Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 December	7 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 speedy keep. Mis-nomination based on a test edit (non-admin closure) ^{[Username Needed]} 11:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Am ... Sasha Fierce[edit]

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

I think this is someone's user page that ended up in the mainspace by accident? I honestly don't know what this page is. Xevus11 (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect Seems to be a template inserted as a test by an IP; it's been reverted (and the IP has been appropriately warned). This can probably be closed at this point. Nate • (chatter) 05:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Chicago Red Eleven season[edit]

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

The USL W-League was not a WP:FPL, so this page fails WP:NSEASONS. None of the listed references are enough to meet WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no significant independent coverage and fails WP:NSEASONS. Sandals1 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't qualify under N or SEASONS per OP Wolfson5 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSEASONS, mostly composed of statistics (and thus should not be included within wikipedia - WP:NOTDIR) or redirect to Chicago Red Eleven --DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicago Red Eleven: WP:NSEASONS appears to discourage stats-only articles like this. --Closeapple (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ProcessPro Software[edit]

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

All the provided sources are in PR/business-churnalism publications. An internet search didn't return anything better. Awards won don't appear to be notable. Does not meet WP:NORG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knud Möller[edit]

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

No sources found, no indication of notability Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not provide source Alex-h (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obituary in Finland's main newspaper [1] (paywall), review of his book in the same newspaper [2] (paywall), radio podcast about him on Finland's national broadcasting company [3], entry about him in National Biography of Finland [4] (paywall). And those are the ones I could find quite easily online, but as he died a long time ago and many magazines don't have freely accessible online archives, there are surely more sources out there. -kyykaarme (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone who has an entry in a dictionary of national biography is likely to be notable, per WP:ANYBIO. (In fact, I find a Swedish version freely available online: [5], which gives as a source The history of the Finnish Broadcasting Company II 1949-1996 (in Finnish).) This article has no references or sources, and was only tagged as unreferenced less than a month ago. Clearly there are resources to be found WP:NPOSSIBLE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found, and entry in National Biography of Finland as presented above. Satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Hzh (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Kyykaarme - now meets notability requirements --DannyS712 (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fish hook theory[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This seems to be insufficiently notable for an article. The sources are few and poor. Two of them are by the same author and one is primary. At least one is not RS. This is nowhere near meeting our requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources. Looking in Google Books, Newspapers and Scholar it seems that this political usage is not even the most widely used meaning the term has. (It mostly seems to refer to something religious, which I did not look at closely as it is very obviously nothing to do with the subject of this article. I have no idea whether that is notable but if it is then it would seem to have a better claim on this article title than this subject.) There is also something called the "Fish Hook Effect" which turns up in searches but that is something to do with meteorology and is no help here. This subject barely pokes its head out of the RS Google hits. There is just enough to provide verifiability that the theory does exist but it seems to be one academic's personal theory with just a few fans. There is nothing wrong with that (And who knows whether it will become more widely accepted in the future?) but it does not qualify for an article at this time. It already has quite sufficient (possibly rather more than sufficient) coverage in the Horseshoe theory article. DanielRigal (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, who I believe has harvested some of his reasons from comments I have made on the talkpage and on Horseshoe theory (Fish hook theory is explicitly a reaction to Horseshoe theory). I should note that the two sources by the same author are actually the same text published in two different (non-academic) venues, so there is even less sourcing than first appearances. Fish hook theory isn't a thing in political science circles at all. The twice-cited text even dismisses it as basically a meme. To clarify the principle I think should apply here: some people have supported deletion of Horseshoe Theory because it is generally not supported in current academic circles, but a key difference is that Horseshoe theory is recognised as an idea in political science enough that academics spend time discussing the evidence for it. Here, there does not appear to be any such notability derivable from academic sources. OsFish (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overall, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia give a leg up to a concept which is not recognized in its field. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are wishful thinking by liberal activists, not reliable secondary sources that use this term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Note that sources on page are opinion pieces on progressive websites: "The Progresssive Army, Pacific Standard. Plus an essay arguing that " ‘Horseshoe theory’ is nonsense" .E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Not "liberal", far-left, I'd say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom statement, and because of failure to find support in the scholarly literature for "fish hook theory".E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 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) 12:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Fries[edit]

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

Singer has received little significant coverage in reliable sources in her own right, and her discography is not nearly as impressive as it appears in the article. Wading through several broken links and retail sites, you will find that she has performed as a "featured" singer in a few tracks by other people, and those few songs have been used in repetitive various-artist compilations and remix albums. I can find no music released under her own name, or media notice of her appearances with others, so her independent notability is suspect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - An Internet search may reveal another person of the same name in the natural healing business. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found that would indicate that the subject gets close to satisfying any criterion of WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to believe that she is notable, article is basically a list of music she has done, thus fails WP:MUSICBIO --DannyS712 (talk) 02:47, 13 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. On second thought, an AfD with nobody but the nominator supporting deletion after 2 weeks isn't going anywhere. Sandstein 20:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Kipawa 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:

This was not a destructive earthquake (no injuries or deaths and superficial damage)

This USGS entry tells part of the story (select the "Impact" section for a description of where this event was felt (felt events aren't notable))

M 4.7 - southern Quebec, Canada – United States Geological Survey Dawnseeker2000 04:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "guideline" Dawnseeker refers to is in fact an WP:ESSAY, NOT a guideline. This is probably a good faith error on Dawnseeker's part, editors do sometimes confuse essays with guidelines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on continuing SIGCOV per NEVENT as opposed to earthquake specific project guidelines. It seems this earthquake received attention at the time, and in a continuing fashion, to its coinciding with the millennium - which seems like arbitrary date silliness, but so are many things (e.g. Friendly Floatees). Thus, one can find:
Bent, Allison L., et al. "The Kipawa, Quebec “Millennium” earthquake." Seismological Research Letters 73.2 (2002): 285-297.

Doughty, M., N. Eyles, and L. Daurio. "Earthquake-triggered slumps (1935 Timiskaming M6. 2) in Lake Kipawa, Western Quebec Seismic Zone, Canada." Sedimentary Geology 228.3-4 (2010): 113-118.

Doughty, Michael, Nick Eyles, and Louise Daurio. "Ongoing Neotectonic Activity in the Timiskaming─ Kipawa Area of Ontario and Québec." Geoscience Canada 37.3 (2010).

Boatwright, J., and T. MacDonald. "The Variation of Brune Stress Drop with Hypocentral Depth for Moderate (3.4<= M<= 5.8) Earthquakes in Northeastern North America." AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2011.

Bent, Allison L., and HK Claire Perry. "Depths of eastern Canadian earthquakes from regional data." Seismological Research Letters 73.2 (2002): 273-284.

Ma, Shutian, and David W. Eaton. "Western Quebec seismic zone (Canada): Clustered, midcrustal seismicity along a Mesozoic hot spot track." Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 112.B6 (2007).

Ma, Shutian, and Dariush Motazedian. "Studies on the June 23, 2010 north Ottawa M W 5.2 earthquake and vicinity seismicity." Journal of Seismology 16.3 (2012): 513-534.

Fereidoni, Azadeh, and Gail M. Atkinson. "Aftershock statistics for earthquakes in the St. Lawrence Valley." Seismological Research Letters 85.5 (2014): 1125-1136.

Ma, Shutian, and Pascal Audet. "The 5.2 magnitude earthquake near Ladysmith, Quebec, 17 May 2013: implications for the seismotectonics of the Ottawa–Bonnechere Graben." Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 51.5 (2014): 439-451.

As well as [6], [7].

Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response – @Icewhiz: What don't these sources talk about? Dawnseeker2000 21:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:, these papers don't discuss substantial effects. This was not a destructive earthquake, but the Canadian scientists leapt at the chance to take a close look at the event nevertheless. Do you want to look at each source individually to see how it could be applied to the article? Dawnseeker2000 00:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Lots of earthquakes have been studied and have dedicated journal articles, but many of them don't qualify as encyclopedia articles, so what do these papers discuss that make this a notable earthquake? Dawnseeker2000 13:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of notable events don't have Wikipedia articles - yet - Wikipedia is a work in progress. I would posit that irrespective of criteria which creates a presumed notability (e.g. the WP:NEARTHQUAKE essay says a magnitude of 7.0 or clearly attributable deaths) - if an event meets WP:GNG due to coverage it is notable. I for instance consider Bottle flipping to be frivolous, yet it qualifies for an article as it is covered by sources. Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: What is the content of the sources that you listed? Said another way, what part of the content implies that this EQ is notable (what are they saying?). That the sources is exist doesn't necessarily mean that the event is encyclopedic. Dawnseeker2000 07:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, nearly any topic with sustained, in-depth coverage in RSes meets GNG - irrespective of non-coverage based assessments of significance. I will note that the NEARTHQUAKE essay suggest thay earthquakes in low sesmic zones may be notable also of they do not reach the specified threshold in the essay.Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because scholarly articles and ONGOING coverage = notability. I checked to see if it still gets into the news cycle, and it does. BayToday.ca, 16 May 2018 Great shakes...looks like we got hit by an earthquake this morning!, but wait, there's more, "According to Wikipedia, a large quake hit this area in 2000, called the Kipawa Quake. It struck with a magnitude of 5.2 at 6:22 a.m. on January 1. It occurred in the Western Quebec Seismic Zone. The main shock epicenter was located in Lake Kipawa about 10 km (6 mi) north of Témiscaming Quebec and 70 km (43 mi) northeast of North Bay. The shaking associated with this earthquake was strongest within 50 km (31 mi) of the epicenter. It was felt in Témiscaming, North Bay and as far away as Toronto, making it one of the most significant earthquakes in Canada in 2000. The earthquake was triggered by major thrust faults associated with the Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben.". I suppose I could argue that we keep articles like this so that journalists can file breaking news stories without breaking a sweat doing a lot of research. Or, we could just accept the fact that folks expect us to have an article on an earthquake in Canada.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IE.M.Gregory: So another way of what you're saying is that for every earthquake that has journal articles we should have a corresponding WP article. Is that what you're saying? Dawnseeker2000 07:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: "Keep because scholarly articles and ONGOING coverage = notability." ~~I made myself pretty clear.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion and I asked for clarification. There's no reason to be short with me about it. Can you please answer my question? Dawnseeker2000 04:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apology and my fuller-length response below. I sometimes forget that even editors who appear prima facie to be old Wikipedia hands, may not, in fact, be familiar with the local mores and customs peculiar to particular aspects of editing, such as AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page references a notable event that occurred somewhere on Earth, and should be sufficient under NEVENT. I dont believe that a natural event requires casualties to gain notability. WillPeppers (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If editors in the geological field have developed a standard where people have to be killed/injured in a geological event, rather than just receive significant coverage in journals (which this obviously did have per the above editors), then that's a dumb standard - but I doubt they have. The standard is WP:GNG, we don't decide what's notable based on what we think is notable, we let reliable, independent sources determine that for us. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will respond to these comments[edit]

Off-wiki activities keeping me preoccupied lately. Please do not close discussion yet. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 00:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnseeker, ~~While it is true that this earthquake does not meet project-specific guidelines,~~ it is also true that we keep articles that fail project-specific guidelines all the time, mostly because discussion of some topics in media, books, film does occur for reasons outside the project-specific guidelines. In this case, what editors above are arguing is that because this earthquake is discussed in the sources mentioned above, and in others such as Small quake hits Kipawa area: Few feel rumbles that register 3.3: (Cramer, Brandi. North Bay Nugget; North Bay, Ont. [North Bay, Ont26 Oct 2005: A2.) "In January 2000, the same region was hit by an earthquake registering 5.2."], that seem to crop up every time an earthquake, however minor, hits this region, the cumulative coverage and user-friendliness of this article makes it a keep. Despite the fact that as earthquakes go, this one was no great shakes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still formulating the response. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 19:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) is an WP:ESSAY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite - it is an essay, not policy. FOARP (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

What I'm seeing with this AfD are that inexperienced editors are making statements about this situation. I can say that with confidence because the responses to their statements have included questions that have gone unanswered. The opposition to the deletion have not yet made arguments for keeping the article. None of them has experience in the earthquake article space (if I've overlooked or missed your significant contributions for some reason please post links to earthquake articles). My thinking is this: How is one supposed to decide whether an earthquake is notable or not if they've never worked on an earthquake article? This AfD is about the maintenance of a WikiProject's articles.

An argument against deletion is an argument for keeping and many arguments against deletion, based on policy, have been made. Specifically that this article meets WP:SIGCOV based on the coverage in journals and elsewhere and is not WP:MILL due to unusual timing/location of the quake. FOARP (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources[edit]

That scientists have an interest in a particular event and our decision to create an encyclopedia article on it do not always coincide. In other words, scientific interest and encyclopedic notability on WP aren't always the same thing. Or this question could be posed: that there are scientific papers show that the event was worthy of study in their eyes, but how and why does that also mean that it is (by default) notable in ours? This is the question that needs to be answered.

There's way more nuance about writing earthquake articles than most editors realize. That scientists are writing about earthquakes can sometimes bolster an article's potential here on WP, but the event needs to have notable aspect. Damage and/or deaths is one of the simplest ways that editors can determine notability (does the event have lasting impact?). But there are other aspects that can also be looked at in situations (like this one) that lack those obvious factors. So, what are they? That the EQ happened is not enough for an encyclopedia article. We are not an earthquake catalog that lists miscellaneous events. That would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

The question[edit]

So that is the question. What are the sources (that Icewhiz posted) saying that makes this a notable event? That this question has not been answered yet is because the involved editors are out of their comfort zone. E.M.Gregory was short with me for this very reason.

To summarize the question once more: It is the content of the sources that we're needing to look at. Said another way: there are many instances of journal articles about earthquakes for which we would not create an encyclopedia article. Dawnseeker2000 03:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: can you please supply the content of the sources so the community and closing admin can see what aspect of this event is notable? Or better yet, I guess Icewhiz should do us the favor, since he supplied the references. Thank you! Dawnseeker2000 08:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling us "inexperienced" (I've been on here 10+ years) is not a replacement for having an argument. Scientific journals on the topic of geology are RS for this subject matter. This earthquake received significant and sustained coverage in them. WP:SIGCOV is clearly met. The notability of this earthquake has already been discussed (timing of the quake, unusual location) so it is not WP:MILL. FOARP (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Let me state that comment again, as I see it was misinterpreted. I see some inexperienced editors in the earthquake article space. There, a few words makes all the difference in the world, doesn't it? Tell me precisely FOARP, what is it exactly about the timing? I'm not sure what that entails and haven't yet written an EQ article about an earthquake with notable timing. Also, the location? What is it about the location that makes this one notable. Alison Bent and colleagues state that the shock "lies in a cluster of 76 earthquakes located since 1935". Please expand on your statement. Dawnseeker2000 13:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timing: it was at the turn of the Millenium (hence it being called the "millenium earthquake" in the literature). Location: Earthquakes in this location are infrequent enough that one coinciding with the millenium is remarkable.

BTW - you do understand that this is an AfD discussion, right? Posting an AfD explicitly invites comments from other editors, editors who need not be (and ideally aren't) related to the subject matter. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by people other than Dawnseeker2000.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 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) 13:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Haircrow[edit]

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

Advertorially-tinged WP:BLP of a writer, whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. Out of 28 references here, not a single one represents reliable source coverage about him -- every single footnote is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, a piece of his own bylined writing about other things, a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something other than him, a WordPress, Blogspot or LiveJournal blog, or a primary source. And even the literary awards he's won are not major ones that constitute a WP:AUTHOR pass -- they're minor ones that can be sourced only to their own self-published websites. But the question of whether an award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it hinges not on verification that the award exists, but on media caring enough about it to report its winners as news. Writers, as always, are not automatically notable just because their own writings and other primary sources provide technical verification that they exist -- the notability test for a writer is not the degree to which he has been the creator of content about other things, but the degree to which he has been the subject of journalism about him created by other people, and not a single source here offers any such thing. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was "Contributingauthor" and the overwhelming majority of their entire Wikipedia edit history has been to this article itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly self-promotional. User:Contributingauthor created this article, added to it in subsequent years, and that is pretty much the extent of her/his involvement with Wikipedia. Contributingauthor might be a publicist, if not be the author himself, but has a blatant conflict of interest. Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

- Delete conflict of interest is pretty obvious. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that an article so clearly about a non-notable individual has existed for 6 years is a sad commentary on control here at Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 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) 13:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahan Dosova[edit]

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

Non-notable longevity claim. This got a very short spate of attention, and we learn from the article that she took traditional medicine, she had kids, she liked certain kinds of food, and she died. This is best handled on the Longevity claims article in a list. WP:NOPAGE The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. Her age claim is so outlandish that she scammed some news coverage, but she doesn't even qualify to be listed in Longevity claims. Her claimed age is just that ridiculous. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed in an encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unsubstantiated longevity claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:56, 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) 13:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slava Ivančević[edit]

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

A longevity claim with almost no substance. Basically all the sources say she lived and died, and have no material about her life in any way. This is best handled on the Longevity claims page in a list. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOPAGE applies here. Also, this is a fantasticly improbable claim since even the one person thought to beat er alleged age may have been a fraud [8] Legacypac (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and the article contains little beyond longevity fancruft like her secret to longevity. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. I also agree with Legacypac that greater discretion needs to be used with fantastically improbable age claims like this, and that the Calment fraud allegations mean we ought to rethink even harder including such articles. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:11, 8 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) 16:43, 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) 13:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Charnow[edit]

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

Biography of a person whose claim of notability as a moderator and creator of early computer bulletin board forums is not reliably sourced. Two of the four footnotes here definitively fail to mention his name at all, serving only to tangentially verify stray facts about the forums, while a third wants me to pay $51 for the privilege of reading it to verify whether it actually addresses him as a person or not. And the only other source here is a short biographical blurb in the finding aid to an archival collection of printouts of posts to the forum he organized, which means even that collection isn't really about him to any non-trivial degree either. These sources would quite honestly be stronger support for WP:CORP articles about the bulletin boards than they are for a biographical article about him as a person. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of sources or links which establish notability. JC7V (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I'm not 100% sure on the fomratting of how to post this comment/vote & so I appreciate your patience. I've been doing work in the ONE archives, which holds the finding aid you reference. The collections there are are about him -- to a substantial degree. In additional to biographical information about Charnow, there are printouts from the BBS which include: stories about his diagnosis, the people he helped as an AIDS activist, and interviews he conducted with doctors and physicians which he made available on the BBS. The BBS was one of the first of its kind to spread awareness about AIDS and seems to be the only one archived with primary source material. If you request the information from the archives, it's readily available. What would be the best protocol here? Surely his work is notable, if sticky to acquire. This seems to be the case with underground early internet movements, and is compounded by the urgency of the AIDS crisis. I have photographs and scans from his work in the archives which I can make available here. The protocol for original research made this murky. Kbbrewster (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His ability to qualify for a Wikipedia article will depend on the extent to which you can show that he (not just the BBS, but him as a person) has been the subject of coverage in media. It can't be supported by his own personal papers, or by the ability to verify stray facts about the BBS — people have to have done journalism about him before he's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. These aren't all completely worthless sources, but like I said they make a more compelling case for an article about the BBS itself, in which he could certainly have his name mentioned, than they do for a biography of him as an individual. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the references, the Backroom BBS might be notable, but this person is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notority. Sources provided are not very solid SaraLiX5 (talk) 22:58, 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. Consensus is to Keep here, even the Weak Delete !vote said the article is well sourced. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Smith[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Ms Smith is notable for only one event, is an otherwise low profile individual, and even the event itself isn't that significant. Merge with main Tsunami article if preferred, but it certainly doesn't warrant an individual article about her. FirefoxLSD (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quoting BLPIE, "John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Saving the lives of 100 people in a tsunami is significant in itself. Furthermore Tilly Smith continues to be presented as a role model by, for example the United Nations (2011) and a book published by OUP (2009). Her role was significant not only for the event itself but by the inspiration it later gave others.[9][10][11] Notable both for news coverage of her role at the time and for much later use of her story to inspire others. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have added more sources to the article, as well as moving 'Sources' to inline citations. Smith's story has been told in books and articles published in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, and 2018 - at least. It is used to teach about types of natural disasters, disaster preparedness, and to advocate for the importance of teaching geography. She shows no signs of being forgotten 14 years after the disaster - her role at the time was significant for the 100 or so people saved, and she has since become a role model for education about disasters. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There isn't any doubt that the account is well sourced, but nevertheless this doesn't seem to be particularly notable, more than a decade after the event. Those sources don't add anything new to the account - they just retell the same event again and again. Even at the time, I recall that it was debated whether she actually saved 100 people, as opposed to giving the warning to a few, resulting in the evacuation. Firefox's claim that she isn't notable at all seems a little outlandish, but equally her notability was very much something of the time. Since then she has fallen into obscurity, and the newer news articles don't add anything. In two of the three sources Houseofchange lists, she is given a cursory mention: not enough to warrant notability.TeddyBiffles (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @TeddyBiffles:: Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Per WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The United Nations and Oxford University Press are independent and reliable sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Has anyone checked for Thai language sources on the subject? That may be relevant to this AfD. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I might be persuaded to redirect or merge to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, neither of which involves AFD. I'm very unpersuaded by the thought that "the event itself isn't that significant" whether the event was the tsunami itself or Smith's taking action that may have saved a hundred lives. Without this the BLP1E conditions for deletion do not seem to be met. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And if you check out 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, check out the link to our article on John Chroston, whose article has never been AfDed because why would you AfD an article about a hero who has a lot of news stories about him? Yes, OTHERSTUFF exists, but ask yourself if it has been worth Wikipedia's time and effort to mount three separate debates about Tilly Smith? This is the kind of discrepancy that gives us a bad reputation. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure she is mentioned at the Science Museum which covers earthquakes and tsunamis. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, but I don't believe the argument for deletion is convincing. Capt. Milokan (talk) 13:47, 13 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) 13:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline in the period of the Slavic migrations[edit]

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

Per previous speedy deletion and PROD requests: "Slavic migrations" as a distinct historical period is WP:OR; most of the dates mentioned have nothing to do with any Slavic migrations; the topic is already dealt with far better at Early Slavs and related articles; and the page was created by veteran sockmaster with a rather long history of pushing fringe POVs on early Slavic history and the very dubious-quality History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations as a source, so WP:DENY applies. Constantine ✍ 15:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless as it stands. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 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) 13:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignasi Puig Claret[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources, does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Several articles mere-mention the subject, and a few quote him, but there doesn't appear to be enough information about Ignasi Puig Claret himself to justify an article–the article as written currently reflects this, as essentially all of the content is about the company the subject founded, SCPF. The only source that appears to provide in-depth coverage of the subject ([12]) does not appear to be a reliable source. I was not able to find additional sources online in English, Spanish, or Catalan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. I was going to nominate it myself, but now I am double sure, or even double secret sure. scope_creep (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article is a translation of its version in Spanish, today I added more information in the article in Spanish, I know I can not edit here directly because my COI, so I ask you if you can add the following information, I hope it is useful:

In 2018 the advertising agency J. Walter Thompson convened him as CEO of the agency MiNY.^[1]^[2]

I was out and did not know that the article had been approved and postulated for deletion on the same day. Puig Claret is one of the most important publicists in Spain, I think the biggest coverage that a publicist can have will be in publications of the advertising industry. Thank you!--Ciprinido75 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ciprinido75 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

References

^ "J. Walter Thompson Has Launched MiNY, An All-Inclusive Marketing Firm, To Enhance The Agency's Capabilities - J. Walter Thompson New York". www.jwt.com. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
^ "Uno de los fundadores de *S,C,P,F... dirigirá una boutique creativa de JWT en Nueva York". Dircomfidencial (in European Spanish). 2018-10-15. Retrieved 2018-11-28.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator's assessment. Both the publications in Spanish and the English advertisingcrossing.com source do not establish or suggest notability. AGK ■ 22:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have commented elsewhere on the number of articles being moved into mainspace and nominated for AfD on the same day - it seems unfortunate, and going against WP:BITE. Here, as 9 of the 15 references have the company name, SCPF, in the headline, it seems possible, as the nominator suggests, that it is the company which is notable (although I think there are different criteria for companies ....), and it might be better to frame the article around the company, with a mini bio of this person (and the others, S, C and F, or whatever). Would it be possible to create that article and redirect this person to that article? or merge? RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:21, 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) 13:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anushriya Gulati[edit]

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

Promotional and not notable. Only mentioned as part of a group of female Harley riders in India. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the first in a country to ride a particular make of motorcycle a given length is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the coverage appears to have been all paid by Harley Davidson PR agency e.g. [13]. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability Spiderone 08:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cover a group of people, not her, therefore they are only passing mentions. The lack of significant in-depth coverage on the person means that she fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 16:21, 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 per author request. Hut 8.5 21:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of spouses of current US Senators[edit]

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

Really not sure what this is for, and will need far too much work what what is (in effect) just a list of largely unnotable people. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The spouses are mostly non-notable and each current and former senator's spouse(s) are listed in the articles about them. Circumspect (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete per G7 as author has requested deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relation does not equal notability. Skirts89 (talk) 20:51, 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. Sandstein 10:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adora BatBrat[edit]

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

Original contributor objected to PROD. Current references do not establish notability, almost all primary sources. Fails to have in-line citations required for BLP. Overly promotional. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been given access to this id, but I am not the original author. I am trying to resolve the issues and improve the article in general. Ms. Batbrat's FaceBook pages have over half a million followers. Is this fact relevant for the notability discussion? I'm very new to this. Thanks for your patience. Wampyrie 08:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie (talk • contribs)

Having dealt with the orphan and photo issues, I'm focusing my attention on the notability issue, specifically the problem that most sources are primary. I'm googling Ms BatBrat and looking for unrelated sources of information for her. Can you suggest any other tactics I might try to accomplish this? Thanks. Wampyrie 08:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie (talk • contribs)

Comment – Yes, I did a Google search, too, as suggested by WP:BEFORE. I was three pages in and had not found anything that looked like a notability reference. I'm afraid the population of Facebook followers or YouTube subscribers is not, all by itself, useful in determining notability. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good one to add to WP:AADD to me ^{[Username Needed]} 11:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per WP:GNG, per sources which do indicate notability within the platform its posted on. If that is notable overall is another matter. But for me Keeping the article for now seems reasonable.BabbaQ (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is not a single reliable source that's independent of the subject and discusses Adora BatBrat. Interviews are not enough to establish notability and support an article about her. I believe Wampyrie has been looking for better sources; apparently nothing has yet been found. Huon (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed the offending photos from the article a couple of days ago. Can you point me to where I can find how to establish notability? I would have thought multiple interviews, while not establishing notability on their own, would at least be considered in the overall picture. thanks for your help. remember, I'm learning as we go. like how to sign Wampyrie 19:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of sufficient notability is enough for deletion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:13, 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. !voters post the relist mostly seem to agree with Zahne and Orthodox Church's position of his (along with enough coverage to go along with WP:GNG). If anyone wants a merge, free to discuss on talk page of the article itself.(non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Wen[edit]

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

This article has almost no sources and not even a serious claim to notability. He was an old clergyman, and... yeah, that's it. WP:NOPAGE, and nowhere to redirect it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOPAGE, and most importantly WP:MEMORIAL. This WP:PERMASTUB article serves no purpose other then to memorialize this random old clergyman and has no place in this encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Rector of the Shanghai Orthodox Cathedral, he was one of the highest ranking Chinese persons in the Orthodox Church (see obituary), and he also happened to be the oldest Orthodox priest in history. -Zanhe (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the linked page is a much better place to memorialize the man. Agree with Newshunter. Legacypac (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has reliable sources coverage and is notable as a high ranking chinese clergyman in the Orthodox church as well as his age Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3 articles is hardly sustained coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree per Zanhe, Notable as a high ranking chinese clergyman. 74.50.209.241 (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC) — 74.50.209.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Zahne; he was the founder of the Shanghai China Orthodox Association; also sources exist most likely for him in Chinese or in offline or archived sources. JC7V (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. Sources have to actually exist. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Blade of the Northern Lights, My vote is only partly based on WP:NEXIST in that there may be significant coverage of Elias Wen in reliable sources from the early to mid 20th century and from Chinese media. Someone who did what he did would surely be covered more decades ago than in the last decade (save for obituary articles). My vote, however is mostly based on the fact that he was one of the highest ranking Chinese people in the Orthodox Church and the oldest orthodox priest in history which is a pretty big claim of significance and the sources provided in the article seem fine enough. I am willing to change my vote if my searches don't turn up any trace of WP:NEXIST. JC7V (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been added, and as someone of such a significant position in the Church he should qualify on notability ground. Hzh (talk) 15:37, 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) 13:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kumesh Aroomoogan[edit]

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

Unremarkable entrepreneur, who does not meet WP:BIO. Sourcing is in passing. Article is in odor of WP:SPIP. The creator has very few contributions in wiki outside of this topic. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. 1l2l3k (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 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. And SALT... Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edris Matu Segawa[edit]

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

Purely promotional article about a kick start campaigner with no notability. The same user has created the same article 3 times. The last 2 it was speedily deleted. No idea why it wasn't again. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy delete because there is a claim to significance in the development and writing of a TV show that has a wikipedia article. The article is not so overly promotional that it would take more than just a little editing. ~ GB fan 11:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello people, Thanks for the help and support. I made a few changes here and there and i was kindly inquiring what else should be changed so as for my article not to be deleted. Thanks once again. ArthurKwikiriza (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also recommend salting as this is the third deletion. References mention subject in passing - or not at all. Does not meet notability criteria under WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, and above all WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG for lack of significant awards, contributions and coverage from reliable secondary sources. WP:CREATIVE is not met as well considering he did not create or co-create notable things, he either wrote or directed for them. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:44, 13 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) 13:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian Flamenco[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate notability Mccapra (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV for this, so deletion it is unless someone can find something to support notability. FOARP (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:40, 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) 13:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia at major beauty pageants[edit]

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

Unsourced and basically empty of content. Do we really need a placeholder for when Cambodia eventually wins some international beauty thingummy? Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no source indicating notability here and as such this should be deleted. FOARP (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content is not valuable for an encyclopedia. Of course it has notability as a topic but it should not be treated in this way. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:17, 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. Sandstein 10:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Lincoln Beckwith[edit]

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

This poor fellow got the Scarlet Letter of a Wikipedia BLP for being the illegitimate child of the wife of Abraham Lincoln's great-great grandson.

There are WP:RS, however, with two exceptions they simply mention this guy's existence in relation to the paternity lawsuit his mother launched when he was an infant. The two exceptions are articles which basically report on the subject politely saying "no comment" when being hounded by reporters for quotes followed by, what appears to be, simply a regurgitation of this very WP entry.

On the basis of both WP:BLP1E and WP:INHERITED I think we should dispense with this article. Chetsford (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Beckwith does not appear to be poor, either financially (with a large settlement gained near adulthood) or because he has a WP article. There's no sourced mention of 'hounding', just that he doesn't grant interviews and said "let's let the past be the past." History is what happened; we may not like what happened, but that's not a justification for covering it up. Let it be. For the subject's supposed insignificance, the article has been receiving on average over 200 views per day. If deletion is decided, I suggest that content be merged with his mother's former husband's article. —ADavidB 14:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If deletion is decided, I suggest that content be merged" In principal I have no issue with this, however, all that content is currently in his mother's article. In fact, with the exception of the last two sentences - establishing that he's a lawyer and doesn't give interviews - this is basically a duplication of his mother's article. Chetsford (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is his mother's article? —ADavidB 19:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo, I meant his mother's former husband's article. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that all the info is there. The article about his birth certificate father, Robert, also does not include: his birthplace, which court ordered the blood test, educa to tion information, how his mother came to meet Robert, any info about the financial settlement given, or any info on where he or his mother went. The sources for much of this include the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and USA Today. —ADavidB 01:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. The New Yorker article and the Palm Beach Post article represent signficant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. WP:BLP1E refers to events and is not relevant here, the subject is notable for one reason, not for one event. WP:INHERITED is also not releveant as it is about notability being inherited when the subject does not otherwise satisfy notability guidelines.--Pontificalibus 10:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without the claim that the subject is a descendant of Abraham Lincoln there would have been no Wikipedia article. The article rides on WP:INHERITED tails. -The Gnome (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any real notability here. It's all about Abe. Perhaps a brief mention in the article on Abraham Lincoln on how his line has died out would be appropriate and this person could be mentioned as a claimant, but I don't see anything else worth saving here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham, of whom you write the article is 'all about', is only mentioned once. As noted above, the information is reliably sourced to prominent newspapers. —ADavidB 20:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that th article is all about AL. But the only reason anybody is interested in this person at all is because of Abe. Whatever (if anything) there is to say about him can go into the article on Abraham Lincoln. --Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:INHERITED obviously applies here. As far as I can tell, the subject has done nothing of note other than being the distant descendant of somebody famous. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and our merciful disposition. The contested article is about a living person who once had a single claim to fame, on account of supposedly being related to someone historically famous. Then, even that claim collapsed. All that remains is a claim to Wikipedian space. -The Gnome (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Frank Evans[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; received very little RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 18:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant see anything in the article that makes him noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Borderline one, this, but the disaster has been written about so often that I think one of the crew in charge of a lifeboat is probably just notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, no evidence of any notability apart from his presence on the ship, and in fact no evidence of any notability for that either. Not one independent reliable source in our article, which is unacceptably close-paraphrased from www.encyclopedia-titanica.org (which in its turn is user-submitted content and not a WP:RS). Necrothesp, if you have identified sources that demonstrate his notability, it might be helpful to list them, either here or in the article. I could find none. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:17, 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. Sandstein 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Ladki Badnaam Si[edit]

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

Unsourced unreleased film. Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 08:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an old unreleased film would have to be unusually notable for inclusion which does not seem to be the case here Atlantic306 (talk) 15:26, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 09:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Time (TV series)[edit]

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

The show fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, and thus WP:TVSERIES because the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. In my BEFORE search, I only found an announcement of the show https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/natl-geo-serving-hard-time-77309 which is not SIGCOV nor proves it's notability. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, didn't get your earlier ping for some reason. I'm not saying passing WP:TVSERIES means they are definitely notable but that they are very likely to be. The average life of a webpage is only 100 days so I have a lot less faith in google than others seem to, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Weird about the ping thing, I probably did not tag it well. I get your side there because there may have been sources but there are not now. Sadly we have to work with what we have to I guess. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I got that one, have noticed other editors saying google is getting worse which is a problem for us all, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 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 05:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using this as an episode guide. Not sure what in hell that has to do with encyclopedias, but it's a widespread practice these days. 63.155.51.223 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:31, 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 no consensus. Opinion is split. Also, the article was substantially edited during the AfD, and comments later in the discussion (after the improvements) seem to be more favorable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Bashow[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The only stated notability claim here is that he and his work exist, and the sources are an online bookstore, his author profile on the self-published website of his own publishing company, and a single news article in which he isn't the subject, but merely gets glancingly namechecked as a giver of soundbite in an article about somebody else -- none of which are notability-supporting sources. As always, every writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because his books technically metaverify their own existence -- he has to be the subject of media coverage, not just have his books available on Amazon or Abebooks, to be considered notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how he meets WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR.......PK T(alk) 15:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Author's comment: there are now 2 examples of his being more than "just a ...." Pi314m (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I don't see how he passes GNG or NAUTHOR. Fails most NPROF, and the only question is NPROF(8) - but I would argue Canadian Military Journal is not a "major, well-established academic journal". Article itself seems to mainly consist of his version of the Red Baron shootdown debate. Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Military Journal is definitely a notable and quite important publication since it is the official journal of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Department of National Defence. Even if it were printed on fig leaves it would be notable and important. But it is not an academic journal and does not claim to be one. -The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - author of a series of books, they appear to be respectable books on focal topics of military history. What I am not seeing when I search is that his work is widely cited, or that he has been profiled as a soldier or as a writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC) sourcing page now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY Keep more than enough book reviews to pass WP:AUTHOR, in addition to extensive, INDEPTH coverage by the Canadian press of his engagements with other military historians.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know all coverage of subjects in sources must be "in depth" but isn't WP:INDEPTH specifically about events and not persons? -The Gnome (talk)

Leaning towards delete. The article as it stands seems to be promoting the book, in some cases using sources that don't even mention it. Clever, but somewhat disingenuous. Deb (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this comment, I took a closer look and removed a section about the who-downed-the-Red-Baron debate with soruces tah didn't mentioned Bashow or his book, just the debate, covered at Manfred von Richthofen. The page may indeed have begun as PROMO. It is entirely possible that most of our bio pages do. but we keep the notable ones. Note that this man has had muliiple books reviewed in scholarly journals and general circulation newspapers, that his books are cited (not high numbers of citations, but cited) by scholars; that his books are discussed and debated in general circulation newspapers, and that there had been at least one newspaper profile of him - when a rewrite/update of a 20 year old book was published. this is the sort of coverage that passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has published enough book reviews to pass WP:AUTHOR. I do consider the Canadian Military Journal to be a major, well-established academic journal. Has received some widespread coverage over the Red Baron controversy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is not an academic one. But it is the official, professional journal of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Department of National Defence. As such, its notability and importance cannot be doubted. -The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:24, 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 and redirect to AKD Group. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AKD Securities[edit]

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

Promotional article. Fails WP:NCORP. Any useful content could be merged into AKD Group. Edwardx (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enough siginfance despite the G11 worthy promotion, or could merge them into more encyclopedic tone at least by then. Sheldybett (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete noy enough significant independent coverage.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertorial for a non-notable company created by blocked sockpuppeteer. Gotitbro (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG HighKing⁺⁺ 19:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AKD Group. Apparently AKD Group is one of the largest conglomerates in Pakistan (sourcing in said article), but I do not believe that there should be a separate article on this. The terms are used often interchangeably in the sources. (Full disclosure: I blocked said sockuppeteer and cleaned the copy-paste from this article in 2014.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 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. Sandstein 09:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Lee[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; subject has received very little RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 18:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article that makes him noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certainly other sources besides the few included in the article. Lee's role and the evidence he gave at the enquiry is reprised in the 2012 play Titanic: Scenes from the British Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry, 1912[14] and [15], and discussed in several books, eg Titanic: A Very Deceiving Night[16], The Titanic Story: Hard Choices, Dangerous Decisions[17]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:43, 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 03:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Borderline one, this, but the disaster has been written about so often that I think one of the lookouts on duty at the time is just about notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being one of the lookouts who saw the iceberg seems like a notable feat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:E80A:969:6AC3:C51A (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 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. Sandstein 10:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordyn Taylor[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NMODEL or WP:NMUSIC. References are not third party independent reliable sources, and the only real mentions I can find are about being Trevor Noah's girlfriend. LovelyLillith (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment.~~ Weak delete. Reasons to keep. She was signed to Interscope Records (2008-2010), a major label, which passes #5 in WP:NMUSIC. A lot of what is stated in the article is true, verifiable in many social media posts, but... Reasons to delete No reliable coverage from news sources, other than ones that talk about her relationship with Trevor Noah.

I think that it is definitely a possibility there are news articles about her fame on MySpace or her signing on Interscope, but I really can't find any, maybe someone else will find some. Awsomaw (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, #5 of WP:NMUSIC says if they released 2 albums on a major label. I will change to weak delete.Awsomaw (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think this is on the border of notability. If the article was improved (currently too promotional) I think it could pass WP:NMODEL. Skirts89 (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Though there seems a weak consensus that NMUSIC isn't satisfied, NMODEL remains disputed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spamvanicruft. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails all crtierias of WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG, and WP:NMODEL. She does not have a cult following or had unique contributions to modeling, she did not get a significant coverage from multiple reliable sources (interviews and blogs do not fall there). Not notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject should pass WP:NMODEL as a model, or WP:NMUSICIAN as a singer-songwriter, or at least WP:GNG as a real-estate agent. But doesn't. -The Gnome (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Machan (unreleased film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF, considering that its lack of distribution does not seem notable. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all relevant criteria; a case of WP:TOOSOON Spiderone 08:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant find reliable source that notes its release. possibly a shelved project. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:38, 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. Sandstein 09:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2000s CTV prime time schedules[edit]

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

A list of programming right down to the half hour time slot of a single TV station. Unsourced (since 2007) and fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE ... no evidence of notability nor any significance or importance that fits into an encyclopedia. Creator of the article has been blocked since 2007. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it links to this article and the only target remaining (that isn't a red link) redirects somewhere else and has already been dealt with:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to the better sourced series of Lists of Canadian network television schedules, and more neutral as it involves all the nation's networks rather than the recollections of an editor blocked a decade ago for COPYVIO issues. Also effectively abandoned for four years. Nate • (chatter) 05:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate; I've remained neutral on the national per-year TV guide AfDs, but this one should definitely be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have traditionally permitted schedule grid articles to exist at the level of country, so that all of the major networks were reflected, but have not given individual television networks their own dedicated grids. None of the American networks have one of these, none of the British networks have one of these, no other Canadian network besides CTV has one of these, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 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. Sandstein 09:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Paterson (producer)[edit]

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

Résumé-esque and completely unsourced article about a television producer. As always, this role does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every television producer who exists -- she needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about her to get over WP:GNG, but apart from the external link to the self-published website of a show she's directly affiliated with this article has been completely unreferenced since the day it was created in 2007. It's also a probable conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username ("Sp9wd") to the subject's name and the name of the show she produce(s/d). Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything like the required level of independent reliable sources required for GNG or NSUBJECT. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 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 05:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, a gsearch brings up a number of mentions/listings, eg. "Women behind TV: The A List", "Life is not so unkind for Kamahl", but nothing that really focuses on Paterson. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 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 keep. Sandstein 09:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/e/ mobile operating system[edit]

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

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

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

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

No evidence that this is notable yet. Still in beta. Fram (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom's reasons. SJK (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article on /e/ exists on wikipedia in German with similar references at ^[1]Manoj Nair (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also agree with nom's reasons for deletion. In regards to Manoj Nair, having a page already posted on an international Wikipedia page does not necessarily prove notability. WillPeppers (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability mentioned in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LineageOS as derivative work (fork). Creator being recognized veteran in open source community as creator of Mandriva Linux - both already on Wikipedia. Edit: as per comments from Ian.thomson and Elmidae below, professionally-published mainstream journalistic references shall be added to article to better qualify notability. Following selected original articles covering /e/ in an independently are probably good candidates:
Now Is the Time to Start Planning for the Post-Android World by Glyn Moody in Linux Journal
Is /e/ good or bad for mobility? by Jack Wallen in TechRepublic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick lp (talk • contribs)
Keep. I disagree with the delete arguments above: notability is real: just search for "e mobile os eelo" (with former name) and you can see the number of press articles released in many different countries and different languages. In this regard there is a press review about the project at: ^[2]. Additionnally "beta" is not an argument for deletion. Many projects remain in beta for years and that is not related with their notability. Indidea (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)— Indidea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. /e/ is a notable os as various forums and community groups have covered it. Number of articles have been published by different sites on internet. Just being in beta doesn't mean it's not notable. Amitkma (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)— Amitkma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Keep this page. /e/ is a game changer Operating System, an open-source option for privacy. It is a notable fork of LineageOS, with a solid community. Olivierd13 (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)— Olivierd13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. /e/ is not yet a major mobile OS but its current developments have been widely covered by many publications in (at least) English and French sites and papers worldwide. FranckLefevre (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)— FranckLefevre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. the OS has some coverage on youtube with users posting screen recordings demonstrating notability, ^[3] AlexduCens (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)— AlexduCens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note @Patrick lp, Indidea, Amitkma, Olivierd13, FranckLefevre, and Alexletroll: Notability is established by citing professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but not dependent upon nor affiliated with it. Being mentioned as a derivative work of a notable subject does not qualify it for notability because they are not specifically about this subject. Press releases are useless because they're not independent. Forums and Youtube videos are useless because anyone can start those up. Saying that there are papers out there doesn't do any good if they're not cited. These reasons are why your keep !votes (this process is not actually about the number of votes) are going to be ignored when the consensus is determined. If you want to really establish a consensus of "keep," you will need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about /e/ but not dependent upon nor affiliated with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With ref to the above Note comment from Ian.thomson I would like to mention that references to /e/ or eelo as it was know earlier are there in the following newspapers. Indian Express ^[4] LiveMint^[5] The Deccan Chronicle ^[6] The register of UK^[7]The Irish times^[8] These references are all provided in the article. Manoj Nair (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki//e/
^ https://community.e.foundation/c/e-foundation-community/e-in-the-news-blogs
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxNATcYoDa0
^ https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/eelo-new-privacy-enabled-smartphone-os-will-have-no-google-inside-5007509/
^ https://www.livemint.com/Technology/KMKuwDabJhVOIH4wDe0wUI/Eelos-crowdfunding-success-shows-how-important-data-privacy.html
^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/mobiles-and-tabs/261217/meet-eelo-an-android-based-os-with-no-google-apps.html
^ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/15/meet_the_man_building_a_googlefree_android/
^ https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/de-google-your-life-it-s-worth-the-hassle-if-you-value-your-privacy-1.2211355

Comment Someone should report this for sockpuppeting, all these Keep recently created accounts only showing up here. I feel Manoj Nair doing this and should be noted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ian.thomson: Pinging to see my comment above. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:18, 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 04:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is based on third party attention paid to the topic. /e/ has that, and it's already cited here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The meatpuppeting here is obvious and annoying, but there's no point in having a suitable article topic suffer for the morals of its proponents. What with the additional sources that cover the OS under the previous name of eelo, sufficient coverage appears to have been shown. Note that ref bombing has not actually improved the article much but made it look somewhat desperate - please be selective. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is a case of TOOSOON. It is not notable yet. Once it's released and gets external coverage, it should be reconsidered. My suspicion from the above comments is this article was meatpuppeted. Skirts89 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is obvious even if the project is only one year old. I disagree with Skirts89 for two reasons: there is already a long track record of international press coverage for this project, and it has already been released in September: installable ROM for 49 different devices and specific online services including online drive, mail, meta-search engine etc. And being released as beta doesn't qualify for TOOSOON. Caliwing (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)— Caliwing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep the notability is obvious if you look on google or yahoo yo will see its notability Mar93393939 (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)— Mar93393939 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 10:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources:

Note that the operating system was formerly named "Eelo". The article should be moved to /e/ (operating system) as a parenthetical disambiguation under WP:NCDAB. I encourage all of the new editors in this discussion to read this guide on contributing to Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 10:31, 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. Sandstein 09:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McMillan[edit]

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

A BEFORE search finds no significant RS in Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com. Large parts of article appear to be copyvio of this [18] and the cover flap of his book "In the Same Light as Slavery." Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable policy operative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea v Germany (2018 FIFA World Cup)[edit]

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

Non-notable World Cup match with no long-term implications that are independent of other matches. Sounder Bruce 04:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, just a routine match that doesn't need its own article and lack of sources show it isn't notable. Article also has a lot of issues. JC7V (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unexpected result but not notable enough for a dedicated article. The match is adequately summarised at 2018 FIFA World Cup Group F#South Korea vs Germany. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why should this article delete? This match was chosen 2nd most surprised game by Daily mail.조재범 (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Daily Mail is an unreliable source and is banned from use on the English Wikipedia. Sounder Bruce 16:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at my first search result, I found that the BBC called this "one of the biggest shocks in the competition's history." The article had no citations except FIFA.com, but surely there are plenty of reliable sources. I added three citations, there seem to be plenty more at w:ko:대한민국_대_독일_(2018년_FIFA_월드컵). Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than a surprise result. Kante4 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for this to be an article; enough detail in the article on the World Cup group Spiderone 19:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not the most shocking result ever, the Daily Mail is sensationalist rubbish which can't be trusted, and not many other sources to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2018 FIFA World Cup. Vorbee (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of this article is more in line with 2018 FIFA World Cup Group F, rather than the main article. Sounder Bruce 07:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I am happy change this merge to a merge with 2018 FIFA World Cup Group F. Vorbee (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2018 FIFA World Cup Group F; the match was surprising enough to be a plausible search term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete folk content with 2018 FIFA World Cup Group F and nothing special, but there is nothing to merge Hhkohh (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this match is not special. --Garam (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a world cup game, of course it's going to be notable, nomination and those piping fails notability need to go read what notability is about!! This is simply content forking, as noted above, it's already covered by other articles. Govvy (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, every World Cup match is not inherently notable without significant coverage. The infamous Mineirazo meets notability criteria because it had widespread repercussions and was covered by non-sports media internationally beyond a normal World Cup match that has been sustained for several years. A random World Cup match like Peru vs. Iran from 1978 has received no such continuing coverage and is thus ineligible for a separate article barring some sudden and major development of interest. Sounder Bruce 01:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SounderBruce: I actually think that WP:SPORTSEVENT is poorly written, World Cup games are easy to source, the Sporting event is the World Cup, each match can easily pass GNG, there are multiple sources by all different media news outlets. However this is editorial, how do you display and write each article, what's the case for independent articles separated from the main article about the event. This is when information gets too much for an article and need to be forked. GNG applies to the first instance, it doesn't need to be applied to the second or third account. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The third point is key: A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (emphasis mine). World Cup matches are widely covered but this is very much in the definition of routine (for a World Cup match). A rule of thumb is whether the specific match permeates beyond normal media and has lasting effects. Almost all World Cup matches fail this criteria. Sounder Bruce 16:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply O well, often I feel it's like talking to a brick wall, interpret what you want. Govvy (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, no coverage that isn't run of the mill. Nothing really to merge. The last 3 defending world champions have been eliminated in the world cup group stage so Germany's early exit in 2018 isn't really that noteworthy really. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:11, 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Matt Black[edit]

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

While a presenter at BBC Radio may like his work, and while he may have had an interesting turn where he won a prize in a sidewalk art contest for kids (mentioned in a local newspaper), the article itself gives no indication that he's attained real attention in his career, and I find no evidence that he meets the notability criteria in outside sources. Just 94 Google hits for "dj matt black", none of them providing any coverage for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Largoplazo (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebut This is still a new resouce as it stands, this artcle fits the notability criteria within its respective community and more resources will be added such... Spinnin Records Highest Global Chart rank 37 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAudioArtistSubmiter (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly any reliable sources to establish notability (lots of unreliable sources in article itself), maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~~Wouldn't be opposed to draftifying it.~~ JC7V (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article also exists in draft form, so I am 100 percent in the delete camp for this.JC7V (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually article is really poorly written. Per WP:BADCHARTS, I don't believe that charting on Highest Global Chart rank automatically allows him to pass criteria 2 for WP:NMUSICBIO since it's not as notable as chart such as Billboard.JC7V (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an WP:autobiography (see the User:Dj Matt Black who is a sockpuppet of the article creator, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheAudioArtistSubmiter). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable according to WP:NMUSICBIO. Article is also not well written so am not sure it is even worth draftifying it. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 20:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is clearly a page writen by the self promoting artist. At least on MusicBrainz he is doing his own edits using his own username. And making a mess of that database in the process. He does not look notable. Those "links" to a "discography" at MusicBrainz is more junk he wrote himself. And they are just YouTube released videos like all the kids today do in their spare time. He is not notable yet.82.23.34.30 (talk) 19:32, 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. Can be userfied on request via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 09:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The American influence on toys[edit]

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

This article is an original research toward a subject that is on itself not notable. The sources are used as WP:COATRACK to accumulate sentences toward the title, but such endeavor did not have the desired outcome. Suggest deletion. 1l2l3k (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. This article was written for a class assignment, and it appears to be more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Maybe this article can be turned into a proper encyclopedia article (under a title such as Toys in the United States), but for now it should be sent to userspace because it is not ready for the mainspace yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or delete as WP:OR Chetsford (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or delete, per Metropolitan90. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:18, 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.

[1] "J. Walter Thompson Has Launched MiNY, An All-Inclusive Marketing Firm, To Enhance The Agency's Capabilities - J. Walter Thompson New York". www.jwt.com. Retrieved 2018-11-28.

[2] "Uno de los fundadores de *S,C,P,F... dirigirá una boutique creativa de JWT en Nueva York". Dircomfidencial (in European Spanish). 2018-10-15. Retrieved 2018-11-28.

[3] ttps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki//e/

[4] ttps://community.e.foundation/c/e-foundation-community/e-in-the-news-blogs

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxNATcYoDa0

[6] ttps://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/eelo-new-privacy-enabled-smartphone-os-will-have-no-google-inside-5007509/

[7] ttps://www.livemint.com/Technology/KMKuwDabJhVOIH4wDe0wUI/Eelos-crowdfunding-success-shows-how-important-data-privacy.html

[8] ttps://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/mobiles-and-tabs/261217/meet-eelo-an-android-based-os-with-no-google-apps.html

[9] ttps://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/15/meet_the_man_building_a_googlefree_android/

[10] ttps://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/de-google-your-life-it-s-worth-the-hassle-if-you-value-your-privacy-1.2211355

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]