no indication of importance WP:A9; fails notability test WP:N; no reliable sources WP:RS; violation of "What Wikipedia is Not" WP:PROMO (see talk comments from subject of article). — IshtayaKulah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the rationale offered for deletion doesn't meet muster. (a) WP:A9 is for articles about musical recordings. (b) The notability guideline requires reliable sources over time, which this article has in spades. (c) I'm having a difficult time finding unreliable sources in the article, much less vice-versa. (d) Might it have a promotional tone? Sure, but that's a job for {{tone}}, not AFD. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After sorting through the extensive list of references and finding that more than half of them are unverifiable, are sources that quote Bernardi rather than being about Bernardi, or are publications by or interviews with Bernardi, I think the amount and depth of coverage that still remains in this version is enough to support a pass of WP:GNG. The article still needs significant cleanup (in particular, there are no inline references indicating which claims of the article can be matched up against which sources) but it's not in bad enough shape for WP:TNT to apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete on account of total lack of inline citations. A well put-together text but that on its own cannot justify inclusion. If work is not done, the contested article becomes a case of personal work. -The Gnome (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eppstein's rational provided above. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to weak, unreliable sourcing much of which relies on internal SFSU websites or promotional material. This in turn impairs ability to test for WP:A7. A list of books edited or published is not sufficient for passing notability threshold. In addition, "Career" overly detailed and irrelevant. Also, as noted, no inline references at all. And, what is "Sources Quoting Bernardi"? These should either be integrated into "Career" and "Bibliography" and or inline references. Finally, deletion for WP-PROMOTION: note contributions of 76.126.70.179, which are solely devoted to SFSU Cinema Dept. or Daniel Bernardi, and ditto for 130.212.73.54; also notice original page and comments on talk page giving direct instruction as to how page should be written, i.e. "(see if you can't add a short quote and thus a reference from the introduction to The Birth of Whiteness -- perhaps the one where I say there are no white people, only people that pass as white -- something catchy.)" . Obviously, the "I" is the subject of the article. Egregious violations of WP-PROMOTION, especially in this era of "fake news."

Preceding unsigned comment added by IshtayaKulah (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Duplicate vote: IshtayaKulah (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
IshtayaKulah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Bad-faith nomination; no evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed; no genuine policy-based reason to delete put forth by this "new" user. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Four policy reasons were advanced in nomination (see above). These are discussions, not votes. Also, wise to remember Arguments to make in deletion discussions and especially, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which includes the following: "Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help." Thank you. IshtayaKulah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This obvious sock-puppet SPA has now attempted to vote thrice in the same discussion — it's about time to put a stop to this chicanery. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking off complete input by nominator per WP:DISCUSSAFD (Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion. Nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.). -The Gnome (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal circumstances, I would say the comments could stand as written, with only the bolded votes being stricken, but as this user is an obvious sock, WP:IAR and everything... Joefromrandb (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Duplicate votes should be stricken and, when they are, then leaving up just their reasoning makes no sense; it only confuses matters and makes the closer's work difficult. BTW, I believe WP:IAR should be invoked only in extreme circumstances. (I've never used it in all my years here.) I consider it something of a cop-out, since we have rules a-plenty and they cover practically everything. -The Gnome (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do, and yes, they do; WP:IAR is about breaking those "rules a-plenty". In any case, my point was, that while it's not the way I would have handled it, I have no objection to the action you took. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:41, 9 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. Lourdes 07:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sean M. Morrison[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and résumé-formatted BLP of a person notable only for serving on a county council. As always, this is not a level of government that hands a person an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as a county councillor -- it can sometimes get a person in the door if he can be reliably sourced well enough to demonstrate that he's special, but it's not one that entitles every councillor to post their résumé on here. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:N and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is sourced only to his own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nothing to show this county commissioner is any different than others, so fails WP:NPOL. Lacks the coverage required to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a Google search finds a few items on his political career [[68]] and this [[69]]. He also got a couple of endorsements, which in itself isn't that notable, since usually 50% of election candidates are endorsed: [[70]] [[71]] Some minor controversy here, but not really a reliable source: [[72]] Nothing from his role as CEO of Morrison Security, which would be another avenue to pursue a notability argument. What tilted me to a delete versus a weak delete is that there's little coverage about him winning reelection - if he was notable, there would be more. This was it [[73]] No indepth profiles that could seed biological info for an article. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:07, 11 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. Lourdes 07:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Sims[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a person notable only for serving on a county council. As always, this is a level of government that could get her an article if she could be reliably sourced as a special notability case over and above most other county councillors, but not one that automatically guarantees her an article just because she exists. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 17:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county comissioners are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails to meet either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 18:26, 10 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. Lourdes 07:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Anaya[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only for being elected to a county council. This is not a level of office that constitutes an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is not sourced anywhere near enough to make her a special case: it cites just four sources, of which one is a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article that isn't about her, and another is her bog-standard "candidate positions on the issues" questionnaire that every candidate gets whether they won or lost. Which leaves just two sources that are actually relevant to establishing her notability under WP:GNG, which is not enough sourcing to make a county councillor notable as every county councillor everywhere could always show two sources. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article smacks of presentism. I am also unconvinced that people have done enough research to actually back up the claimed uniqueness of this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 04:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non-notable politician since county commissioners are not notable. Coverage is typical election reporting and doesn't show she meets WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 18:31, 10 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. czar 02:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Piotrowski (organist)[edit]

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

Unremarkable longevity claim. All of the few sources are routine coverage, and give us no meaningful information about the subject. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This poorly sourced article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like his passion was music and he played an instrument since 1905. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. All the sources used in this article are useless. They either no longer work or are totally unreliable. The source used for his date of death says it all:

"Information is posted based on information published on the Internet or information you gave us, but sorry if there is content that is incorrectly entered". So nothing on there can be verified. The only other reference that works appears to be a brief obituary but doesn't tell us when he died. Doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't help establish notability. Not seeing a suitable redirect since his death date can't be verified. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources to suggest this person ever existed. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to admit I am surprised at how many poorly sourced "oldest x" articles we have. Although we have lots and lots of poorly sourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete claimed to be older than the oldest verified man. Nope. Non-notable Hoax. Legacypac (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. This is similar to other recently nominated articles. Rzvas (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ewa Prawicka-Linke[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and GNG. The sources are too weak. They are simply listings of results and a affiliated page. A WP:BEFORE search threw up nothing. This is a very minor sport I don't see any coverage outside of specialised sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ewa is Gold medaillist and European Champion of 2015

The FAI Women's Europeans of 2015 is a Category I (highest level) championship sanctioned by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale --1rhb (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete There are no notability guidelines for hot air balloonists, but she's never been in the world top 10 (a cutoff in many sports) and I'd want to see even more for a fringe sport like hot air ballooning. Even more important is that fact that the coverage of her is in articles reporting results of competitions. I don't see the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:31, 10 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. czar 02:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingmar Bergman's Cinema[edit]

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

Non notable collection of dvds. Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the ‘Ingmar Bergman’s Cinema’ box set is a notable release.

I find it interesting that music releases, particularly box sets and collections, are deemed worthy of entries on Wikipedia, yet film collections, especially those of note such as this one, are still seen as ‘unremarkable’.

This box set is the most comprehensive collection of films by Ingmar Bergman, undoubtedly one of the most important and influential film directors in cinema history. The release celebrates his centenary.

In addition to the films, the set includes hours of supplementary material, and a 248-page book of critical essays on the filmmaker and his work. Again, I believe that a comprehensive set such as this one is worthy of an article on Wikipedia.

I believe the deletion of this article would do nothing other than to highlight the narrow mindedness of those seeking its deletion. Box sets for musical artists are given space on Wikipedia, even if they are nothing more than repackaged albums (for which there are already articles), yet an exhaustive, restored collection of cinematic works collected with a vast amount of additional research materials, is deemed unworthy of an entry.

Although the article requires more work, I think that it has a place on Wikipedia. To remove it would only prove once again that Wikipedia is not only lacking in adequate articles on film and film-related releases, but that it cannot be deemed comprehensive when it comes to matters of the arts. JorgeWalsh1994 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My original instinct was the opposite, being a dyed-in-the-wool deletionist, but it turns out this has been reviewed by The New York Times, Vanity Fair, The Wall Street Journal, and others. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike most of the awful 'studio puts a fancy banner around DVDs they need to clear out at the Family Dollar and calls it the "Revolution Studios Zirconia Series"' collection articles we've had and deleted in the past, this ain't that definition. This isn't non-notable in the least as an authorized Criterion Collection project that probably took years to put together for film collectors to savor and gets plenty of film press notice. Nom would do well to do some more WP:BEFORE about projects like these (and well-known film figures) before heading to AfD in the future. Nate • (chatter) 19:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as does have significant coverage reviews in multiple reliable sources and seems to be of interest because it includes multiple new documentaries on the cast and crew and a new 248 page book of essays, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JorgeWalsh1994, Clarityfiend, Nate and Atlantic306. Indisputably notable collection. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 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. czar 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Humby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was nominated for deletion more than 12 years ago, nothing much has changed since on this page, but the notability criteria hadn't been created way back then. I believe now this article needs attention as it doesnt meet WP:GNG Daiyusha (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appearing in notable productions is not enough, significant roles are needed. The fact he was kept because he had some bit part in Piarates of the Caribbean shows how poor notability thinking was in 2006. There is no reason to keep this article lacking even one reliable source now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The second sentence seems to place undue importance to "guest roles on television series such as The Office, Hex, and The Sopranos"), as these roles appear to have been as "Simon (uncredited)", "Carl (uncredited)" and "Plaza Guest (uncredited)" respectively. His 1995-6 role on Grange Hill could perhaps be added to the table in List of Grange Hill characters, but I am not seeing evidence that the subject meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:14, 9 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. czar 02:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BMDb[edit]

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

This website is not notable enough to justify an article. There are some trivial local news coverage mostly related to it's launch nothing more. There is no indication that this website is well accepted within Bengali speakers, if it was there must have been some coverage in the Bangladeshi reliable media over the years. Website ranked 5,610 locally and 969,154 in the global index per alexa. The only notable mention/use of this website is in Wikipedia itself via Template:BMDb name. In a way, by using this site in Bangladeshi film related articles, we are making it famous. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBSITE. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be any coverage outside the site itself. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Kayser Ahmad (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as perfectly explained by NahidSultan above. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 9 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.

[1] ttps://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/ed-miliband-bacon-british-election/392867/

[1]