Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 December	9 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. As Ian has copied the article and shared it with the instructor, there's no need to userfy this. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Five Aspects Scale[edit]

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

This article is a rehash of Big Five personality traits, and it's supposed to represent a scale of the results of how one scores on the Big five personality traits. It doesn't have GNG on its own, and it's a useless fork. 1l2l3k (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy if requested. Bit messy all this. The page was created by a student in this course, which ends this week. Article appears to be mistitled, be duplicative but lesser in scope, have sourcing issues (123test dot com as the major source?), and not actually get as far as dealing with the BFAS, so merge/redirect is inappropriate. The intended page allocated to 3 students was the existing stub Big Five Aspect Scales. Only one has made an edit so far, that didn't provide significant expansion, and the article is so slight in its current form that it should instead probably be redirected with possible brief merge to Big Five personality traits unless improved. The BFAS is covered implicitly in the final para of Big Five personality traits#Overview, but red flag for both location and content as it states each of the Big Five personality traits contain two aspects, whereas that appears to actually be part of the BFAS extension. GScholar lists the main paper for the BFAS as being cited 1018 times so that's evidence for some level of impact, but indepth coverage of the BFAS in books visible online appears minimal. (delsorts added, and ping JakieraTD, QueenSuicune, Jaybrown0502, Jjdonah, Ian (Wiki Ed)) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping. I'd userfy it if I thought there was something here they could merge to the Big Five personality traits article, but honestly I don't. I'll make a copy and share it with the instructor, so there's still something for them to grade. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, "a rehash of Big Five personality traits" is correct. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I initially thought redirect in case this title had some usage, but Hydronium~Hydroxide outlined pretty well by outright deletion is the better option here for redundant content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hydronium~Hydroxide, but I also support Ian's suggestion of sharing a copy with the teacher. If need be, the closing admin should feel free to userfy this into my userspace, and I will keep it for a while until after the course is over. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:40, 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

House Boulevard[edit]

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

Article about a Brazilian musical group since it's creation (December 2009) lacking sources. It lacks sources at pt.wiki too. —Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 21:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. For what it's worth, billboard.com had zero relevant search results for it. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BAND. No independent coverage online, no chart action anywhere in the world, and it appears the three songs (and their numerous remixes) are the only releases the band ever put out. Richard3120 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Doesn't meet Notability criteria. and weak coverage SaraLiX5 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:BAND, little coverage --DannyS712 (talk) 04:47, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavad Gita (Yogananda)[edit]

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

None of the sources that are independant ("jharkhandstatenews", "telegraphindia") have any indepth coverage to meet WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG. I have not been able to find any indepth independant coverage. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Independant source as example San Diego Reader, The Telegraph (Calcutta), "Encyclopedia of Global Religion; University of California, Santa Barbara"--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the fast further source Taylor & Francis https://books.google.de/books?id=DCklDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&dq=%22Bhagavad+Gita%22+%22Yogananda%22&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdxtmJ7OzeAhWO_aQKHTY8AbsQ6AEIXTAI#v=onepage&q&f=false --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't have any indepth coverage on the book - just one or two sentences at most. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have more.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom. I think this has notability enough for a subsection of the main Bhagavad Gita article, but not more and certainly not enough for an entirely independent article~~ --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under Point three from Wikipedia:Notability (books)/ Criteria stand : "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." and in the Article from The Pioneer (India) : "President Ram Nath Kovind said spirituality is the soul of country and an important contribution to the world. "Releasing Hindi version edition of Swami Paramahansa Yogananda’s bestseller God Talks with Arjuna – The Bhagavad Gita" https://www.dailypioneer.com/2017/state-editions/spirituality-is-soul-of-india-president.html --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paramahansa Yogananda and Bhagavada Gita as compromise. Radhamadhab Sarangi ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 13:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Selectively Merge to Bhagavada Gita. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)~~ Changed to Keep, below. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ - first, if kept, the title should be God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita. There are no substantial and independent references. "Taylor & Francis" is a trivial mention of the book, and Telegraph India mentions that the book was released (just now?) with no further information (it's unclear to me whether Kovind was talking about this book or the Bhagavad Gita). Other references are either to the book itself, or are background information about Paramahansa Yogananda that doesn't mention the book at all. There's absolutely no reason to cram this guru's take into the article on Bhagavad Gita when there are no independent references about the book. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should not be merged into Bhagavada Gita. (like merging some random pastor's book into the article on Bible) Redirecting to Paramahansa Yogananda, where the book is mentioned, is fine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree; the article on Bhagavada Gita has a section called Modern era commentaries, which already mentions the book; any further pertinent noteworthy cited information on it should go there. Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  There's no indication of any importance of this book - no independent references as power~enwiki explains; so there is no further noteworthy cited information, and that mention of that book in that section should be removed, as there are hundreds of books that could be mentioned if the standard is "any book" (and the book is published by Self-Realization Fellowship, Yogananda's own organization; so it is self-published essentially) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found a three-page review of the book in The Bhagavad-Gita for the Modern Reader: History, Interpretations and Philosophy (Routledge, 2017), which stresses the importance of Yogananda's interpretation: [1]. It also gives the correct original publication date, which is 1995. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK. After correcting the title to God Talks with Arjuna I have found at least three extensive reviews of the book in publications that are independent of the subject. So far: (1) A three-page review of the book in The Bhagavad-Gita for the Modern Reader: History, Interpretations and Philosophy (Routledge, 2017), which stresses the importance of Yogananda's interpretation: [2]. (2) An extensive review in Yoga Journal: [3]. (pp. 118–123). (3) A two-page review in the International Journal of Yoga Therapy: [4]. There are other reviews also available, but it will take some further Googling to get the full reviews rather than snippet quotes. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has different reliable sources. Also, book was honored by Indian President. Yogananda as author have a other book listed at the "100 best spiritual books of the 20th Century"--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have massively expanded and improved the article with a variety of independent reviews. It's now clear the book meets both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Pinging Shibbolethink, 123sarangi, and power~enwiki. The article still needs work and cleanup, but AfD is not cleanup, and it's clear the book meets notability thresholds. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Softlavender; there's enough sourcing now on the book (and not just on Yogananda) to meet NBOOK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but massively revise. per Softlavender, the sourcing is there but I would contend that many of these are not RS and need to be supplemented with more authoritative (and more importantly) unbiased sources. Right now it reads like an advertisement, and that's unacceptable on the Wiki. It's not what articles here are for. Articles here are meant to be unvarnished unbiased looks at subjects, not an examination of how they have all "revolutionized the field" of yoga therapy... This is doubtless an exaggeration, but remains to be examined. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does anyone state that the book has "revolutionized the field" of yoga therapy. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Softlavender's hard work. Agree with the "massively revise" suggestion of Shibbolethink, but AfD isn't for cleanup, so this requirement is not a part of my !vote (though still encouraged). --DannyS712 (talk) 04:50, 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 keep. Some arguments convincing enough have been made in favor of keeping this article. Since there is no reasonable merge target, merge does not seem likely at the moment. Tone 18:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Cary (valet)[edit]

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

A black "body servent" to George Washington name checked by Twain and listed very implausibly as being 114 in an 1843 almanac which does not seem like a very well researched or scholarly publication hampered by the difficulty of doing research in the time period. The subject probably lived and died, but did nothing notable. Fails WP:GNG and is almost certainly a case of Age fabrication. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets WP:ANYBIO #3, The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication (in this case, Appletons' Cyclopaedia of American Biography [5]). If it is an example of an old biography which may have dubious content, then the article needs work to reflect that, but it shouldn't be deleted. Boleyn (talk).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A click away from the bio is this disclaimer [6] which surely applies to this short bio making an extraordinary claim. Legacypac (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. His age claim is quite dubious and just because he was loosely connected to a famous man, that doesn't mean he inherits that man's notability, which is presently the basis of this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boleyn, above. The three inline cites appended to the entry confirm subject's standing as a historical figure, while his entry in Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, a rare distinction for an African-American in the historical era of the Cyclopædia's publication in 1880s United States, verifies his notability. While individual details, such as his birth year, need further research, Cary's place among Wikipedia entries is secured per WP:ANYBIO #3, as indicated by Boleyn. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of additional sources how can we fix what must he an error? Legacypac (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When petitioning for a Revolutionary Pension in the year of his death, 1843, sixty years after the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, John Cary apparently overstated, most likely by about twenty years, the year of his birth as 1729, three years before George Washington's birth in 1732. Thus, his probable age at death was around 94, rather than 114. However, in an era when the average lifespan was much shorter than it is today, 94 or even 84, must have seemed to be extremely old age. In any event, his 1843 claim of being born in 1729 was repeated without comment 45 years later, when Appletons' Cyclopædia was published in 1887–89. Cary died 175 years ago and the exact year of his birth may never be discovered. The Wikipedia article does not accept his purported year of birth at face value, indicating that "Cary claimed that he was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia, in August 1729". The stub does not mention Appletons' Cyclopædia, but it can certainly be added that his entry in the Cyclopædia repeated the age claim. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the overstatement by 20 years sourced? Our page flatly accepted the birthdate until just hefore this AfD when I tagged it as dubious. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources apparently easily accessible at this time are the ones listed. The contention that he overstated his age in falsely portraying himself as a supercentenarian when applying for pension is, indeed, only a contention which deserves to be noted in the Wikipedia article. However, his listing in the Cyclopædia, especially in view of the extreme rarity of such an entry for an African-American during that era, distinctly qualifies him for Wikikpedia. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with several reliable sources. Wikipedia has guidelines on citing dates if definite dates of birth and/or death are not known MOS:APPROXDATE. One point says "Other forms of uncertainty should be expressed in words, either in article text or in a footnote: April 14, 1224 (unattested date). Do not use a question mark (1291?), because it fails to communicate the nature of the uncertainty." So the lead sentence could have 'John Cary (August 1729 (unattested date) - 2 June 1843)'. He did claim that as his birth date, and that claim is referenced. We have no sources, primary or secondary, to prove or disprove his date of birth, so all we can say is that he claimed it, and it's unattested. I would disagree that he was "loosely" connected with a famous man, and I agree with Roman Spinner that inclusion of an African-American in a national dictionary of biography at that time was a rarity. The Appletons' Cyclopædia article states that (1) issues of reliability largely concern Latin American entries, and (2) it "should be used cautiously until verified against other sources", which we have, as there is a contemporary record in the US Congressional papers of discussion about this man, so there is no question about his existence. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there any possible place to merge this? The sources are decent for notability, but they don't add up to more than a few short sentences of material; there's almost no context in which to present this information, and it seems like it'd be best served somewhere that can give a fuller picture. Maybe into the article on George Washington or some subarticle thereof? Everything that's here could easily be merged with no loss of content. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:29, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demi (DJ)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sources cited in the article appear to be prepared bios which accompany ticket sales, or primary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: talented DJ, and is still doing the rounds, both under his original name and also making records with a new alias, ASOY. But he's always been fairly low-key – his Deeper Substance parties and label releases in the early 2000s made his name on the dance scene, he became the warm-up act for Danny Tenaglia at the legendary Twilo club in New York, and then as part of the SoS collective with Omid16B and Desyn Masiello the trio created a three-hour Essential Mix for BBC Radio 1 in 2006, which is probably as close as Demi has got to gaining mainstream attention. In the last ten years the music work has been scaled back and he's taken on other projects, such as becoming Tenaglia's tour manager. Much as I personally admire the subject's past work, it's going to be difficult to find any in-depth independent sources to save this article. Richard3120 (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus appeared delete but page already deleted by admin User:Bbb23 under G5: creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobul Corporation[edit]

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

CSD A7 candidate as there is no claim of significance. Speedy contested without proper reasoning. I am sensing signs of UPE too. Fails on WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE. Google searches are full of PR and lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Hitro talk 19:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Per nom. Only press releases found online. - ToT89 (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 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. TOOSOON Tone 18:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Lopatetska[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the reasons for deletion at the previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasha Lopatetskaya). Iffy★Chat -- 16:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. desmay (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet the GNG or WP:NTENNIS. Article was created WP:TOOSOON.Sandals1 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Nsport and tennis project guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 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 Procedural Keep. Page has been listed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_8#Huge_Ackman (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Ackman[edit]

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

A silly redirection page that is unlikely to be used. (Note also that nothing links to this.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about venue: Proposals to delete redirects are handled at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Bakazaka (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize that; thanks for letting me know. I've just resubmitted the deletion request to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (and closed this one). Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:50, 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 speedy keep. Speedy keep is appropriate, given that no valid rationale is presented--and the arguments that were presented simply make no sense. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Chabahar suicide bombing[edit]

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

Low number of casualties by the standards on the region. Half the references are from Iranian state media "journalists" Openlydialectic (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID. Low number of casulties is not a criteria, and the regime target here may be significant for lasting coverage. At this point we have wide international coverage and the sole notability question going forward is whether it will be SUSTAINED - which we can not determine at this point, therefore we should err on the side of keeping the article per RAPID.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: It's one of the most weird AFDs I've ever seen, grounded on "Low number of casualties" and usage of Iranian sources instead of considering deletion policies. Anyway, there are plenty of reliable sources dealing with this subject. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Could you please close this discussion per WP:SKCRIT #3? Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:53, 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 merge to Alan Sked. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper UK (political Party)[edit]

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

non-notable political party established five minutes ago. Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alan Sked for now. If it gets significant and prolonged media coverage then we can revisit this later. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alan Sked until there is no doubt regarding notability. Rzvas (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per DanielRigal and Rzvas until the party is recognized by the Electoral Commission (United Kingdom) as a registered political party Bkissin (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested above as at the moment it cannot be classed as a significant party (for instance no elected politicians have joined it) and there is no guarantee yet that it will be. Dunarc (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect It can merge into to Alan Sked Alex-h (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE DELETE This article is factually inaccurate. The name of the political party is WRONG - as is the subsequent page title - and the content is entirely inaccurate. See: ^[1] and ^[2]. MajorPlonquer —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.PROSPERuk.party
^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-steven-woolfe-brexit-timeline-party-key-events-a7348116.html

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

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

The result was redirect to Smosh. Tone 18:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Padilla[edit]

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

An edit-warring which involved many users (but not me) is ongoing in this article over whether it should exist individually or as a redirect. The arguments of the users reverting to a redirect are that the subject is not notable separately from Smosh. Bringing it here, since without a careful AfD consideration the edit-warring will last forever. Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Padilla easily passes WP:GNG. In regards to Smosh, he is no longer related with them nor their companies and is a solo individual. Handoto (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure he is notable enough for his own page at this point. He's been of public I treat for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.134.14 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smosh. Just because he is no longer associated with Smosh, does not mean he is individually notable and passes WP:GNG. All of his major film works were associated with Smosh and/or Smosh co-founder Ian Hecox. Any recent coverage about Padilla are about him in relation to Smosh. He has simply done nothing notable outside of Smosh. Sekyaw (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's certainly a notable individual and while a lot of news coverage is him related with Smosh news, not all of it is. With Smosh going through all the recent changes, I can see why more recent news about him is smosh-realted. His work with Angry Birds and collaborations with notable creators is a great example of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.232.233 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No notability outside the duo, despite the SPA "Keep" !votes above. Sekyaw's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge I recommended redirecting or merging for now. PlotHelpful (talk) 11:18, 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. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-statism[edit]

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

This page is unnecessary and a violation of WP:SOAP

The sole purpose of this article is to gerrymander the scope of the term anarchism so as to exclude right-wing anarchism. Yes, I get it that anarchism originally, i.e. social anarchism, was leftist, libertarian socialist and anti-capitalist, but anarchism expanded since then in a continuum toward the right through the writings of Godwin, Warren, Thoreau, Stirner, Tucker… till we got to Rothbard and Hoppe. Even Proudhon, the patriarch of anarchism, moved toward the right later in life! (when he wrote Pornocracy, for instance) Social anarchists may not agree with them — and they don't have to! — but that doesn't mean they aren't anarchists too, in their own logic. After all, the reason why social anarchists are anti-capitalists is because, ultimately, they see capitalism as an extension of the state. So even to them, anarchism = anti-statism (if that's even a word!). WisdomTooth3 (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Google Scholar search turns up multiple articles on the topic. The article is poorly referenced, but it should not be deleted, it should be edited. Citrivescence (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before this page is deleted, wouldn't we want to merge/redirect it to anarchism, where any difference by dictionary definition can be specified? That would seem to be the best course, unless there are sources that cover this topic independently from that of anarchism. czar 07:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible target is state (polity). (Statism is just as poorly sourced as this would be and should be merged as well.) Not sure how other editors would like to see "anti-statism" covered as more than a dictionary definition. The phrase "anti-state" can describe variety of beliefs, from any one act of dissent against government to a more concerted effort/philosophy to reduce its powers to abolish it completely. But is it a discrete concept that can support encyclopedic breadth? Or would our article just be a glossary of every time Google Books has mentioned the phrase? Note that Britannica, SEP, and other encyclopedias of political philosophy have no unified entry on statism/anti-statism because they aren't unified positions less descriptors of being for or against the state. In any event, this is a discussion for the talk page since there isn't a case for deleting the term from WP outright. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I have listed below are much more than "a glossary of every time Google Books has mentioned the phrase". They all have substantial coverage. Friedberg's book is entirely about the topic (although limited to American anti-statism). Nash has it as a section heading. Gallaher has it as a chapter heading. Anarchism, socialism, communism, capitalism, and liberalism are all broad churches that have "a variety of beliefs", but that is not an obstacle to them having articles. SpinningSpark 17:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Friedberg's book is not about "anti-statism" but how suspicion of state power worked to the USA's benefit during the Cold War. It doesn't go into the philosophical underpinnings of an abstract idea called anti-statism. He uses the term as a shortcut for anti-government currents in American society. You could write an article that combined that and Jeffersonian democracy but it would be a POV fork of other articles. The book jacket doesn't call Friedberg a revisionist account for nothing. To use your analogy, it would be like splitting out pro-communism/anti-communism or pro-capitalism/anti-capitalism articles. Sure, the term appears, and there is plenty to say, but an encyclopedia article would just be a collection of arguments localized by region, not a coherent body of study.

Nash himself advises viewing statism and anti-statism as a combined continuum rather than a duality with its own principles. Everything he quotes is commentary on the role of the state, a topic that should be covered within the polity article. And Gallaher's chapter says very little about "anti-statism"—it's essentially about how neoliberalism is anti-state because it hollows out government, with examples and a focus on the US. That the term appears in chapter titles is not itself an indicator that there is a body of literature ready for paraphrase. czar 21:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widely used concept in the literature, distinct from anarchism in all but attack materials. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks to me that sources generally make a firm distinction between anti-statism and anarchism. In fact, in this field, it looks like it's about the only thing they do agree on.
- Friedberg, In the Shadow of the Garrison State: America's Anti-Statism and Its Cold War Grand Strategy [7], defines anti-statism as "the body of ideas and arguments used by those who have opposed efforts to increase the size and strength of the executive branch of the federal government". This is different from wanting to abolish the state or government altogether.
- Nash, Freedom, Justice, and the State [8], defines two types of anti-statism: radical and moderate. Radicals oppose all states while moderates oppose only some types of state. According to Nash, even the radicals are not always (but often are) anarchists. The moderates are quite distinct from anarchists.
- Gallaher et al., Key Concepts in Political Geography [9] says "Anti-statist movements want to limit the influence of any state". They may, or may not, want to eliminate it altogether.
- Cox, & Stokes, US Foreign Policy [10], says "Anti-statism and the fear of despotism led the American founders to create a state structure that is fragmented, decentralized, and accountable." Their following discussion of American anti-statism is entirely focused on it wanting to limit the power of the state, not abolish it.
- Clark, Living Without Domination: The Possibility of an Anarchist Utopia [11], explicitly states that anarchism is not synonymous with anti-statism; "So, anti-statism is not a distinguishing characteristic of anarchism."

SpinningSpark 16:18, 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) 18:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.S.F.Patil[edit]

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

The page reads like a CV copied and pasted onto Wikipedia. Autobiography/COI. Previously CSD'd under G11. Cahk (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete executive directors of some functions of a university are not inherently notable. No actual sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are so many new articles being sent to AfD within a few days of being created, in this case the same day? Yes, the quality of the article is poor, its format is inappropriate, and it doesn't have references. But is the subject of the article notable? He has an Award for outstanding teaching & research in Radiochemistry; he is a Nominated Eminent Scientist on the Governing Body, Maharashtra Association for the Cultivation of Science, and has apparently "Initiated new lines of research: Hot Atom Chemistry, Radiation Chemistry of Solutions/Solids, Activation Analysis, Color Centers in Halide Solids, Luminescence in Alkali Halide Crystals, Diffusion in Aqueous Solutions/Solids using Labeled Isotopes and Conducting Polymers". Don't those claims suggest that he may indeed be notable, and it is the article which is lacking? What about WP:ATD? RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he would be notable as an academic, but it seems the article was written by the same person.I did a search on google scholar, and it seems there are quite a lot of papers written by SF Patil, not sure if its the same person in all of them. but only one of of those papers was cited by more than 100 people(231 to be exact), all others have less than 65 citations. Daiyusha (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record on GS is tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
delete Apparent autobiography with no references. My own search didn't find the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG or the research citations I'd expect to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Sandals1 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment. Delete because of issues detailed above. I have nothing new to add to the lack of notability. As one of the people who does copyedit work, and am fairly new to it on here, I always wonder why such badly formed articles are allowed to begin with. Even if it was notable, I would want (though perhaps it is incorrect to want this on Wikipedia) for it to be draftified until the original author could get under some control. Doesn't have to be perfect of course but this isn't even an article, it's a list of things this person supposedly did. Someone else would need to come by and change it to prose and deal with all the WP:MOS issues. That doesn't seem quite fair when the original writer didn't even make an attempt. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lack of notability issues have been well addressed above. Wikipedia is not a place to host your résumé. - tucoxn\^talk 16:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:38, 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. TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation at some point in future. Tone 18:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dory Nason[edit]

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

A few mentions found in searches, won a minor award, fails WP:GNG, and she doesn't appear to meet any of the requirements of either WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon. She has been publishing and will do more. The article is mistaken in her position. She is not yet an assistant professor; she is a senior instructor at UBC. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have corrected her academic position (I wonder if this was confusion between the US system and others?), even if it is WP:TOOSOON for an article! RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing suggests that Nason meets our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable citation record in GS; insignificant Worldcat library holdings; apparently low-ranking faculty member; no notable awards or other distinctions relevant under WP:PROF. She was one of many contributors to one potentially significant publication, but I notice that the reference for that work being "groundbreaking" is her own faculty profile. I checked GS, Worldcat, Newspapers.com, Google and Google Books - all under both Dory and Dorothy - but did not see anything that would get her over the GNG bar. I note some close paraphrasing from her faculty page. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, TOOSOON and Larry Hocket's rationale. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:39, 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. If somebody wants to take a shot at writing Murder of Sara Tokars , any admin can restore the contents of this for reference. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tokars[edit]

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

Lacking notability beyond WP:BLP1E. References mostly consist of passing mentions of the subject with no significant coverage or are articles authored by the subject who now works as a journalist. One Where Are They Now style reference has a focus on the subject. This is an autobiographical article that continues to be heavily edited by the subject. Longhair\^talk 04:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 04:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 04:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possible re-purpose to Murder of Sara Tokars (the murder itself seems to be a rather clear NCRIME pass). The 4 year old son (with bits of coverage of the "where is he now" - [12] - is not notable). Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 11:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or refactor to Murder of Sara Tokars per Icewhiz. Low-profile person associated with a notable event. No strong evidence of notability per WP:JOURNALIST. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor to Murder of Sara Tokars. Since this is BLP1E, we can cover the notable incident instead. Rzvas (talk) 19:08, 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. Tone 18:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Rakhmatulina[edit]

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

Non notable. No reliable and significant coverage. ToT89 (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 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. Tone 18:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text to Voice (Firefox)[edit]

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

Non-notable Firefox extension, seems to be created under COI by "Vikramjoshi.iit", who also appear to have created this extension. There's absolutely zero reliable sources to support this article, failing WP:GNG. theinstantmatrix (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as others (failing WP:GNG). DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 12:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with above points. Cautilus (talk) 23:35, 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 11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual (Oomph! album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM there is one review of the teaser and this is not enough to show it meets the notability criteria. This should be a redirect to the group's page until there are multiple non trivial coverage of this album. The article creator has removed the redirect twice now without adding the required coverage. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the top of the page? I've added in SEVERAL magazine articles covering the release of the album, not just the Overdrive Magazine version. As well as the two sources that I was in the process of adding when you nominated the page for deletion, I've also got the following posts:

http://bravewords.com/news/oomph-reveal-new-album-details-teaser-for-kein-liebeslied-single-posted

http://www.side-line.com/oomph-unveil-title-teaser-tracklist-and-artwork-of-new-album/

http://www.roooar.com/music_uk/news-releases-oomph--ritual-cd-in-january-8553.html

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/community_feed/oomph_reveal_details_of_new_album_ritual_preview_new_single_kein_liebeslied.html

That makes at least half a dozen independently published articles regarding the release of this album. How many more do you want before I pass the eligibility criteria? Eddiehimself (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of brave words it's all routine stuff about an announced album that contain a trck list and at best a quote from the group. brave stuff does not cover the album itself but is more about the group and a single than anything else there is no review of the songs on the album and they do not seem to have received a copy and only the teaser and this is still routine. Not enough in my opinion to meet WP:FUTUREALBUM. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well your opinion clearly differs from what Wikipedia says about Future album releases:

"generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label.

Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it."

In this case, the album, track listing, and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist, and independent sources. So regardless of your opinion, it definitely DOES meet the criteria for WP:Futurealbum.

Also, what's this business about the articles cited being 'routine?' A control+F search of Wikipedia's Music notability page reveals that the word 'routine' isn't mentioned once on the entire page. It's completely unfair to nominate an article for deletion on the basis of something that isn't even present on the notability criteria pageEddiehimself (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddiehimself: Did you read the part that states "articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release"? All we know is that it has a name and a few tracks. Who is the producer? Who did the audio engineering? Who did the mastering? Where was it mastered? What are the lyrical themes? That's what's meant by "reliably sourced information about a future release". A potential release date and a track listing isn't enough. It still fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM so it does not deserve an article. Also, you're looking for WP:ROUTINE.

Keep Multiple reliable sources exist and it does appear to meet WP:Futurealbum to me. -dashiellx (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that your comment is almost exactly the opposite of mine. Which reliable sources do you see? this is clearly not a reliable source nor is this. They have no author. No author here and only a track listing. is written by Eddiehimself] (yes, the other editor commenting here). From the article, https://overdrive-mag.com/2018/11/16/oomph-unveil-details-for-upcoming-album-ritual/ "Overdrive Editor" isn't particularly informative, and it's not significant coverage, as can be said for Daniela Vorndran's entry at https://www.reflectionsofdarkness.com/news-mainmenu-99/releases-mainmenu-166/18801-oomph-unveil-all-details-of-upcoming-album-ritua-l . So @Dashiellx:, I may have missed it, but where are the "multiple reliable sources" you write about? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I can't find any either. As of now, the album does not meet WP:GNG with the WP:ROUTINE coverage that I found. It's likely just WP:TOOSOON and clearly does not meet WP:FUTUREALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oomph!. When the album has been released, and there are charts entries and/or reviews, then and only then can the article be restored. If the article still keeps getting restored without significant improvement in sources, then delete and salt. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I can't say the coverage is resplendent, in a couple of citations the subject is treated in sufficient detail to establish notability. Contrary to the discussion above, I found overdrive detailed enough and to be a secondary source of satisfactory reliability. I would be content with merging the principal details into the band's main article (redirect). AGK ■ 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Bad quality, but all the problems can be solved. WP:NALBUM is fine here. Coltsfan (talk) 19:26, 15 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 11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irshu Bangash[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines Wikipedia:DIRECTOR and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.

Previously it was declined numerous times at Draft:Irshu Bangash by @Miniapolis and Chetsford:. Saqib (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing notability guidelines at WP:DIRECTOR. Some films may be notable but notability is not inherited, the article's subject is not the focus of any references. Ifnord (talk) 05:21, 15 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. WP:G4 by MelanieN based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global One Belt One Road Association Foundation - and page salted against recreation. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GOBA Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP with the lack of significant coverage and WP:GNG. Flooded with them hundreds 07:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 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 11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wale Aladejana[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources provided are unreliable, and even if they were reliable, they do not provide significant independent coverage of the subject, and mostly include photos of the subject at various publicity events as well as quotes. I originally submitted this for PROD, dePROD by RebeccaGreen. Here is the Google search that I did of the subject, before nominating it for PROD: [13] Not a single of those is significant coverage in a reliable source. If you search on Google proper, you get a bunch of less reliable sources and Youtube videos made by the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reason for dePRODding was: "Searching on two forms of his name (Wale Aladejana and Adewale Aladejana), I find many more sources which do provide significant independent coverage, and which need to be assessed for reliability." Since this has now come to AfD, I will add some here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are of poor quality, they are either puff pieces from likely unreliable sources or are about the company rather than him. My limited experience when looking at Nigerian websites is that many don't do the most basic fact-checking. My inclination is therefore for a delete, although I will wait to hear from someone with a better understanding of Nigeria websites before deciding. Hzh (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list may be of some use. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On another search, I would agree that the coverage (under either version of his name), although significant, is not reliable and is often not independent, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:47, 15 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. As opposed to the list for the US presidents, this one has zero sources so it is hard to argue that it is not OR or SYNTH. Tone 18:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of living Prime Ministers of Sweden[edit]

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

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of Australia, trivial article that is a list of various tenures of PMs of Sweden and the number of former PMs alive during that tenure.Unlike the Australian page, this sweden page has no corresponding "List of PMs by age" page. Creating a page for the "list of PMs of sweden by age",and deleting this page, might be more in tune with an encyclopedia in my opinion . Daiyusha (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:6DF9:CF69:96D8:F52E (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for similar reasons to the Prime Ministers of Australia AfD. We already have List of Prime Ministers of Sweden which is a much more encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Ajf773 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia and original research Spiderone 18:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid topic per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States - WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and WP:Systemic bias 82.132.186.90 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The argument about creating a "List by age" holds no water - such an article would give no indication that there were once 11 living PMs, nor any indication of whether such an occurrence were a regular occurrence or not. This article conveys significant information that conforms to WP:5P1. The lack of references provides no support for deletion; the raw information - dates of accession and dates of death - is clearly attributable, even if not attributed in the words of WP:OR. The additional information - numbers alive at each moment - is easily derived by simple calculation (WP:CALC). Hence, this is by no means WP:OR. YBG (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I add that the proposal to delete this article but leave the corresponding UK PM, US President and US VP articles un-nominated leaves WP open to a charge of being UK- or US-centric. The AfD for the US Presidents list (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States) (a strong keep) has many arguments that apply equally to this article. The arguments that do not directly apply to this one are the arguments that cite specific discussions in the popular press. This may be because such discussion has not taken place in the Swedish press, but without access, I have no way of knowing. YBG (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the age lists do not easily or clearly show the same information. Closeclouds (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt,the age lists do not show the same info, but other than the "list of former PMs alive right now", its not very likely someone would try looking for number of former PMs alive during a particular year. Daiyusha (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ajf773. It's unsourced and violates WP:LISTN. SportingFlyer talk 02:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons given by YBG above (especially in his latter posting). /FredrikT (talk) 13:26, 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. Michig (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wook Kundor[edit]

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

Thoroughly unremarkable and stunningly implausible longevity claim. This borders on self-parody, almost the entire "article" consists of some truly bizarre marital issues (with far more credulous reporting than is warranted, Elizabeth Taylor had nothing on this lady!). There's WP:NOPAGE here, if this is really notable enough for a mention anywhere it's best handled on the Longevity claims article in a list. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. She belongs on the list at Longevity claims, but marital problems are WP:ROUTINE, even though her situation certainly has its own unique flavor. There is not enough to say about her of substance to justify a standalone article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:31, 8 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) 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E/BLP2E lacking in-depth coverage. Mainly covered for her marriage at age 104 and 107 - same coverage is rehashed in a few books. Coverage is not INDEPTH. Possibly merge to an article on bizarre marriages if we have one - but can't think of target - and this is rather gossipy. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 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. Michig (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Israel[edit]

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

I'd PROD this, but there is technically a first AfD here. Despite the puffery in the article there's no evidence that this is "one of the most widely reported longevity claims in recent years", and in any event it only states that she was born, lived for some indeterminate time, and died. Once stripped of the filler material about Guinness and the GRG, there's clearly WP:NOPAGE here; the claims about her birth and death dates are best handled on a list in the Longevity claims article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 8 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 barely even qualifies to be listed in Longevity claims. Her claimed age of 128 is just that ridiculous. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed in an encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The actions of the boosters who engaged in promoting her longevity claim might make them notable, but Israel herself is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 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) 06:58, 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. Michig (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Johnson (supercentenarian)[edit]

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

Longevity claim with almost no substance. Once stripped of all the irrelevant filler material about other old people and the verbose circumlocutions about his military service, we're left with a few news outlets mistakenly claiming he was the last WWI vet. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. The article is packed with longevity fancruft like he was the oldest man in California, family lore of claimed famous ancestors, and the standard longevity secret. This article and its content are not needed anywhere on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — While the longevity claims are impressive, those alone are not granted inherited notability. An assessment of sources available lead me to believe this individual falls way short of GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:05, 8 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) 06:55, 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 no consensus. Relisted twice without any further comments, no consensus reached. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Madland[edit]

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

Not independently notable – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 02:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not quite sure what the nominator meant by "not independently notable". Sources are given the article, and unless someone more knowledgeable about Kurdish sources are willing to examine the sources more closely to establish that they are not RS, I would keep it as satisfying WP:GNG for now. Hzh (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi support of Baloch rebels[edit]

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

Redundant since we already have Insurgency in Balochistan#Iraq and 1973 raid on the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan. Furthermore, the sources have not provided enough coverage to this subject that a stand alone article would be warranted. Orientls (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redundant WP:CFORK -- this article's content is already covered in other named articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:08, 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. Michig (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rytasha Rathore[edit]

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

Editor created an article for herself (delete nom), her father (deleted), and in this article, her sister. Rytasha Rathore seems borderline notable due to her role in a Hindi serial, but considering the editor's close connection to the subject, some additional scrutiny is necessary. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article requires improvement but she seems to be a notable actress Spiderone 09:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually I can't find much evidence of notability Spiderone 18:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:NACTOR. Ifnord (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look like she meets WP:NACTOR; maybe she will in the future, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:58, 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. Michig (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Joe Campbell[edit]

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference is a list of members which could not establish nobility. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. He was in 182 episodes of one show over 8 seasons on a major network. So recognizable they used him in character to explain how TV's worked. Rmhermen (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had some notable roles and as had several independent reliable source news sources cover him in detail so meets the GNG. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Rmhermen's comment. Campbell's eight seasons as part of the main cast on According to Jim is very impressive. What bothers me is the WP:NACTOR guideline, which expects multiple major (significant) roles, but he has many guest or recurring roles across a number of TV series in the years since According to Jim. All that appears to sum up notability on NACTOR grounds (especially with all the seasons he was on According to Jim), even if it may not technically meet point #1 in the guideline. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main role for 8 years is pretty significant in my opinion. I know WP:NACTOR suggests multiple main roles but hard to do that when locked down for that much time on a single series. The article as it stands has one source but multiple significant coverage sources are available as pointed out in the discussion above. Subject looks to meet WP:BASIC (and intent of NACTOR) but article needs work to include those references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:33, 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 redirect to Byzantism. Should anyone see anything worth merging, the article history is still there. Michig (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine complexity[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. Zero references Openlydialectic (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAD. Can think of no encyclopedic topic to merge or redirect to. Cnilep (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cnilep: Byzantinism might work. Take a look at the second paragraph in the lede. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an alternate definition of the word Byzantine; "Byzantine complexity" isn't generally used as a multi-word phrase. With no sourcing (since 2004), I don't see how this can be kept; perhaps a soft-redirect to Wiktionary is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Byzantinism, which should mention the dictdef. A one-sentence definition is all that needs to be merged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Byzantinism. Agree with the logic above, but with no sources whatsoever, there's nothing to merge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:27, 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 no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian)[edit]

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

Another non-notable oldster. Though the article claims she received public recognition, the lack of sources gives the lie to the idea that, apart from her one meeting with Margaret Thatcher, it was anything other than routine coverage. Once stripped of the irrelevant and grossly over-detailed filler material about meeting up with Maggie for tea, plus the fluff about being the oldest person in ~~an arbitrarily defined geographical area~~ a country (modified 20:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC) in the interest of clarity, accuracy, and deescalation) we're left with WP:NOPAGE; maybe a minibio on List of British supercentenarians, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge and/or Redirect to one of the various lists of oldest people or to Marske-by-the-Sea (where she lived and is mentioned). As the oldest verified person from a major country her name is definitely a plausible search term so outright deletion is unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like what year of Queen Victoria's reign she was born in, how many monarchs and prime ministers she lived under, had tea with a famous person, and got to stay in a nice hotel on someone else's dime. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what Newshunter12 said. Spot on. Legacypac (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a mini-bio on List of British supercentenarians. The Brits do love their elders. — JFG ^talk 00:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This nomination seemed to be based on a justifiable exasperation with the GRG's habit of spewing cruft, rather than on a proper examination of the topic. Neither the nominator nor any of the other editors commenting give any indication of having done any WP:BEFORE research at all.

Additionally, I taker issue with the nominator's assertion that Hughes was the oldest person in an arbitrarily defined geographical area. She was in fact the longest-lived person ever in the United Kingdom, which is major OECD nation rather than an arbitrarily defined geographical area.

The article probably meets WP:GNG as it currently stands, since there appears to be at least two substantive articles on her: BBC and Guardian.

However, it was a trivial exercise to find more sources in The Times archive and in Newsbank:

Paul Wilkinson. "UK's oldest person dies at 115." Times [London, England] 18 Mar. 1993: (~200 words)
"Widow, 110, flies on." Times [London, England] 5 Aug. 1987: 2. (~60 words)
"110-year-old Charlotte Hughes loves the Big Apple" Newswire August 5, 1987 | UPI NewsTrack bAuthor: DON MULLEN | Section: News 368 Words
- "A Supersonic Birthday" Newspaper August 5, 1987 | San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Page: 3 | Section: NEWS 51 Words
- "110-year-old English woman visits New York" NewswireAugust 5, 1987 | UPI NewsTrack Section: News 429 Words
"Loyal customer" - Charlotte Hughes Newspaper September 14, 1991 | Times, The (London, England) Section: Home news 35 Words "Charlotte Hughes, aged 114, believed to be Britain's oldest person, had 100 years' of custom with Barclays Bank in Middlesbrough marked by a message from Sir John Quinton, its chairman, and a gift of a Victorian sovereign"
"115 TODAY..THANKS TO BACON, EGGS AND BRANDY" NewspaperAugust 1, 1992 | Daily Mirror, The / The Sunday Mirror (London, England) Author: STEPHEN WHITE | Page: 7 | Section: NEWS 254 Words

There may be more; I gave up checking the hits once I had the list above. But with all that lot, she more that meets GNG. Hughes had clearly been receiving bouts of significant coverage for at least 7 years before her death.

A decade ago, there was a steady stream of GRG-dervied articles on clearly non-notable people. Sadly, it now seems that the pendulum has swung the other way, and that some deletionists are chucking articles into AFD without doing the required preparation. @The Blade of the Northern Lights, would you please be kind enough to withdraw this nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All countries are arbitrarily defined geographical areas, I'm hardly the biggest Yuval Harari fan but he's absolutely right on that. I'd be OK with a minibio, but how does the material add up to a full article? She lived a long time, and died. It doesn't take a standalone article to express as much. Plus, merging her to the list of British supercentenarians is more informative; there's plenty enough space to give her a minibio, and then readers will be much more readily able to find out more about other old British people (and learning about old British people, presumably, was why they'd search for her in the first place, because she's not notable in any other way). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The boundaries of countries are usually defined by geographical features and/or by the outcomes of wars. Mountains, oceans and huge piles of dead human bodies are hardly arbitrary.

The use of country boundaries to denote a category is not arbitrary; it is adopting the most commonly-used existing set of geographical divisions of human populations. That is why we have for example, the United Nations rather than the United Arbitrarily Defined Geographical Areas, why sportspeople go to the Olympic Games as representatives of nations rather than of arbitrarily defined geographical areas, and why human travel is regulated by passports issued by nations rather than by arbitrarily defined geographical areas. (Try crossing any international border with a passport issued in the name of an arbitrarily defined geographical area, and see how that goes).

A standalone article can easily link to a list, so there is no advantage to merging it to the list unless it is absurdly short and/or fails notability tests. In the case of Hughes, the sources I found above are sufficient to double the size of the existing article, taking it beyond stub length. We don't, for example, routinely merge notable sportspeople or writers or politicians or scientists to a list, and I see no reason to merge notable supercentenarians. Sure, merge the non-notable; but this one is notable.

When I approached this AFD, I expected that my !vote would be to merge. However, the availability of sources persuaded me otherwise. I am disappointed to see that having made an AFD nom without doing the required WP:BEFORE, you seem to be pursuing your predetermined option even tho the facts have changed.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I appreciate your search for more coverage, and I do not put Ms. Hughes notability into question. She is, however, exclusively notable for reaching an advanced age, as the sources you found amply demonstrate: each of those reports talks about her age as the defining reason for covering her. There is consequently very little chance to expand the article, because we are not supposed to mention minor anecdotes such as flying to New York for your birthday or being a loyal customer of Barclays Bank… The suggestion to merge her article into a mini-bio on the list of British centenarians matches guidance in WP:PAGEDECIDE, part of our notability guidelines, whereby coverage of the subject within the broader context of the target page is more informative to readers. — JFG ^talk 07:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I think that is a mis-application of WP:PAGEDECIDE. That guidance is to ensure that for example, we have one cohesive article on a small town rather than a series of stubs on each of its streets. It does not mention using list articles as merge targets, and does not recommend creating omnibus set-of-people articles for notable people.

I also disagree with your application of the minor anecdotes rule. Flying somewhere for a birthday would indeed be trivial in most cases, but in the case of Hughes it is a) directly related to the reason for her notability, and b) received extensive coverage in multiple major quality newspapers. Again, being a loyal bank customer is trivia; but being a customer of the same branch for 100 years is exceptional, and possibly globally unique.

I am sad to see that the reaction against GRG-spam is producing such a disproportionate response. It seems to have moved far beyond the well-justified cleanup of non-notables to an outright hostility to the topic, which breaches WP:NPOV and several other core policies. This hostility is several driving editors to disregard substantive coverage in multiple major news sources. It seems to me that if you want to some rule which imposes uniquely onerous criteria on longevity-related articles, then you need to run an RFC to seek consensus for it, rather than stretching existing guidelines with an interpretation which is not in the text of the guideline and is not applied to other topics.

I have to say that I am shocked by the level of what seems to be uncritical groupthink in this discussion. Four editors responded without challenging the glaring lack of WP:BEFORE, which is an alarming omission. And now we have several editors effectively arguing that no amount of coverage in reliable sources can justify a standalone article.

A similar process of contra-policy groupthink is evident in multiple discussions at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7, where multiple editors followed each other to promote actions for which they had no policy-based justification. It is notable that no less than three of the first five contributors to this discussion (@The Blade of the Northern Lights,Legacypac, and Newshunter12) were amongst the team of editors who followed each other around that CFD page to repeatedly insist on perverse and unjustified outcomes. The whole thing seems to derive from WT:WikiProject Longevity#AfDs_of_individual_biographies, which is based on the premise advanced in this edit[14]] by @JFG that subjects lacking independent notability beyond their age should be merged. There is no policy basis for that assertion, and it is very disappointing to see the extent of tag-teaming in the wake of it. WP:BIO1E refers to people notable solely through coverage of a single event, and it is a patently ridiculous stretch to use that policy as grounds for merging an article about someone who received sustained substantive coverage for a least seven years, across multiple events, solely because they all relate on one attribute. (Many, possibly most, short biographical articles elate to one attribute. For example, we have hundreds of thousands of short articles on minor sportspeople who only ever played for one team, or minor politicians who only ever represented one party in one elected office, and there is zero practice of merging them into one blob article of "Foo Party member of the Ruritanian Parliament" or "Players on the Foo sports team".)

We also have @The Blade of the Northern Lights's bizarre and sustained assertion above that a country is a arbitrarily defined geographical area, again without any policy basis. I note that nationality is one the defining attributes mentioned in the lede of nearly every biographical article per MOS:OPENPARABIO, and that categorisation by nationality is specifically recommended in WP:Categorization_of_people#By_nationality_and_occupation. TBOTNL's position is not just making up policy to suit a purpose; it is flagrantly contradicting long-established policy and guidelines.

I value the cleanup of GRG cruft, but I am alarmed by what I see here. It seems to me to be something close to a POV-pushing cabal whose conduct is starting to mirror some of the policy-averse POV-pushing of the GRG/WOP cabal which caused such drama a decade ago. The GRG/WOP crowd's tendentiousness went through multiple ANI/AFD dramas before eventually ending up at Arbcom with lots of sanctions. Please do not follow them down the same path. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many, possibly most, short biographical articles elate to one attribute – Personally I'm for as much elating as possible, other things being equal. E Eng 13:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding a joke in my typo, @EEng. We all need more things to smile at, and — as you say — as much elating as possible.

And now that you are here, it would be good to see an experienced editor like yourself commenting on the substance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You meant to say "experienced and respected", no doubt. E Eng 03:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My category nominations are an altogether separate issue, you can chalk that up to me not being all that familiar with that area of Wikipedia. Besides, that's basically a one-off situation, and once those come to whatever resolution there aren't a ton more sitting around. As to this page, it should be clear I agree with JFG, but I don't want to bludgeon this discussion so I'll bow out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @The Blade of the Northern Lights. I had hoped that you would reconsider your stance against actual policy and guidelines, but it seems not. So we'll leave it to the closer to weigh the policy-based arguments per WP:CLOSEAFD. My reading of WP:Non-admin closure is that this AFD should be closed by an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:BrownHairedGirl has turned into a crusader against Wikiproject WP:LONGEVITY. This is an area subject to DS. Invoking Non-Admin closure pretty much says the other voters (in this case experienced editors) are full of it and shoild be ignored. Using a bunch of "auto notable" athlete pages, that many people don't think should be allowed either, as justification for keeping pages on people who only got a little press for not dying as quickly as others is a WP:WAX. Anyone that lives to 100 or so is going to have done a bunch of things a long time and lived through a bunch of history. Like Sarah Knauss said on being told she was the world's oldest person - "So what". Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Legacypac, no I am not a crusader against Wikiproject WP:LONGEVITY. I could become one if you persist, but so far I have objected vociferously to some of the actions by members of that project in the last few days, viz:

The massive disruption caused at WP:CFD by a slew of near-identical nominations by Legacypac and TBOTNL, which raised the same issue and should have made as a single group nomination
The blatant tag-teaming by members of that project in those ~dozen CFD discussions, in which they parroted a line that had been agreed somewhere else without regard to its disruptive consequences
The tag-teaming at this AFD, in which WP:LONGEVITY members piled in to ignore the lack of WP:BEFORE
The repeated instances on this page of WP:LONGEVITY members blatantly misrepresenting policy or inventing policy

Now we have Legacypac continuing the same shoddy game.

Legacypac refers to a bunch of "auto notable" athlete pages, that many people don't think should be allowed either. "Many people don't think" is not how policy is formed on en.wp; we decide by WP:CONSENSUS, rather than by one of two editors taking it upon themsleves to act in the name of what they believe to be some silent majority. If you think that policy is wrong, then open a WP:RFC to change it, but don't simply dismiss it on the grounds that you reckon some other people support your view.
We have existing policies on notability. They do not give automatic notability to long-lived people (as the GRG crew wanted), but nor do they exclude notability being formed on the basis of longevity (as the WP:LONGEVITY believe). If you want to make it part of the notability guidelines, then open a WP:RFC

If, as Legacypac claims, the WP:LONGEVITY members are experienced editors, they should know better than to conduct themselves like this. I can recall no encounters with WP:LONGEVITY until yesterday, but I have been appalled by what I have seen in the last 24 hours.

And finally ... yes, if the WP:LONGEVITY members here persist in their misrepresentations of policy and their fabrications of poliy, then the closer of this discussion is obliged to ignore them. That is long-standing XFD policy, and if the closer fails to discount the nonsense being peddled here, then the closure will be rapidly taken to DRV. I urge WP:LONGEVITY members to clean up their act instead of shooting the messenger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even Admins are subject to policies against casting aspirations and making personal attacks. Nominating categories for deletion that contain one or three pages is not disruption it is cleanup. Exercise caution. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, the article and category issues are altogether unrelated. The category issue was the result of categories being a Rube Goldberg machine with which I am unfamiliar, and which I seem to have inadvertently helped create a mess; it was unintentional, and discussion of the issue there belongs there. This is about whether an article should be kept or deleted. As I seem to stand accused of murdering people today, or something, accusations of fabrications are fairly mild... but I, anyway, am not arguing no one can be notable for living a long time. I should also say I have great respect for BrownHairedGirl's work all over Wikipedia, so I neither take nor intend any of this to be personal; no reason to get stressed over Wikipedia matters. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Legacypac: I stand by what I have written above, and make no apology or retraction. if you believe that my comments on conduct are unacceptable, feel free to bring them to wider attention at WP:ANI. But before doing so, you may want to actually read WP:NPA, and esp WP:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? .... and also beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Personally, I'd prefer not to have all the drama of an ANI trip, but if you do want a spotlight shone on WP:LONGEVITY's activities as documented here, then go right ahead.

@The Blade of the Northern Lights, I do understand that the making of the multiple nominations arose out of lack of experience with CFD. That's a good faith mistake, but it became problematic because of the subsequent tag-teaming in which several editors expressed a desire to depopulate other categories which they believe shouldn't exist, but where nobody has sought a consensus to delete them.

Anyway, I am glad to see that you not arguing no one can be notable for living a long time. If so, then in view of the GNG-meeting significant coverage of this topic, I presume that you will withdraw your proposal to merge or delete this article. It would also be nice to see you strike the stuff about nationality being an arbitrarily defined geographical area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was being a bit overly philosophical, which I have a lifelong penchant for. On this article we seem to primarily disagree on whether it should stand alone or be part of a list, and indeed the coverage she did receive was due to her longevity; in either instance, whatever happens her longevity would be the reason for a mention anywhere on Wikipedia. I backed away from the category discussions because I saw something went off the rails and didn't want to make it worse, I'll try to do some reading and figure out a solution for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, her notability does seem to derive from longevity. I have not seen any genuine policy-based reason to support the assertion that means her bio should be merged to a list. It's clear that some editors would like policy to require a merge, but that is a different matter. We work with policy as it is, not how we'd like it to be.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not participated in this AfD, but I have commented on several AfDs of supercentenarians that the rate at which they are listed for AfD (16 on one day, on one occasion!) precludes serious consideration of whether they are notable or not. (See especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadayoshi Tanabe (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Schmierer, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Sisnett, (also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Berner (supercentenarian) (2nd nomination), as well as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Longevity#Notability_criteria?) The assumption seems to be that because they reached extreme old age, they cannot be notable; and even if they are, they do not deserve an article. I think a more accurate name for the project would be WikiProject AntiLongevity. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have made a concerted effort not to flood AfD; I thought that day was too much, and (perhaps ironically) it was partially the result of lack of coordination (a couple of those were me, but you'll see that then, as with all other days, I only nominate 2-4 on any day). I hope what I've said above clarifies my own position, at least. And as long as you're here, I sincerely appreciate your work on Edna Parker and Jack Lockett; I haven't acknowledged your work as I should have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your acknowledgement, I appreciate it. I must admit that I find it hard to understand what the notability criteria or guidelines for supercentenarians are. You stated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Longevity#Notability_criteria? that it is "detailed coverage of the person's life from multiple reliable sources". It seems that you regard Edna Parker as meeting that requirement, but Bernice Madigan has just closed as a Redirect (not on consensus, but by an admin deciding the result) when she arguably has a similar amount of detailed coverage as Edna Parker. I had just done some work on the Bernice Madigan article (I am not questioning the redirection because of that - I do realise that the subjects of some articles, even after improvement, do not meet notability guidelines), but where is the possibility of discussing what constitutes detailed coverage, and what does not make the grade? I have just noticed that some of the content I just added to Bernice Madigan, with references to sources already in the article, had recently (prior to my work) been removed by one of the supercentenarian deleters as "unsourced". It was not specifically referenced, but if they had bothered to look at the sources, they would have been able to add the inline citation themselves. I do not find most Longevity project members to be sincere in an attempt to determine notability criteria - that action on the Bernice Madigan article is a good example of unnecessarily cutting the article to nothing, so bolstering arguments that there is nothing to keep. Probably I should say this on the project talk page, but it is so clearly a deletion project that I do not feel at all welcome there. I will vote Delete on supercentenarians where there is no WP:SIGCOV, but it seems to me that serious, rational discussion is not welcomed in cases where there is evidence of WP:SIGCOV, if that SIGCOV comes because of their extreme old age. (Btw, I have contacted the closing admin on Bernice Madigan.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this makes me so angry. The admin who closed Bernice Madigan has responded, "Subprojects don't write policy. Not all votes are equal and its not a democracy or straight up vote. The delete side had better arguments. Listifying barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, which is why I closed it that way. . What biographical data has been lost that couldn't be included in a list." Why bother at all, then? You may as well just delete them all, and I'll stop wasting my time researching and revising. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll have to agree with Thryduulf, considering the fact the she is the oldest ever of the UK (and also considering the amount of interest she can attract) simply deleting her article is not a wise decision at all. Also I add, I don't agree with the "witchhunt" that Legacypac is doing, I say "witchhunt" because this user definitely feels like it is persecuting anyone who goes against his "Wikiproject Longevity", it is simply the vibe the user gives (I might be incorrect, if then forgive me, but that comment calling BrownHairedGirl a crusader against the "Wikiproject Longevity" was totally uncalled for, such accusatory and without merit comments just bring down the discussion that really matters. Garlicolive (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC) — Garlicolive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This was just settling down, we don't need more bomb-throwing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll agree that we don't need any bomb-throwing, but the one who started the accusations was Legacypac, to what needed to be an impersonal discussion, so I was just responding to that which completely go against the reasonable discussion (I emphasize that the way he attack anyone who went against him as crusaders only hurts his/her own image). Garlicolive (User talk:Garlicolive) 23:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Bio. Living to be the oldest person of any nation is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." I would oppose any merge per WP:Pagelength and a lack of protection against a minibio being nuked in future against consensus at AfD. schetm (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per spirited and compelling advocacy on behalf of the centenarian articles by BrownHairedGirl with additional input here from RebeccaGreen, Garlicolive and schetm. The subject of this entry, in particular, taking into account the media coverage cited by BrownHairedGirl, is indisputably notable. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The articles provided by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) in the BBC, The Guardian, The Times, United Press International, San Francisco Chronicle, the Daily Mirror over a period of seven years before Charlotte Hughes' death.
2. Maier, Heiner; Gampe, Jutta; Jeune, Bernard; Robine, Jeane-Marie; Vaupel, James W., eds. (2010). Supercentenarians. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH. pp. 293–294. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11520-2_16. ISBN 978-3-642-11520-2. Retrieved 2018-12-11.
  The book notes:
  3.1 Charlotte Hughes: "A stiff brandy, bacon and eggs"
  
  The next person to exceed the 115-year limit was most probably Charlotte Marion Hughes from England. She was interviewed in the press and appeared on television, but was never interviewed by researchers on aging. However, the now deceased Peter Laslett, a historian from Cambridge University, did have the opportunity to go through the documentation pertaining to her case (biographical notes by Laslett). Her birth registration has been found.
  Charlotte Hughes was born on August 1, 1877, and died on March 17, 1993. She grew up in Middlesborough in Yorkshire, where her father ran a music shop. Until the age of 63 she worked as a teacher in a religious school. While employed there she was not permitted to marry, so she married for the first time only after her retirement. Her husband, Noel Hughes, was a retired army captain and was younger than she. They lived together for 40 years until he died at the age of 88, when Mrs. Hughes herself was 103.
  At the age of 107, Mrs. Hughes received a visit from the Queen. At her 108th birthday, she took the express train to London for the first time in her life and had tea with Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street, having declared on the radio the previous day that she supported the Labour Party. "I told her I was Labour when she cuddled up to me in Downing Street. I said 'Don't cuddle me I'm Labour.' She said: 'Never mind, come and let us have a cup of tea.'" Two years later, aged 110, Mrs. Hughes flew on a Concorde over the Atlantic, traveling in her wheelchair. She was received by the mayor of New York and appeared on television. At the age of 111 she took part in a BBC program on longevity, and by her 112th birthday she had become the oldest person in England. She still lived at home, staying most of the time in her wheelchair, receiving daily home help and regular visits from the district nurse. At the age of 113, she was moved to St. David's Nursing home in Redcar, Cleveland, due to her increasing frailty and poor eyesight. She died at the nursing home from bronchopneumonia, having reached the age of 115 years and 228 days.
  According to newspaper accounts, Charlotte Hughes retained her mental faculties to the last, although she complained of not being able to remember her grammar properly. Relatives described her as extremely domineering, outspoken, and sharp; but also as friendly and witty. Asked what she considered to be the secret of her long life, she replied: "A healthy lifestyle, a stiff brandy, and bacon and eggs." On another occasion she answered: "A good honest life" and adherence to the 10 Commandments.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Charlotte Hughes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Hughes died in 1993. That she received substantial coverage in reliable sources in the seven years prior to her death and that she received substantial coverage in a book published 17 years after her death in 2010 strongly establishes she passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to an appropriate list. I never worry about notability in these cases, but rather focus on WP:PAGEDECIDE -- what's worth saying about the person and where to say it. Here's what the article tells us about her:

Hughes grew up in Middlesbrough in Yorkshire, where her father ran a music shop. She worked as an elementary school teacher from age 13 and married Noel Hughes, a retired army captain, after retiring at 63; Noel died in 1979. She remained in robust health into extreme old age. For her 110th birthday she flew on Concorde for a visit to New York City, one of only two known supercentenarian air passengers. Hughes lived in her own home in Marske-by-the-Sea until 1991, when she moved to a nursing home in Redcar. In her final years she used a wheelchair, but remained mentally sharp.

(A quick glance at outside sources doesn't reveal anything more worth adding.) Everything else (didn't want Thatcher to hug her, Thatcher said "let's have a cup of tea", broke Woman X's longevity record, Koch was Mayor of NY, ...) is cruft.I firmly think the best way to present such respectable but simple lives is as part of a list of other similar lives, so they can be read together, instead of forcing the reader to click from one somewhat-puffed-up permastub to another. I've been saying this for years. E Eng 03:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: that's an odd summary. It omits a bunch of pertinent things known from the current sources, including:

the names of her parents (where available, those are a customary part of any en.wp biography)
that she was the longest-lived person ever documented in the United Kingdom (the core her notability. Why omit that?)
That the terms of her employment forbade her from marrying (such a ban has been illegal in the UK since the 1970s, so it's a significant issue)
that despite not marrying until her retirement, she still had a well-above-average 40 years of marriage (a notable consequence of longevity)
That her parents lived into their 90s, but her siblings died 50 years younger than her (a fact relevant to considerations of family patterns of longevity)
that she was invited to meet both the UK Prime Minster and the Mayor of New York (who yes, are both named, because in her lifetime each office was held by over a dozen people)
that she was a Labour Party supporter

EEng's rewrite seems to go far beyond mere removal of fluff, even unto removing both the reason for her notability and material which should be included in any biog if available. I don't know why EEng does this, but it seems sadly consistent with the repeated approach of other WP:LONGEVITY editors to minimise the content of biogs in this field.

From the book source provided above by Cunard (Maier et al, 2010), we could and should add

That she was visited by her head of state
the description of her character
Her own comments on the reason for her longevity, which is not cruft: it's her view of the attribute which made her notable

And that's before going through the 7 further sources I listed above.

EEng's description of this as a somewhat-puffed-up permastub is at best only part true. Sure the current article includes waffle like Born in Hartlepool in the 40th year of Queen Victoria's reign, she lived under the rule of five more monarchs and 24 British Prime Ministers." However, it is not a stub; at 1921 characters (337 words) "readable prose size" it is 28% longer than the 1,500 character minimum for the no-stubs WP:DYK#Eligibility_criteria .

With the waffle trimmed but the new material added, it would still exceed the DYK stub threshold.

So I am left pondering the same question that I asked myself when I saw a tag-team of WP:LONGEVITY editors vociferously demanding the removal of all extant longevity categories in a succession of discussions at WP:CFD Dec 7: why are members of this project so determined to bend or break rules and customary practice to minimise coverage of articles i=within their scope? Why this determination to both eliminate articles which in any other topic area would be kept, and also to cease categorising them by their WP:CATDEFINING attribute? In nearly 13 years editing en.wp, I have never seen the likes of that project's overwhelming hostility to their topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cogent arguments above by BrownHairedGirl in particular. The apparent bias by some editors against the existence of these articles and their appropriate categorisation is mystifying. Oculi (talk) 23:41, 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 keep. Appears to meet criteria for WP:NACTOR, needs someone to flush out Russian references. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mariya Fomina[edit]

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

A non-notable Russian actress. More often episodic roles in little-known films.--RTY9099 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has a starring role in at least three of her films. There is plenty of Russian coverage in GNews, and there's even a New York Times review of one of her films confirming a starring role ([15]). --Michig (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Russian coverage in a Google News search with just the actress's name. SL93 (talk) 16:04, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's circumference[edit]

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

Reason: Wikipedia:Content forking. The article has no substantive content that does or could differ from Earth radius. Circumference is merely radius times two pi. Modern literature preferentially uses radius. Strebe (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a redirect. The history, measurement, and concept of both circumference and radius are identical. Both are based on an idealized sphere; neither are measured directly; and knowing one implies the other. Strebe (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the same. I disagree because sources treat them separately – circumference is the ancient and practical topic used for navigation and later to define measurements of length (metre, nautical mile), whereas radius is a technical unit used primarily for astronomy. In other words, one is relevant to society, travel and history and the other is relevant to outer space. For the same reason, the two articles cover different content. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, determining the radius and determining the circumference are the same problem. Because the radius is more directly applicable to further calculation (such as area or volume), the topic is preferentially referred to as "radius" in modern literature, including in both geodesy and navigation. I agree that circumference used to be common for the reasons you give, but the Wikipedia way of dealing with something like that is to have "Earth's circumference" (which should be "Earth circumference" in any case) redirect to "Earth radius" with a note in the lede about the one-to-one relationship between circumference and radius. Should we have another article about "Earth diameter" as well, since diameter used to be more commonly used than radius? Surely not. Strebe (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow the sources. If they cover the topics differently, so should we.

Should all 149 articles in Category:Units of length be merged into one, simply because they are all directly calculable from each other?

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should all 149 articles in Category:Units of length be merged into one, simply because they are all directly calculable from each other?. No, because they aren’t. False analogy. Some of those articles are spurious and should be merged. Decimetre, for example, is a stub, will never be anything but a stub; and concerns a thing that has no history or development independent of the meter and that is defined as a calculation from the meter. Foot (unit), on the other hand, is not defined by the meter or any other unit, has many variants, and has a history independent of other units. The fact that someone or even a standards body has given equivalences does not thereby mean they are defined in terms of each other. While an inch is always 1/12th of a foot, its history and origin is independent of the foot, so it’s a reasonable candidate for a separate article. For a more reasonable treatment of topics, see Trigonometric functions, where the basic trigonometric units are all presented in one article because they all derive from the same basics. That is instead of separate articles for sine, cosine, tangent, etc. Meanwhile, circumference and radius are invertible, and now you have gobs of material that duplicates what’s already in Earth radius.

The “follow the sources” argument also does not hold, and for the same reasons. We do not have a separate article on quadrature as distinct from numerical integration even though the early literature preferentially uses that term. Strebe (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are different precedents for separating or combining topics that can be derived from each other, as in most of the measurement unit articles, and decision on a case-by-case basis seems to be the usual (sensible) approach. In this case, I think there is a distinct difference in article focus - Earth radius deals with measurement methods and the physical side; Earth's circumference is almost entirely historical in content. I suppose a workable merge could be engineered, but I don't really see the necessity. In any case, it's not content duplication/forking. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article duplicates large swaths of the article, where the historical circumference measurements are discussed in detail. As for a “merge”, this article is brand new.

That's actually correct - the expanded material would fit better in there. Change to merge to History of geodesy. (I don't see what the new status of the article has to do with anything, though; much of the material seems not to be covered in the latter). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: what about the other sections? The article is still being built, but there are already at least two other sections which would not fit into History of Geodesy. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me Earth’s circumference would have to deal with the seashore problem, where the more closely something is examined the more fractal iterations interfere with averages. Somebody must have written something about this. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Circumference, and specifically this article, concerns only the circular model. Strebe (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: while the article does or should entirely duplicate the content of existing articles (Earth radius, History of geodesy, etc.), there is nothing inherently wrong with the title. I suggest a redirect to Earth radius, but divining a reader's intent might offer a different target. Anything not already present but considered useful should be merged to the relevant title. Lithopsian (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect as the topics are seriously overlapped. Although circumference seems to be a more correct term, as that is what is measured, and the radius has not been directly measured, and will take a while before it is. (Perhaps diameter can be measured using gravitational waves, or a neutrino burst, but that is yet in the future when more sensors exist). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although circumference seems to be a more correct term, as that is what is measured, It is not. What is measured are angles consisting of straight lines, which, through the presumption of a spherical earth, yields an imaginary arc of a circle via trigonometry. Again, with the presumption of a spherical earth, this arc is extrapolated into a circumference and radius. Strebe (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: so far we have consensus that this is a legitimate topic, but a variety of other articles have been pointed out where there is topic overlap. We can also add history of the metre, nautical mile, circle of latitude, meridian (geography), as well as Earth and Equator (notably, the latter two being the prior targets of the two primary redirects [16], [17]).

Lithopsian posed what I think is the key question here – what would an average reader, searching for “Earth’s circumference”, or similar, expect and want to find? If it is just “how long is it”, they don't need to click on Wikipedia. I think they mostly come here to find out “what is measurement of the circumference used for” or “why is the Earth’s circumference important”? This article now does that, and could do even more if it was given time to develop. Before this article, this information was dispersed across perhaps a dozen articles, making the journey to understanding laborious and complicated.

Some merge proposals have suggested Earth radius – this is a highly technical article, aimed at geodesists, which answers different questions and is focused on the defined astronomical unit R_🜨. Another suggestion is history of geodesy, since part of that article’s scope overlaps with part of this article’s scope – in the way that human height partially overlaps with history of anthropometry.

There is no good single target article for a merge, and having this information dispersed back across a dozen articles would not help the reader. Hence the status quo serves the reader best. A compromise might be a “merge and demerge” with Earth radius to create a concept article called Earth radius and circumference (or something similarly inclusive) and a separate article called Earth radius (unit).

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some merge proposals have suggested Earth radius – this is a highly technical article, aimed at geodesists, which answers different questions and is focused on the defined astronomical unit R_🜨. Not so. Nothing beyond the symbol has anything to do with the astronomical R_🜨, and rather little of it has to do with anything geodesists concern themselves with, either. Geodesists are interested in the ellipsoid and geoid, not sphere, and therefore do not concern themselves with "radius" except as a digression. The article's bent is, actually, about an idealized radius for an idealized sphere, which is the same concern, history, measurement, and mathematical foundation for a circumference. If the article needs to be reformed or enhanced to better serve readers who might not realize circumference and radius are inseparable, then that is a project I could get behind. The fact that they are inseparable, however, argues against two articles for the same topic. Strebe (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is obviously a reasonable search term; Figure of the Earth would probably be a better target than Earth radius currently. As Earth is not a perfect sphere, this isn't simply a mathematical function of Earth's radius. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Earth is not a perfect sphere, this isn't simply a mathematical function of Earth's radius. It is. Because earth is not a perfect sphere, radius also has no precise meaning, and in exactly the same way as circumference cannot. (This is noted in the Earth radius article.) Strebe (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In a purely mathematical sense, circumference is a function of the radius. However, in a more practical sense, the two have been used differently. Sailors did not navigate using the Earth's radius. Technically, they could have, the reality is, they didn't. As such, two separate articles are needed to reflect the difference in practical usage of the two concepts. This holds true, even if much of this article is repeating information that is already written in Earth radius. - Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the reasons cited by others here, especially those of User:Puzzledvegetable, and also because I am not convinced by the argument about modern literature favoring radius over circumference. That's especially not the case for the literature I am used to reading: historical studies and the history of science, especially every single time the name Eratosthenes and his achievements are mentioned. If someone wants it, I could probably even produce an exhaustive list of scholarly sources that use the term almost exclusively over radius, if you want to play the WP:SOURCES and WP:RELIABLE game here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:17, 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 SNOW Merge and redirect to Civilization (board game), with no prejudice against creating a list article as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization (board game)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page is in violation of WP:INCOMPDAB. All entries can be listed at the parent disambiguation page, Civilization (disambiguation) without issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Civilization (disambiguation). The dab page is tiny and this situation is not remotely complex enough to warrant needing a separate article. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Civilization (disambiguation)#Games per WP:INCDAB. This case is exactly analogous to the example there. We should also delete the anomalous redirect Civilization (board game) (disambiguation) which was created automatically when Rodw fixed some bad links. Certes (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Civilization (disambiguation)#Games. This is textbook example of WP:INCDAB. older ≠ wiser 12:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Civilization (disambiguation)#Games: clear cut WP:INCDAB. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - pile-on !vote; based on the talk page discussion this probably shouldn't be SNOW closed until CapnZapp comments. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion that hatnotes on the boardgames can point to Civilization (disambiguation)#Games, which serves the same purpose as this page. No content is deleted, it is simply merged per WP:INCDAB. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since this is the first attempt at bringing the matter up for discussion anywhere: I created the page because I needed a landing for the hat notes of the involved board game articles. Three different editors just wrecked that work with zero warning, zero discussion and zero feedback. It's not that I oppose the removal of this page per se, it's that none of the three efforts took the care to make everything work. Yes, all three efforts so far has created various messes, feel free to browse page histories! Since none of them have taken the time to engage, reverting with the edit comment "please discuss on talk" was the quick and painless way of ensuring a clean state without broken stuff. If anyone wondered why their edits were discarded, all they needed to do is ask. Nobody did - I just assume they all thought I was hung up about policy. I wasn't. That said, please do note that many of you seem to believe the INCDAB policy page mandates the deletion of this article. Read it again, and you'll see that DOUBLEDAB is not prohibited, and that policy does not clearly stipulate when doubledab is to be used or not. Maybe it should be saying that... but it really does not. Nevertheless, I do see where this AfD is going.

Comment, cont'd: Anyway, I applaud this, the first effort, to actually engage in discussion. If you must delete the page, feel free to do so, but please make sure you don't leave stuff hanging (from related article pages). Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone wants to put the content and wikilinks of related pages into a consistent state. The reason this didn't happen is that editors with different views were pulling in opposing directions, making edits which were each reasonable in isolation but conflicted when viewed as a group. Once we have a consensus on which way to go, we can soon get there together. Can we agree the best target for the hatnotes? I propose Civilization (disambiguation)#Games (which will automatically appear styled as Civilization (disambiguation) § Games) as that's the actual destination and will keep such links off the reports of ambiguous links to be fixed. Certes (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there even be hatnotes? "Civilization (2010 board game)" is not ambiguous. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The full name of the game is "Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game", which redirects there (along with a few variants). That title specifically refers to just that game, although it is ambiguous enough to refer to most of the boardgames generally. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. Most of the hatnotes can be removed per WP:NAMB. Advanced Civilization is the only ambiguous title; it currently has no hatnote and its alternative meaning isn't a board game. Civilization: The Boardgame redirects to Civilization (2002 board game) and Civilization: The Board Game redirects to Civilization (2010 board game). Those titles may justify {{redirect}} hatnotes, or we may even feel that (despite WP:SMALLDIFFS) those titles are ambiguous enough to retarget them directly to the dab section. Certes (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hat notes should certainly stay: The difference between Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame and Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game is a mere space; nuff said. And since we have three articles named Civilization (YY board game), it is easy to see how a reader got the wrong one and would be helped by links to the others. (Via a single link to disambiguation, of course; not by some incomplete listing right in the hat note). Then it's the matter of actually formatting the Civilization (board game) (disambiguation) article (or section if you must). Please see talk. (Sigh - I really wish people weren't so talk page averse...) Okay - here goes: In short, what to link - the real title or the Wikipedia article title? And it looks strange to have A New Dawn as the sole exception; very jarring. Please don't intermix board and video games in a single jumbled "Games" section. It becomes one long list of hypnotic "Civilization" entries with only slight variance in wording that are directly reader hostile. Did I miss one? I probably did. All in all, I suggest this process (the AfD) is put on hold or whatever while we have a proper holistic discussion on an actual goddamn talk page (anywhere but here - when the discussion closes, this space gets shut down with no further possibility to discuss), copying this stuff now that we finally have started talking. Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. This is getting into WP:SNOW territory. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If all of these are related, why not just move this to List of Civilization games and de-disambiguate altogether? bd2412 T 02:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly could be a list or set index. If so then I'd go for List of Civilization board games, to disambiguate from Civilization (series) which covers the video games. Certes (talk) 13:11, 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.

[1] ttp://www.PROSPERuk.party

[2] ttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-steven-woolfe-brexit-timeline-party-key-events-a7348116.html

[1]

[2]