Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 November 14 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy withdraw. withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffa Crvenka[edit]

Jaffa Crvenka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Provided sources are either links to the company website ([1]), WP:ROUTINE business press ([2] [3]), and an interview with the company director ([4]). I wasn't able to find any better coverage online in English, although it's possible there's something out there in Serbian or other languages. The articles for this subject in other languages do not have any better sources (although the French one includes links to several different pages on the company website, and the Serbian article includes a link to what appears to be a PDF of a legal document) signed, Rosguill talk 23:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Serbia's largest confectionery company[5] I say it is notable. I can't see why there would be any coverage in English considering it doesn't operate in any English speaking regions. There is a great deal of coverage not in English, for example: [6][7][8][9][10]. They make Jaffa Cakes, among other things, and are widely stocked across Europe in supermarkets. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It does have some good coverage in non-English sources. There is likely more in other language sources. SL93 (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw by nom, additional sources demonstrate notability, although I'm not sure what the significance of them making Jaffa cakes is as these seem to be made by several companies. signed, Rosguill talk 14:15, 14 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lipsett[edit]

Rob Lipsett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Regardless of any possible notability, this is promotionalism. The references are the usual sort of notices and press releases, as expected for people whose career depends on them. we don't have to jhelp them at it. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so he's micro-celebrity and this article is just one big advert for him. Spleodrach (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not make more sense to edit it rather than delete it then? Sone3452 (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note you wrote the article. Are you connected with the subject? In answer to your question, his only claim to fame is he has a large number of followers on various social media; definite delete. Spleodrach (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No connection was done rather as part of a university assignment, I rather choose to believe that Wikipedia has a habit of ignoring the importance of the "field" if you will, of the social media micro-celebrities. Whilst I would whole heartedly concede it is ridiculous to include every social media 'micro-celebrity', it would be equally foolish to ignore the more notable ones and in turn ignore the 'field' as a whole, as it's one of the fastest growing, influential, fields of study in todays social media dominated world.Sone3452 (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No apparent notability; clearly promotional and would take a heck of a lot of work to make it otherwise.Deb (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer you to bellow where I discussed the notion of the notability of the larger micro-celebrity and question how someone with a growing reach of almost a million people has less notability in todays growing world than obscure Irish poets or outdated movies.Sone3452 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, I will delete the sentence containing a blatant advertisement for a forthcoming event. Deb (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think this is a prime example of someone having their passing 15 minutes of fame. Nearly all the major attention he received was over a short period of time when competing on a television series. Now his only claim to notability is having a large number of social media followers. Unfortunately, that doesn't quite satisfy our standards. The promotional tone isn't quite G11-worthy but is definitely a violation of NPOV. SITH (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of his fame as a micro-celebrity came before he was featured on any television show, and I think the notion that you would dismiss someone's notability who interacts with close to a million people on a perpetual basis, because of the branding 'micro celebrity' is somewhat foolish. If you choose to consider the reach and impact of these individuals, whilst choosing to mark obscure Irish poets as notable (for example), you risk the chance of becoming outdated and irrelevant. With modern influence and the age of social media, notions like Bourdieu’s theory of the rise of celebrity (1993) have become outdated and rather it is rather apparent that the notability of 'micro-celebrities' in terms of their influence has surpassed that of the traditional celebrity and consequently the idea of a micro-celebrity with a reach of almost 1 million people not being considered notable is a notion that asks do you consider the notability of significant 'micro-celebrities' or risk getting left behind.Sone3452 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sone3452: I'm just interpreting the guidelines as they exist. If you want to change the policy, you could always start a conversation at WT:ANYBIO or WP:VPP. SITH (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." If you consider his field to be social media influencing, fitness or micro-celebrity, it's hard to make an argument that he doesn't make a widely recognised contribution to it.Sone3452 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SiteOne Landscape Supply[edit]

SiteOne Landscape Supply (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Virtually all coverage is WP:ROUTINE business coverage and PR releases that rely on quotes from the subject and those affiliated with it, that do not meet the depth requirements of the company notability guideline WP:ORGCRITE. I wasn't able to find any non-trivial coverage in an internet search. Of the provided sources, two are borderline-acceptable, but ultimately fall short as well: [11] provides in-depth analysis, but on the second page the author discloses that they were potentially taking a position at the subject within 72 hours of publishing the article, making it possibly not independent (it is unclear if they ever did take the position). [12] provides more depth than most of the PR/routine press, but is primarily an interview, which again raises independence questions (in addition to being published in a publication that also publishes PR releases). Ultimately, even if we take a generous stance on these two articles, the subject doesn't meet the ORGCRITE requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources (emphasis mine). signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine coverage. Yip. Entirely generic, non notable. 22:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and above editor. Please note that this was one of a series of articles which were improperly accepted at AfC by a globally blocked and banned sock, User:Frayae.Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear and obvious case of a non-notable company. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 19 November 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. I was on the edge about whether this should be keep or no consensus. Eventually came to the conclusion that a new user whose only contributions are nominating articles for deletion raises some eyebrows, and I've never liked this page is pretty much the canonical example of a a WP:ATA. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States and state-sponsored terrorism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
United States and state-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Clearly flunks WP:POVFORK already completely covered in United States and state terrorism and also WP:REDUNDANT.Further this article is a list about 6 different issues which promotes WP:fringe theory and WP:COATRACK and conspiracy theory. 1973 Chilean coup d'état and United States intervention in Chile articles state There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid.Further supporting a Coup is not Terrorism 99% of the sources the coup was do not say it is Terrorism . Piazza Fontana bombing there was a arrest and trial but the role of the CIA is debatable again a conspiracy theory Most sources say it is Human Rights Violations in Colombia not terrorism.USA is not directly involved. Los Pepes is not a terrorist group only a paramilitary fighting drugs It is WP:UNDUE to focus on Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles have section son them the article giving them focus that even Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi do not get coverage. Nervegolgi (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — Nervegolgi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vanamonde (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as its subject duplicates that of an existing article, United States and state terrorism. The examples it describes could, where established as genuine, be added to that article. Maproom (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maproom, that isn't the case; the titles are only superficially similar. Please take a look at the sources and the substance of the articles. Vanamonde (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my !vote. You and Vanamonde (below) make good points. Maproom (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The pages cover clearly distinct tpoics. United States and state terrorism refers to US involvement with so-called state-terrorism; the use of torture, murder, and so forth by national governments that has the support of the US. The page being nominated here is about US support to paramilitary groups that have committed terrorist activities, as described by reliable sources. These activities were in/targeting countries typically unfriendly to the US, such as Cuba or pre-1973 Chile. There are plenty of RS covering this topic; take these, for example, which are both high-quality scholarly sources.[1][2] The nominator has made no edits outside AfD (itself very suspicious) but also has language strikingly similar to that of the account which opened the first AfD on this article. Vanamonde (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Grandin & Joseph, Greg & Gilbert (2010). A Century of Revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 397–414.
  2. ^ Feldmann, Andreas E.; Maiju Perälä (July 2004). "Reassessing the Causes of Nongovernmental Terrorism in Latin America". Latin American Politics and Society. 46 (2): 101–132. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2004.tb00277.x.

Maproom The references given do not say so. Century of Revolution. do not explicitly say that USA enraged in Terrorism the book uses the term Terrorism only 5 times in different contexts.[13] and neither could I find it in the other book.

Nervegolgi (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree there are POV issues on the page - specifically lack of the rather wide refutations that many of these constituted terrorism. However, terrorism is a subjective measure and it is rather clear there is wide coverage of the claim that the US has been involved with or in relations with groups that are claimed to be terrorists by at least those who are opposed to said groups.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplication of content United States and state terrorism already covers it and Mr Icewhiz we need sources to say it is terrorism and not human rights as most articles linked in the article say so, further there is another article to add the examples there and US support to paramilitary groups can be added there.182.65.179.211 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC) — 182.65.179.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vanamonde (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    State terrorism is a distinct topic from State-sponsored terrorism. The latter could include the former, but the former does not include the latter.Icewhiz (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole title is POV and leading. I've never liked this page. Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV is based on what RS say. Have you read the sources in question? Are you aware we have a very large number of such pages? Vanamonde (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not be participating in this discussion, as doing so would be contrary to my topic ban. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, well-sourced article. Most of the CIA activities amount to this. Dimadick (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea that the US has sponsored terrorism is wholly mainstream, much of the article is robustly sourced after months of work by editors of differing political opinions, and the nominator is pretty obviously a sock. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced article on a notable topic. State terrorism is terrorism by the state; state-sponsored terrorism is the state sponsoring terrorism by others. The two articles shouldn't be merged because the single article would be too long and difficult to navigate; they should refer to each, as they do currently. Any NPOV issues should be fixed through editing and expansion, not deletion. Frankly, if this isn't an example of a notable topic and a well-sourced article, then I apparently don't understand the English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levivich (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went through the references again do not say it is Terrorism like the ref below say MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES not Terrorism.In over 141 of the references in the article US involvement has not been called Terrorism.

CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

Actually Us involement in Colombia is seen as positive in most references. Why continued US support is crucial for Colombia's peace process BBC Has Plan Colombia really worked? @Johnpacklambert: missed above Nervegolgi (talk) 00:18, 17 November 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. Even if not counting the creator vote, there seems to be a clear consensus since the relist. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2007 British Army order of battle[edit]

2007 British Army order of battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There were no major UK Defence Reviews around 2007 to warrant a list of Orders of Battle for the British Army. This article lacks significance and is poorly sourced. Sammartinlai (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sammartinlai (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons above. Dormskirk (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with nominator. Gavbadger (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There were several major infantry regiment amalgamations in 2006 and 2007 (SCOTS, LANCS and RIFLES at least) resulting from the 2003 Defence White Paper outcomes and consequent changes. I am trying to explore with the article creator whether 2007 (or 2008) was a steady state in the British Army that might justify a 2007 (or 2008) ORBAT such as this one. The principal source appears to be archived versions of the official British Army website, which, whilst not an academic source, may be acceptable once it has been examined more closely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this? Please sign your comment/vote. Which 23003 Defence White Paper are you talking about? How does that justify a Stuture four years later? Archives of a British Army website do not justify the need for an orbat for 2007. Archives just show the units were present. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the 2003 Defence White Paper entitled Delivering Security in a Changing World [14], and the force reductions contained within. Some of this was modified by later MoD guidance in 2004 [15], and various changes were made to the details of the original plans over the years following the White Paper's release [16]. These changes were the basis for the creation/amalgamations of several regiments like LANCS, SCOTS and RIFLES, which occurred in 2006 and 2007. So, 2007 (or 2008) seems a logical steady state following the reductions/amalgamations, unless you are aware of major changes in 2008–2010. And you can tone your comments down. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
R LANCs was created in 2005 so that's not counted. The Rifles were created in 2007, ok. SCOTS were created in 2006. So only Rifles count and that is not much for a structure for 2007, based on defence reviews in 2003 and 2004. And then you claim, or rather I first proposed for merger [17], 2008 is also steady state, ie, List of British Army Regiments (2008). These all do not show why 2007 is a steady state. Besides, this [[18]] AfD was deleted. So why should this 2007 be kept? Sammartinlai (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is self-evident. If all the changes from the 2003 White Paper were completed by February 2007 (with the creation of RIFLES), then the British Army in March 2007 (or 2008, I'm open to moving it there because it is less ambiguous than 2007 due to RIFLES being created in early 2007) is a steady state following all of the changes originally mooted in 2003. It shows the state of the British Army once the White Paper had been fully implemented (with various modifications here and there), and therefore is encyclopaedically useful as a snapshot showing the full outcome of the 2003 White Paper. Unless you have contrary information that shows major changes to the British Army between the creation of RIFLES and the 2010 Review, I see no reason whatsoever why this article should not be kept. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are picking at straws. Unless you tell me a huge majority of the units were changed/merged/created in 2007 and not earlier or later (I am ignoring 2008 since this isn't in the first reason to delete), then it is significant. As I've previously pointed, especially on J-Man-11's talk page, there was no detailed army document regarding these changes. SDSR 2010 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62482/strategic-defence-security-review.pdf), it was announced just two/2 years later (not four, not three as your case is), that there would be a Army 2020 plan (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120817015012/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Army2020_brochure.pdf) and then it came up the next year (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131002123834/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Army2020_Report.pdf). These plans covere the majority of units. Your argument covers only a couple of units stretched over longer periods of time, with no clear army plan or links (Army 2020 changes can be found [19] here. As I said, only the Rifles changed in 2007 and a previous article covering changes was deleted in a AfD, [20]]. No, you are just desperately picking at straws. Sammartinlai (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being lectured at, so pull your head in. My views are not "desperate", they are completely logical. I've made my views clear and you are not going to change them by bludgeoning me with posts. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An additional, perhaps principal source for this article has been identified through ongoing communication with the article creator. The British Army Guide 2008-2009 (2008) by Charles Heyman and published by Pen & Sword. It specifically identifies ORBAT states of play for 2007, and is available in preview on Google Books here. Combined with the weaker but still reliable archived official British Army webpages, this provides sufficient reliable sources to support the existence of this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one desperately arguing, am not lecturing, argument still stands. Curious you think one source is a saviour of it all. Sammartinlai (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I argue again for deletion, especially since I argue it is so similar to British Army Land_Forces, 2007-2015 where the result was delete. I also stand my previous arguments as per above. Using a defence review three/four years earlier and one book does not justify the need for a structure for 2007, especially since only one cited unit was changed in that year. Sammartinlai (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've already made your point a number of times. This is becoming repetitious, and is probably discouraging to other editors who may look in on it. So can you just leave it so others can comment. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrisy, since you yourself are. So I'll leave it. If you reply, you are really breaking your own law. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Peacemaker67. Not easy to get through this thread with all repeatitve, argumentative (and insulting) comments by the nom. But Peacemaker67 makes some very good points. If I may ask/confirm; PM67, you are open to a change of year in the title? (just curious, it will not affect my !vote either way) Thanks - wolf 07:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go for 2008 just because the RIFLES creation was in 2007, so 2007 could be considered a bit ambiguous (ie at what point of 2007). The principal source I identified via discussions with the creator was published in 2008 so that supports a move to 2008. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: a Keep vote should be permitted for the page creator, J-Man11 has just been blocked for 4 weeks. He has made several comments in defence of the article on his talk page, that should also be considered for the supporting rationale for this !vote. As there is no policy against it, this vote by proxy should be recognized. Peacemaker67... thoughts? As the blocking adoin, familiar with the user's history and talk page, I'll leave this to you. If you believe this isn't valid, I'll remove or strike. Thanks - wolf 07:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given J-Man11 is clearly a struggling newbie and may not understand how this all works, I think that is a reasonable assumption, but I'll leave the closer to decide whether to give it any weight or not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons Peacemaker67 has articulated and sourced very well -- Reasons to delete seem wholly opinionated and academic at best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as substantial coverage in reliable sources have been identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and there is no convincing reason for deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage in reliable sources; generally applies to most year-specific orders of battle, though sometimes the sources don't turn up here very fast. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baskut Tuncak[edit]

Baskut Tuncak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A special rapporteur is not covered under WP:DIPLOMAT, thus I don't see how this article can pass notability guidelines. Also fails GNG. 1l2l3k (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Please do not delete.I am working to improve the article as adviced.Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes required as possible. Request removal of the deletion tag. Alex-h (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Baskut Tuncak is United Nations Special Rapporteur without adequate in-depth coverage in reliable sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not satisfy the GNG due to lack of coverage of the subject. EnPassant (talk) 18:23, 16 November 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2018. Per WP:ATD. There is a parallel discussion going on which might change overall policy about candidates. When that discussion is completed, this can be revisited. It'll be a logistical nightmare to re-examine every candidate article that's been deleted over the years, but that's another question. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiral Tipirneni[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hiral Tipirneni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be merged/redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2018. She fails WP:NPOL and a merge & redirect is appropriate per WP:POLOUTCOMES. She has lost two U.S. House races. Her medical career doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Marquardtika (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Twice-failed candidate for office would not meet WP:NPOL, all news coverage is campaign-related, not notable outside campaign context. Bkissin (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then restore redirect. Candidates do not qualify for articles just for being candidates, and the campaign coverage shown here neither mounts a strong case for deeming her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies nor demonstrates that she would have passed another notability standard prior to her candidacy. I'll grant that during the election campaign, the heat of partisan passion sometimes causes AFDs on unelected candidates to close "no consensus", as happened here, because people who don't understand how our notability rules actually work think the campaign coverage automatically translates into a WP:GNG pass — but as I've often had to point out, every candidate in every district gets some degree of campaign coverage. So if the existence of some campaign coverage were in and of itself enough to get a candidate past GNG and thus exempt them from having to pass NPOL, then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable candidate and NPOL would automatically have no meaning anymore. Our role here is to keep articles about people who pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, not necessarily everybody who happens to show up in the current news cycle, so the existence of campaign coverage isn't automatically enough to make an unsuccessful candidate permanently notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People (and the events they take part in), need to be seen in context. Normally, we wouldn't keep bios from people who loss elections for US congress. I understand that. However, this, and her over performance, was a key indicator for a historic US election.. These special elections were seen by WP:RS as highly significant because they were seen by WP:RS as a key indicator for the political environment under President Trump. These special elections are significant enough, the people involved in them are WP:N, even if they lose. A simple question to ask is this. In WP:10Y, would someone who wants to study this period want these bios or not? We are here to be useful, now and in the future, and not to hold to some firm rules. Finally, the fact that she ran again and that received national coverage elimenates the one event issue.Casprings (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your concern Casprings, which is why I think that merging some of the biographical or campaign information into the article for that election will keep the information about the importance of that race for those who want to read about a historical election, despite the candidate lacking individual notability. Bkissin (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bkissin, I am unsure of the actual policy reason you believe this needs to be deleted for. She clearly meets WP:GNG per the level of national coverage. Wikipedia:BLP1E does not apply because she was involved in multiple events now (special election and election).I am not seeing how she, at all, fails WP:NPOL. Casprings (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NPOL and WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete twice-failed candidate. There's not a single article about her outside of her failed electoral bids. There's two possible redirect candidates, so picking one is fine by me - but as we've seen recently the article first needs to be deleted, then redirected. SportingFlyer talk 10:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NPOL (I am not sure whether it's right to say "one event" where two campaigns in close succession are concerned — are they one long event?). Nothing in the article is so ghastly that it warrants removal from the publicly-accessible page history, so deleting is not at all necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it won't be an issue since the election's over, but we've seen candidate supporters just restore the version right before the redirect shortly after the AfD ends, which is why I'm advocating for the delete/redirect. SportingFlyer talk 00:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects can always be page-protected. XOR'easter (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete defeated candidates for congress are not in general notable, and the only thing for which she got notice was her race for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Statement B on Centralized discussion on the notability of political candidates, and also it's the only way I would know how to pronounce her name. :-) Her candidacies have been covered multiple times in The New York Times and I'm guessing many other reliable national sources. -- RobLa (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would argue that the discussion there needs to close before this one does, as it directly relates to it. It appears B will have consensus. If this closes as delete and B has concensus, I will take this to review.Casprings (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if B does achieve consensus, which is not certain, it doesn't change the fact the coverage here is routine campaign coverage. For instance, the New York Times article was primarily about the election in her district, the other New York Times "article" was election results. There's no reason we can't include the information about her in the article on the election per WP:PRESERVE. SportingFlyer talk 12:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been any consensus established that "Statement B" is the new rule going forward as of yet. As I've pointed out to you many times before, adopting statement B would make it completely impossible to ever deem any candidate in any election not-notable anymore — every candidate always gets campaign coverage, so every candidate would always pass Statement B. Wikipedia then immediately loses its value as an encyclopedia, and becomes nothing more than a worthless repository of campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Keep largely because there is not a great redirect target (both the general and special elections would be equally valid) and I think it is a strain to suggest that a candidate running in two "general" elections is involved in only one event. --Enos733 (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buledi[edit]

Buledi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should appropriate sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: @Yamaguchi先生: This article is about a historical tribe of Baloch people, and there are no extraordinary claims in article its simple encyclopedic article. I also add some more ref and details. Arslanali (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I don't think that ref 4 is reliable but ref 3 is good. Probably borderline GNG pass Spiderone 15:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ethnic groups should always be considered notable if there is anything verifiable to say about them at all. SpinningSpark 01:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to user Spiderone, ref 4 is not reliable, but ref 4 is from Encyclopedia Sindhiana which is published by a semi-govt organization Sindhi Language Authority, so point is source is reliable. Arslanali (talk) 08:59, 16 November 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 18:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humboldt Film Festival[edit]

Humboldt Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant independent coverage to be found for this student-run film festival. It may be the oldest student-run film festival (there is no evidence to support this claim) but is that even a valid claim to notability? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The 2000 book The Film Festival Guide: For Filmmakers, Film Buffs, and Industry Professionals has an entry for this festival. See screenshot here. It does not seem like the San Francisco Chronicle or the Times Standard, relatively close, cover the festival, though. Maybe redirect to Arcata, California#Culture with a sentence there about the festival? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Erik: Fixed your link to Arcata, California. I'm not sure if a redirect to Arcata or to Humboldt State University is more appropriate, as the festival appears to be a student-run activity of that school, and offers academic credit for submitted student films. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would work too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:33, 13 November 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. No consensus to delete this one at all. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean of Tears[edit]

Ocean of Tears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:Notability (films), The film itself did not receive any awards or major coverage in the reliable media to make it notable, even after 6 years of release. The trivial mention in few articles fails WP:NOTNEWS as well DBigXrayᗙ 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article cites sufficient coverage of the fallout from its being banned at the University of Kashmir to indicate notability; coverage also includes discussion of the film's content. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several articles from newspapers, including the Hindu and Times of India, and I found mention in "Filming Reality: The Independent Documentary Movement in India" via google books; plenty to expand the article with. Curdle (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A terrible nomination. The film has received ample coverage in mainstream Indian media; see the following articles for starters:

Therefore, the requirements of the aforementioned notability guidelines are indisputably satisfied. One can find plenty more articles out there. Kerberous (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The notability criteria for films require WP:NFILMS which is more than just routine mention. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of all references from the article as well as those presented in this AfD with the WP:GNG criteria
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
The Hindu Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Interview of the director. ( First person, Primary source) WP:ROUTINE coverage as expected during the launch of movies. WP:NOTNEWS
Filming Reality Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 2 paragraph coverage that is not enough to call significant coverage
greater kashmir Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Published in the "Curtain Raiser" section of the newspaper. 2 para WP:ROUTINE coverage. possible promo in regional newspaper. WP:NOTNEWS
Samaylive Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article published during the release of movie in 2012 and covers the documentary and its controversy
Kashmir times Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Short article WP:ROUTINE coverage of the controversy with release. no coverage of the movie. WP:NOTNEWS
The Times of India Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Short article WP:ROUTINE coverage of the controversy with release. no coverage of the movie. WP:NOTNEWS
Tehelka ? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY ? article that partly covers the film and partly the release controversy.
Times of India Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article that only covers the release controversy. fails WP:NOTNEWS
Firstpost Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN 2013 article Directors Interview ( First person, Primary source) and covers the release controversy
Greater Kashmir Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Interview of the director. ( First person, Primary source) WP:ROUTINE coverage as expected during the launch of movies. WP:NOTNEWS
DNA Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 2012 article covers the release controversy
dailyexcelsior Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 2012 article covers the release controversy
Total qualifying sources 1? There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Analysis of criteria for NFILMS
Criteria Result Pass/Fail
The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. not distributed and no full length reviews Red XN
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. no non trivial article on movie Red XN
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. not deemed notable by broad survey Red XN
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. No commercial re-release Red XN
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. not featured Red XN
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3] no award Red XN
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. Not selected Red XN
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. not taught Red XN
Inclusionary criteria
The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, No unique accomplishment Red XN
The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. No notable person Red XN
The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." not distributed successfully anywhere Red XN
Total qualifying criteria 0 There must be qualifying criteria to meet the NFILMS notability requirements
--DBigXrayᗙ 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of reliable, independent sources indicate notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - having been banned by a prominent university indicates that the film meets the general notability guideline, and both the film and the incident are described by reliable sources. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cwmhiraeth and other folks, I hope you all are aware that a decent and major portion of the budget of "film production" is set aside and spent on the WP:PROMO/ publicity / PR, so one has to be careful in deciding notability and not use PR pieces as denoting notability. The news on films about to be released gets published in the newspapers that are "reliable" and "independent" of the film company and yet that WP:ROUTINE coverage does not qualify for notability. Same with the case with films that do not get released, they the ban generates controversy and find their way into newspapers, such news articles are ROUTINE news and cannot be considered WP:SIGCOV as they violate WP:NOTNEWS. SIGCOV states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are  independent of the subject".
  • WP:NFILMS is specifically decided so as to help AfD contributors judge these films by laying down criteria. An argument that any "political film that is banned in a university" is notable, is kind of a strange arguement that flies in the face of NFILMS here. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Special notability guidelines, such as NFILMS, are alternatives to the basic general notability guideline;meeting general notability through widespread in-depth coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yngvadottir I have already covered GNG in my source table. Can you point me which are those "multiple significant coverage sources" that you believe are meeting GNG here. I will be happy to withdraw the nomination if I feel the GNG is met. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that films spend significant budget on promotion, but suggesting they would purposely spent money to get the production banned in various places is patently absurd. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector. I am not saying that this film producers asked to ban the movie. But a film that gets banned, automatically gets free promotions in the news, they don't really have to spend a lot thereafter, and they still can if they want to further increase the coverage of the ban news. Not saying that this is the case here, but FYI in India there are several instances of film production houses that use controversy as a way of WP:PROMO.
In any case, we should be able to differentiate between regular WP:ROUTINE coverage vs significant & unbiased coverage of a notable film. Plenty of insignificant and routine coverage does not count for GNG. I am still waiting for the folks above to present reliable source that can pass our WP:GNG or WP:NFILM criteria. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I managed to find more of the book ref; if you access "Filming Reality: The Independent Documentary Movement in India" through google books, you only get the first two paragraphs on page 255; however, go through google scholar and you can see that the coverage is rather more. It extends through 256 (not viewable) and halfway through page 257. So its definately significant coverage. May take a few days to get actual scans of the book though.
There is also a short mention in "Mobilizing Conflict Testimony: A Lens of Mobility for the Study of Documentary Practices in the Kashmir Conflict" in Social sciences from 2017 (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/6/3/88/htm). Curdle (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. We will have to actually read the source for making a decision if it passes the "significance" threshold. The second link you gave is only a 1 line mention that is considered "passing mention" and far from being significant. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford The table clearly shows that NFILM criterias are not met, can you clarify your vote ? --DBigXrayᗙ 05:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say GNG. I agree, NFILM is not met. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, You are welcome. Can you name the sources that you are referring to pass GNG. GNG required multiple sources with significant coverage. as shown in my ref table, this is lacking as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I find that the non-interview (expository) portion of this article in The Hindu [21], combined with this feature on Firstpost [22], the paragraph in The Telegraph (Calcutta) here [23], this feature in The Citizen [24] (an outlet which, upon examination, appears to meet RS), two pages in a SAGE Publications book Filming Reality: The Independent Documentary Movement in India, an article in the Kashmir Times [25], and this article (not on the film itself but on critical reaction to the film) in the Times of India [26], to be, in total, indicative of a breadth of significant coverage in reliable sources. Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford Thanks for linking the sources, please see my comments on each of your links.
  • The Hindu [27], report is entirely an Interview of the director, A primary source, cant be used for notability.
  • Firstpost [28], Has only 2 para (4 line) coverage of the film, rest is news of the release controversy, 2 para isnt siignificant coverage.
  • The Telegraph (Calcutta) here [29], has a 2 line passing mention.
  • The Citizen [30] is not a reliable mainstream source.
  • SAGE Publications [31]book has only 2 para visible, we will have to actually see the pages to make a decision if it passes SIGCOV.
  • an article in the Kashmir Times [32], has the interview of director and covers the release controversy. Does Not significantly cover the film.
  • Times of India [33] has nothing to do with coverage of the film but only talks about a law and order incident related to the screening. Not Significant coverage of the film.
So none of these sources show a clear passing of WP:GNG. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In response:
  • report is entirely an Interview of the director, A primary source, cant be used for notability You'll note that I said "the non-interview (expository) portion of this article." If you're going to ask me to write a customized rationale, please take the time to read it and write a customized response instead of copy/pasting what you've written previously when it doesn't apply to my specific reasoning.
  • various notes about coverage being regarding controversy and not the film itself - this is irrelevant for GNG; the general notability guidelines don't demand coverage of any particular aspect of a topic, only that it is wide and not routine
  • book has only 2 para visible, we will have to actually see the pages to make a decision if it passes SIGCOV I have access to the book other than through the Google Books preview. It's two pages.
  • is not a reliable mainstream source - Yes, it is. It has a physical presence by which it can be held legally liable for what it publishes, it has a gatekeeping process, and its reporting has been referenced by unambiguously reliable sources (I quickly found references in two Springer Publishing books). The fact the editor is a CPIM partisan doesn't matter since the CPIM is a mainstream party in India (based solely on a definition of mainstream judged by the consistent presence of parliamentary seats). To overcome a prima facia appearance of reliability you'd need to make a specific and targeted argument instead of dismissal by assertion, though RSN would be the best place to do it.
Chetsford (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hindu [34] has only 4 sentences as part of the non interview coverage of the film. fails sigcov.
  • IMHO the controversy coverage and law & order related news, fails WP:NOTNEWS, we can agree to disagree here.
  • Chetsford can you email me the screenshots of the book, to review.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By my count it has 11 sentences that are neither direct nor indirect quotes. An eleven sentence article is about par with a précis which is fine. NOTNEWS has to do with breaking news, not news of any kind. If it did, there would be no WP articles on things like the Syrian Civil War or Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Vis a vis the book, I'll be happy to. I should be able to scan it tomorrow and will email it. Chetsford (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you discount the direct interview quotes from the director, The Hindu [35] article has 3 sentences talking about the release controversy and 4 sentences talking about the content of the movie. This is far from the 11 sentence that you are claiming, perhaps you have mistakenly counted directors quotes as coverage of the movie. Clearly 4 sentences is far short of the coverage that can be called as significant. Thanks for agreeing to share the screenshots, I am looking forward for it. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The controversy stuff makes it pass GNG even though it would fail the SNG for films. It may be a bit marginal; the depth of this coverage isn't impressive but it seems within bounds. NB: I don't side with the idea that simply getting perfunctory reviews establishes notability. The average newspaper in an area is going to review every single film that hits cinemas in that area, and content of such reviews is actually primary sourcing (the personal viewpoint of the reviewer), despite being in a publication that contains a lot of secondary material. So, my rationale has nothing to do with reviews. The nominator has made a fundamental error here in believing that the notability of a WP article on a work is tied directly and only to RS coverage of the work's content and/or production. This just isn't the case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish just because your opinion on notability differs from another editor, does not make his decision "a fundamental error". Your keep vote is based on the premise that "this controversy is enough 'controversy'". Well I differ, Just because a political documentary was not allowed to be played in a university or a particular cinema hall, and that news was published in the regional newspapers does not automagically mean it has become notable. I am not sure if you are aware of controversy as a PR but check these links out. And I hope you will be able to appreciate the fact that the controversy created by the below movies is on a much larger scale, than "ruckus in a college or a cinema hall".
    You can check the names of any movie in that list and you will find detailed and coverage of the controversies spread over large period of time that is not failed by WP:NOTNEWS criteria, whereas the subject of this AfD althoufh did produce some controversy failed to generate enough controversy that will allow it to pass the threshold of WP:NOTNEWS--DBigXrayᗙ 20:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More WP:BLUDGEON stuff ...
  • Nope. You've repeatedly argued (at way too much length, with too much repetition, and without paying attention to what people are actually saying) that sources about the controversy are not relevant because they're about the controversy surrounding the film's screening instead of about the film per se. That is a fundamental error in policy interpretation, sorry. I have no idea what your "opinion on notability" is, so my observing this as nothing do with a difference of opinion on notability. (My own is published in detail here.) You're advancing a different argument now, that the material on the controversy isn't substantial enough, not that it isn't relevant. (I.e., you appear to have taken my critique and accepted it and changed your position; so, feel free to strike or revise your earlier material dismissing those sources as categorically non-pertinent). I didn't say anything about "automatic" anything. I actually looked at the source material, and it appears (perhaps barely) sufficient.

    I don't care (or care to keep discussing) that your view of the matter differs; this is not a forum for endless debate, it's a simple process in which people present rationales and move on. It's fine to ask a question, or point out a policy error, or whatever (some AfD !votes really don't make sense, e.g. at an ongoing one about an alleged dog breed), but an endless litany of disagreement that simply re-re-re-states the same arguments you've already made and which others are not buying simply isn't constructive; see Proof by assertion. E.g., it's already been pointed out to you that you are citing NOTNEWS wrong; it is about breaking news and the fact that WP doesn't exist for that purpose (and isn't written in news style); it has nothing to do with using news publications as sources. Finally, I have no idea what point you're trying to make in observing that other films were even more controversial. If I have a small pizza and you have a huge pizza, I still have a pizza. You don't get to personally decide what "failed to generate enough controversy"; that's what the collective input at AfD does when something's notability may hinge on controversy.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is another problem with some folks who mistake a reasonable debate with bludgeoning. Both are different. If you dislike so much, your comments being replied to, why participate in the first place ? --DBigXrayᗙ 21:03, 19 November 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bytecoin (cryptocurrency)[edit]

Bytecoin (cryptocurrency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable cryptocurrency; the article has a single source. I tried looking for more sources and could only find coverage on cryptocurrency websites with doubtful reliability. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not Notable crypto in violation of general sanctions on cryptos and blockchain. Could be G11'd as promotion for the crypto in question. Bkissin (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional in nature. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Every day is another bytecoin. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this article has seen better days and can be tidied up to the point of repair. I've come across a few sources relating its history and can begin to set it up properly. [1][2][3][4] Update: I've added these sources to the article. Do reconsider the position. Dr-Bracket (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.ccn.com/bytecoin-original-anonymous-cryptocurrency-jumps-250-comeback/
  2. ^ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bytecoin-price-explodes-82-following-201511175.html
  3. ^ https://cointelegraph.com/press-releases/privacy-oriented-cryptocurrency-features-on-chinese-exchange-gateio
  4. ^ https://www.ccn.com/poloniex-requires-2000-confirmations-for-bytecoin-transactions/
  • Those are not very reliable sources. The CoinTelegraph source is a press release; it was written by the folks promoting Gateio and as such is not an impartial source. CCN is crytocurrency news cites, the reliability of which is doubtful at best, per this RfC. In fact, a CCN source was already removed from the article in this edit. The Yahoo Finance source is simply a CCN article that is featured on Yahoo. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were told explicitly that cryptocurrency enthusiast websites are not reliable sources. This is your last reminder to read how to identify a reliable source - if you add any further unreliably sourced content you will be topic banned. MER-C 11:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh you know what, I've spent my whole time thinking CCN was CNN. I'd seen people debating about CoinTelegraph so I figured I'd throw it in there because alongside CNN that's not bad, but I see the problem. Thanks Dr-Bracket (talk) 14:53, 18 November 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalø Vintage Car Rally[edit]

Kalø Vintage Car Rally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. WP:MILL Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no suggestion of notability. Deb (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deb. No claim of significance, no sources. Nightfury 16:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 15 November 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 Ira Remsen#Legacy. Sandstein 18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Remsen Award[edit]

Ira Remsen Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches turned up absolutely no in-depth coverage of this local award. Would have redirected to the organization, but the chapter which awards this does not have their own page. Onel5969 TT me 18:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it spur you spirit of inquiry to know that the first page of google searches that I tried turned up both a reference to the inaugural award in Nature, and the ACS Maryland chapter webpage? ;) I've added these citations to the page. τ℗ʍ (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It gets a lot of mentions. But no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 21:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If mentions in Science, Nature and the New York Times simply don't count, in your view, there are in depth articles in lesser scientific organs. As in, the articles are several pages long, and include the name of the award in the title of the article. τ℗ʍ (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with my view. Please read WP:GNG. And if those in-depth sourcing exists, please provide links to them. Right now, the refs you are adding (and thanks for that btw) are simply mentions and/or primary sourcing. Take for example your C&EN reference. That's a journal put out by the organization giving the award. Counts zilch towards notability. You've done a smash up job on creating articles about notable chemists and other scientific folk (keep up the good work), it's just that this one doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Onel5969 TT me 00:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The secondary sources do more than just establish that the award exists, and the list of recipients indicates that it is not given out lightly. XOR'easter (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which of the secondary sources go in-depth about the award. And just exactly how do you arrive at the notability of the award by who receives it? That's not exactly how notability on Wikipedia works. Onel5969 TT me 01:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will just this once indulge in the frustrating practice of answering one question with another: How do you define "in depth"? The line between "passing mention" and "substantial discussion" is always ultimately a judgment call, no matter how much we might pretend or prefer otherwise. I've encountered before the headache of trying to source material about academic history, and there was more here than I expected. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, it is a judgement call. And not only about length, but about where it is published. A short paragraph in The New York Times holds more weight to notability than that same paragraph in the local county paper. In this instance I'm not seeing anything more than a brief sentence in any independent source. Indeed, most of the current cites are either pr blurbs about the winner of the awards, and therefore aren't rs, or aren't from independent sources. The award exists, and I guess its an honor to the recipients, but doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (at best) to Ira Remsen, but more likely delete. It's an award of just the Maryland section of the ACS, and any secondary sources are basically passing mention. They either just list awardees, use standard award-speak of outstanding in the field, or say it was started in honor of Remsen. Most of the sources are not independent either or anything really outside the realm of a small subsection of a society to establish GNG. These kinds of awards usually only get a home as a one-liner at the BLP or maybe the society page. This might be undue for the ACS page itself though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ira Remsen#Legacy where the award is already mentioned. I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of the award itself. Papaursa (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list is short enough (when presented in multi-column format) that it could probably be merged into Ira Remsen#Legacy wholesale. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 20 November 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 IBM. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COMMON[edit]

COMMON (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns; an extremely difficult term to search for but I haven't found references suggesting that this is the subject of independent coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMON is the largest association of users of IBM midrange computers and IBM-compatible technology in the world. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any significant coverage from independent reliable sources? There don't appear to be any given in the article. Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to IBM, it looks like a defunct user group, the refs aren't saying anything regarding notability. Szzuk (talk) 15:23, 18 November 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 18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber of Public Secrets[edit]

Chamber of Public Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any independent RS covering this, and not even passing mentions. Most, if not all, of them are just primary sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP because there is no significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Every reference in the article is a WP:PRIMARY and I was unable to find anything else during my search outside of the article itself. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any independent secondary sources. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There's seemingly a plethora of references but upon closer examination the facade crumbles: The majority of the references are to primary sources, mostly to the subject's own website; there's a link to an article about one of the two artists rather than the subject (here); the announcement of an upcoming event (here); plus some dead ends (e.g. here). Nothing to hang something on. -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus on whether the coverage is sufficient for WP:N. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Firearms Database[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Internet Movie Firearms Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was previously speedied and restored by a COI editor and an editor who is now blocked by WMF. Minimal RS coverage; does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 05:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proposer offers a deletion rationale that is entirely invalid. The current article has never been speedied (it was proposed and declined), the creator has never been blocked, and has no obvious COI. There was a previous article at Imfdb which was speedied, but the creator of that has never been blocked either, and likewise has no obvious COI. To bring that up is entirely irrelevant and only serves the purpose of unfairly tainting the current effort.
Ok, the sourcing isn't great, the Field & Stream piece is substantial and in a presumably reliable source. It's a blog column, but allowable under WP:NEWSBLOG. The Economist is unarguably reliable, but has only a passing mention. Likewise the The Guardian piece. Most of the rest are self-references. However, one article in the Los Angeles Times that was mentioned in the last AfD is substantial and entirely about this topic. The nominator could have at least read the previous AfD as part of WP:BEFORE and provided a rationale why the keep decision then no longer applies. SpinningSpark 01:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A previous version (Internet Movie Firearm Database) was speedied in February 2011. The current article was recreated without consensus or discussion in July 2012 by Zackmann08, who has a declared COI according to the Talk page. Scalhotrod (who is now banned, for what it's worth) reinserted primarily unsourced/OR content from the previously-deleted version in December 2012, which they apparently authored according to their talk page statements. I agree that we should assess the current article on its own merits, but I stand behind my assessment that the article was created by a COI editor and a now-blocked editor as well as the fact that it was re-created without consensus to overturn the previous speedy deletion.
Consensus or discussion is not required to recreate an article deleted A7, but as it happens, there was a discussion here. The COI declaration was not made by User:Zackmann08 themself. As far as I can tell, and I've searched quite thoroughly, the user has never declared a COI. They have declared they edit IMFDB, but if editing a wiki gave one a COI and excluded one from writing its article, then we wouldn't be able to have any articles about Wikipedia, since one must be a Wikipedia editor in order to write a Wikipedia article. Perhaps User:Delicious carbuncle can explain the reason for placing the notice. SpinningSpark 08:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: My only COI is that I used to contribute to the Wiki. I haven't edited it in years. Also note that I have intentionally abstained from commenting on this AFD... I never felt the need to declare a COI. If others feel that I should I am happy to do so. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:NWEB. Sourcing in the article and offered above is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 14 November 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 18:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coreboot/VBT[edit]

Coreboot/VBT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article consists entirely of copy-pasted jargon and user manual content. –dlthewave ☎ 04:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headout[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Headout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage is exclusively trivial coverage of capital raised interspersed with PR (such as [36]), which does not meet the guidelines at WP:ORGCRITE for significant coverage. There was also a profile in a CNN listicle [37] which I believe also does not pass muster but is worth mentioning separately because its content is of a different genre of triviality than the business press. I was not able to find any more substantial coverage in an internet search. signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:44, 13 November 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 Speed keep, withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 14:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Menkin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
David Menkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of minor roles, but no major ones means that this fails WP:NACTOR. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG either. The most significant coverage appears to be [38] (and an internet search returns some similar interviews in other Norwegian publications, where the subject is asked to speak primarily about their co-stars). Such coverage was deemed insufficient at the last AfD for this subject, but since the subject has played at least two roles since the previous AfD, rather than CSDing the recreated article, I'm bringing it here (although one role is as the lead of a not-terribly-notable cartoon, and the other is a minor role in a Norwegian TV show, and neither appear to have generated any additional coverage about the subject so I'm still leaning toward delete). signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly passes WP:NACTOR, Was in the main cast of Thunderbirds_Are_Go_(TV_series), major role in A Hologram for the King, RECURRING role on Thomas & Friends, 17 episodes in Bob the Builder, 52 episodes in Floogals, 5 episodes in Lykkeland. 22 episodes in the Top Ten show, 13 episodes in Hilda, leading role in Clothes & Blow, main cast in Invited for Dinner, voice of Malos in Xenoblade Chronicles 2. In Florence Foster Jenkins, Menkin plays a theater critic who is in the encourage of the main character of the film (Florence). I mean this guy is notable. Plus the sources provided are sufficient. Worst case scenario is this will be a redirect to Thunderbirds. This should not be deleted. JC7V (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out the last AFD was in 2015, and he's had more roles since then. The outcome of that AFD was debatable too. There were 2 Keeps, 1 redirect, and 3 deletes (including the nom's delete vote). JC7V (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just found another source about him here and I also found this source. JC7V (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also found another source here JC7V (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw by nom additional sources demonstrate notability, particularly [39]. signed, Rosguill talk 14:14, 15 November 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 18:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Ford (athlete)[edit]

Martyn Ford (athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability as both actor and MMA fighter. PRehse (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He obviously fails to meet WP:NMMA. My search only found sources like those already in the article--lots of coverage about him announcing he was going to be an MMA fighter. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E with a lack of significant independent coverage concerning anything else about him. Papaursa (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, but more specifically because it's smacked down by WP:TOOSOON. There are a couple of acceptable mentions in the media (i.e. here and here) but they're mostly about the future. I'd suggest we wait for the next round. -The Gnome (talk) 16:55, 21 November 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 18:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiloso Mexican Bistro[edit]

Chiloso Mexican Bistro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Might be WP:TOOSOON but local(ish) chain that hasn't received any outside coverage aside from hyper local sources. Fails NCORP and GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I'm not sure how hyper-local the Dallas NBC station is, and the restaurant won a minor award at a taco festival, but ultimately this still comes short of WP:ORGCRITE. signed, Rosguill talk 16:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or draftify. Can't find any non-local coverage, so doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I say draftify as an option, since this was created by a new user, and it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 TT me 13:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a decent write up specifically about the place in the Dallas Observer but not much else out there, except mentions in newspaper all-round reviews of Mexican cuisine restaurants and bistros. Plus, primary sources. I'm not doing this with a light heart but rules are rules. -The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 21 November 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 Calgary Police Service. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Police Service Pipe Band[edit]

Calgary Police Service Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pipe band - performs at routine functions for the police. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:39, 13 November 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vulva Original[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vulva Original (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PRODUCT. Passing mentions are common but there aren't and in-depth reviews which suggest it's notable. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deletion per CSD G11, blatant promotion Delete. The only source is to a web-shop selling it, a company that is getting free promotion here, so how this "article" has survived a prior AfD-discussion, and managed to stay up for many years, totally beats me... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion was declined, so let's finish it off here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:11, 14 November 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hamilton-Hill[edit]

Jessica Hamilton-Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Occasional small mentions. Greyjoy talk 12:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find hardly any coverage. Even the home purchase articles focus on her partner! RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet GNG, and I can't see what other criteria she might qualify under. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedy even. Zero IRS that I can see. Article currently contains absolute trivia, eg, buying a house and relevant source not about subject anyway. Many facebook profiles are better than this. Not sure if we are being little WP:BITEY though - article has been created by a new SPA, but could also be COI and AutoBLP ? Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955. Sandstein 18:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Karnebeek-Backs[edit]

Christina Karnebeek-Backs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article teaches us that Ms Karnebeek was born, got married, worked a farm, died at 110, and was posthumously recognized as the world's oldest known living person for about a year. This last fact is her only claim to notability, therefore her mention in the list of oldest people is enough coverage in Wikipedia. Delete and redirect there. — JFG talk 12:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect This article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. It's also blatant WP:NOPAGE. All she needs is a redirect to her listing on oldest people. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone who was ever world's oldest person should always be guaranteed an article. LE (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete amd redirect. There is not even any proof he was the world's oldest person. No records exist for China, India, Russia, Africa etc born people so there is a very good chance he was not the oldest person. WP:NOPAGE applies here. Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She, not he. And the lack of records elsewhere only points out the notable rarity of someone being that old, that early. LE (talk) 17:42, 21 November 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) Sam Sailor 19:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Block Blues[edit]

AfDs for this article:
West Block Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am taking this to AfD again due to in part of WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:GNG asks for multiple reliable citations, yes, anything can be classed as reliable with the right citations, however this article is independent of Bengaluru FC and it's all about the supports of the football club, this is not necessary as there is plenty of space on the main club article to cover this information. Content forking is for when articles get too big, as Bengaluru FC is not that big an article this should be merge into the that article. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what has changed since the first AFD? Consensus was that the topic meets GNG. It needs expanding/improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nothing has changed since the last AfD. Multiple additional sources were noted in the previous AfD, which need to be incorporated. The whole content fork argument is irrelevant, this is a fan group which while they support Bengaluru, are independent of the club and so should be judged on their own merits. It is in fact where supporters groups are not notable that they might be added to a club culture section in the club article if comment is needed at all. This situation is the opposite of that. Fenix down (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're a supporters group, they are not an official part of the club. They're independent in the same way the players are independent of the club, or the ground. The point you need to be addressing is what has changed since the last AfD. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, but I don't see this topic being independent of the club, nor would it exist without the club, the are inherently linked, nothing has changed since the last AfD, article hasn't improved and the whole topic can be represented in Bengaluru FC. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK< but it was established that the group were independently notable in the last AfD, so the question remains valid, what has changed since the last AfD? Subjects can be inherently linked whilst still being independent. Furthermore the fact that the article has not yet been improved since the last AfD is no reason for deletion now, particularly when further useful sources were noted. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed since the AfD, including the notability. SportingFlyer talk 11:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Note to closer WP:CONTENTFORK of Bengaluru FC#Support, No extensive additions have been made to article, all the keep votes have failed to understand the content-fork scenario. Nor have they bothered to clearly explain why this article deserves independence of the club article. Nor do I believe any of these people have actually read the citations, which talk mainly about the supporters supporting Bengaluru FC, and more about the football club, which doesn't offer total RS for this article. Govvy (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AfD wasn't wrong: the club met WP:GNG then and it still does now. There are at least three good sources significantly covering the group (not the team) in the first two pages of Google results. It's a clear keep. Perhaps you were seeking a merge request, but there's enough there to write a better standalone article IMO. SportingFlyer talk 13:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About supporters from a club, where there is clearly enough space on the club article to write about the supporters. I am sorry, but I personally think all these keep votes are pathetic. Govvy (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Jackson (rugby league)[edit]

Bob Jackson (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT, and WP:BLP mainly he played a fewer international matches but he captioned North Queensland which is unsignificant only became Victorian Rugby League Secretary later.. Sheldybett (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:34, 14 November 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeetu Nepal[edit]

Jeetu Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of significance, but its lacking references despite the article being short and roles apart of the weekly show Mundre Ko Comedy Club are minor anyway. Sheldybett (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete non-notable actor and promotion article. I was not able to find any sources to add to the article. Fails notability. 43.224.84.144 (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above. Non notable actor. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:22, 15 November 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 18:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synereo[edit]

Synereo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cryptocurrency. Taking away the coin sites leaves this article on an Israeli business new site (Synereo is based in Israel) published shortly after they raised a few million. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - sourcing is bitcoin blogs, press releases and press releases in bitcoin blogs - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Articles about funding are rather routine; I don't think they should generally imply notability. However, I am hesitant to immediately discount all "coin sites" as unreliable. I agree there is a huge amount of hype in the area, and there are certainly unreliable sources. An RfC on CoinDesk discussed a lot of the issues, but it did not result in a consensus on which sites are necessarily unreliable. We should discuss the individual sources here on their merits. Why might Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine, and Blockchain News be unreliable sources? BenKuykendall (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk is the latest go-round on WP:RSN, just a few weeks ago. So basically - some of the coin sites are somewhat trustworthy for factual claims. However, they should not be taken as evidence of notability, as they have a habit of hyping up absolutely anything in the field, whether it actually exists or ever exists or not. And many coin blogs are pay-for-play as well - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • While not exactly the same thing, the WP:NCORP guideline states "Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:15, 15 November 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 Peercoin#NeuCoin. Consensus not to keep, merger already done. Sandstein 18:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeuCoin[edit]

NeuCoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cryptocurrency. Take away the coin sites and the best sources are TechCrunch and VentureBeat articles published shortly after NeuCoin's initial funding. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Peercoin#NeuCoin, which I have done, in lieu of deletion. NeuCoin was discussed in two paragraphs in a Columbia University Press-book, which contributes to notability. A merge to Peercoin, the cryptocurrency it was forked from, is an acceptable editorial decision. Here is the book source about NeuCoin:
    • Orrell, David; Chlupatý, Roman (2016). The Evolution of Money. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 208–209. ISBN 978-0-231-17372-8. Retrieved 2018-11-13.

      The book notes:

      While Bitcoin is by far the leading cybercurrency, it may not represent the last word on cybercurrency design. Competitors include so-called proof-of-stake altcoins such as the Paris-based NeuCoin, launched in July 2015, which rewards minors based on holdings rather than proof-of-work. As NeuCoin's founders point out in a white paper, Bitcoin miners currently earn in aggregate about $1 million a day, which works out to about $10 per transaction. Users don't notice this, because transaction fees average only 5 cents. The remaining $9.95 comes from the new coins awarded to miners, and most of this is swapped out of Bitcoin to pay for expenses such as electricity. Mining rewards are set to decline as fewer net coins become available in the future, so total transaction fees will have to go up to compensate. The idea is that the sum value of transactions should increase enough to keep fees low.

      NeuCoin, which is focusing initially on microtransactions such as tipping for online services, gets around this potential problem in another way, by simplifying the mining process and rewarding miners with new coins based on the number they hold (effectively an interest payment). Miners are motivated to secure the system because they will be substantial holders of the currency. Some coins are also granted to new or existing users or companies that adopt the currency. The process is overseen by three nonprofit foundations located in the Isle of Man, which are ultimately controlled by NeuCoin users on the basis of one vote per coin. The idea is to distribute coins strategically to encourage widespread adoption—while the Greeks and Romans used the army, NeuCoin is going for gaming, music, and video sites, with ads such as "Go ad-free today for 10 NeuCoins. Click here to get 20 free." The money supply will therefore expand, rapidly at first and then more slowly, with a long-term target of 3 percent per year. Whether NeuCoin will succeed remains to be seen, but it and other competitors may well give the champ a run for its money.

    Cunard (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are book sources about proposed merge target Peercoin that establish that Peercoin passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
    Book sources about Peercoin
    1. DeMartino, Ian (2016). The Bitcoin Guidebook: How to Obtain, Invest, and Spend the World's First Decentralized Cryptocurrency. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. p. 303. ISBN 978-1-63450-524-6. Retrieved 2018-11-13.

      The book notes:

      Peercoin

      Algorithm: N/A

      Mining Type: Proof-of-Stake

      Block Time: 10 minutes

      Reward (current): 1% annual

      Peercoin was the first legitimate proof-of-stake coin. There was an earlier coin that Peercoin was forked from but it contained a massive hidden pre-mine. Pre-mines are unacceptable in all cryptocurrencies but are especially troubling in proof-of-stake coins. ...

      As the first viable proof-of-stake coin, Peercoin used the same method later used by Nxt, Blackcoin and various others. Instead of mining, as with proof-of-work coins, Peercoin users "mint" new Peercoins at a one percent annual interest rate. Like miners, these minters secure the network. But unlike miners, they aren't in competition with each other and don't waste massive computational power, as proof-of-work coins arguably do. In fact, a full node and wallet can be run and stored on a lightweight system such as the Raspberry Pi microcomputer.

      The Peercoin community is an innovative one that pioneered many advances. It has its own "2.0" projects, including Peershares, a system built on top of Peercoin that allows for token/asset distribution.

      However, the coin has been stagnant for a while. Months elapse between each git commit and there has been no news for quite a while. It is easy to wonder what the future holds for the world's first proof-of-stake coin, especially given that later proof-of-stake coins have far more active developer communities.

    2. Miller, Michael (2015). The Ultimate Guide to Bitcoin. Indianapolis, Indiana: Que Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-7897-5324-3. Retrieved 2018-11-13.

      The book notes:

      Peercoin

      Peercoin (PPC) is a cryptocurrency that uses a different mining system than does Bitcoin. Instead of Bitcoin's proof-of-work approach, Peercoin uses a system called proof-of-stake. The primary benefit of this approach is that it's designed to create more new coins automatically, based on the number of coins that a user already owns.

      [paragraph about the proof-of-stake system]

      Peercoin isn't nearly as popular as Bitcoin or Litecoin. Fewer exchanges deal in Peercoin, and it's unlikely you'll find any retailer accepting Litecoin payments. As of August 2013, Peercoin is trading at $1.14/PPC with 21.6 million coins in circulation. That results in a market cap of close to $25 million.

    3. Antonopoulos, Andreas M. (2014). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-1-4919-2198-2. Retrieved 2018-11-13.

      The book notes:

      Peercoin

      Peercoin was introduced in August 2012 and is the first alt coin to use a hybrid proof-of-work and proof-of-stake algorithm to issue new currency.

      • Block generation: 10 minutes
      • Total currency: No limit
      • Consensus algorithm: (Hybrid) proof-of-stake with initial proof-of-work
      • Market capitalization: $14 million in mid-2014
    4. Narayanan, Arvind; Bonneau, Joseph; Felten, Edward; Miller, Andrew; Goldfeder, Steven (2016). Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 208–210. ISBN 978-0-691-17169-2. Retrieved 2018-11-13.

      The book notes:

      Implementing Virtual Mining: Peercoin

      ...

      To start with, consider the approach taken by Peercoin, which was launched in 2012 as the first altcoin using proof of stake. Peercoin is a hybrid proof-of-work/proof-of-stake algorithm in which stake is denominated by "coin-age." The coin-age of a specific unspent transaction output is the product of the amount held by that output and the number of blocks that output has remained unspent. To mine a block in Peercoin, miners must solve a SHA-256-based computational puzzle just like in Bitcoin. However, the difficulty of this puzzle is adjusted down based on how much coin-age the miners are willing to consume. To do this, the block includes a special "coinstake" transaction, in which some transactions are spent simply to reset their coin-age to zero. The sum of the coin-ages consumed in the coinstake transaction determines how difficult the proof-of-work puzzle is to make a given block valid.

      It is possible for miners to mine with very little stake and a large amount of computational power, but the difficulty formula is chosen to make it dramatically easier to find a block if some coin-age is consumed. The effect of the computational puzzle is mainly to ensure that the process is randomized if two miners attempt to consume a similar quantity of coin-age.

    5. Prypto (2016). Bitcoin for Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 169–170. ISBN 978-1-119-07613-1. Retrieved 2018-11-13.

      The book notes:

      Peercoin: Introducing Proof-of-Stake

      Bitcoin and Litecoin have one thing in common: New coins can only be generated through the mining process. Peercoin (https://peercoin.net) was one of the first "bitcoin clones" to offer a new system to generate coins, called proof-of-stake. The way proof-of-stake works is by having an amount of coins sitting in your wallet for a certain period without spending them.

      Once these coins reach a certain age — a period during which they have not been moved — they generate a small interest percentage. The whole principle works in the same way as a bank's savings account, but in a completely decentralized manner, with the user being in full control of their funds at all times.

      Allowing the generation of Peercoins through proof-of-stake also provides an additional layer of network stability, as the number of miners may decline over time, but there will always be users staking their PPC. Additionally, Peercoin developers have implemented a steady inflation rate of 1 percent per year, with no hard coin supply cap put in place.

    Cunard (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with a redirect. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - a refbombing of bad sources - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I don't think this is a straight delete what so ever, this currency well very well covered by the tech magazines, redirect maybe, I might be inclined to keep if the article was cleaned up. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I removed the promotional material sourced from the company blog in this edit. I hope this improved the tone of the article. Of course, the sourcing is still an issue. All of the sources are cryptocurrency websites which might be unreliable. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:18, 15 November 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. Re-closing now that issues have been solved. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous restart[edit]

Dangerous restart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by COI editor, does not appear to meet GNG. There is a lack of independent sources which discuss the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 03:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article has a number of problems, not least being US-centric, but it is definitely a notable topic in electrical engineering. I'm having trouble finding accessible online sources, but a few snippets discussing the subject should suffice. This snippet, I think, is this paper based on the snippet page number and this index,
  • John R. Etherton, "Automated maintainability records and robot safety", Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 1987, pp. 135-140, IEEE.
This book snippet shows it contains a substantial discussion of the topic,
  • Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis, 2001, page 34, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
SpinningSpark 10:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references appear to indicate notability. FOARP (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not discussed very widely, I'll agree, but definitely a widely-used term of art. Here's another source (conference presentation) that appears to go into some details:
  • Etherto, J. R. (2002, January). Safety-related Machine Controls for Maintenance Risk Reduction. In ASSE Professional Development Conference and Exposition. American Society of Safety Engineers.
(this might be related to Spinningspark's first source though.)
Overall, I think the concept squeezes through re notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re the close I undid: Jovanmilic97, would you please not do this kind of shit? You can't same-day close an active, well-formed AfD discussion with only two participants! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Eish - sorry, senior moment there. It's not a same-day close; week old already. Not sure how I arrived at that conclusion. Apologies; See your talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Elmidae: But there is no consensus to delete this nor this seems like a close call to be relisted, and the prime reasoning this was nominated, not meeting WP:GNG per lack of independent sources have been refuted by 2 people (and now you even) with no reply from the AfD creator. Also I have seen a lot of AfD closures with even 1 Delete !vote closures, so I dont think this was a bad closure in my opinion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devcoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Devcoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cryptocurrency. Pretty much all sources are coin news sites and/or mentions. Not much has changed since it was deleted in 2014. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, sourcing is just depressing. Likely defunct, just another failed cryptocurrency. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability. Balkywrest (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just to go over the sources in the article: most are coin news cites; the Guardian source is a trivial mention, the TechCrunch article doesn't even mention Devcoin, the dot-bit.org source is dead, cryptocur.com appears to be an anonymous blog, the SOTICS paper is a trivial mention, and the remainder are directly from Devcoin itself. Nothing here looks like significant coverage in a reliable source. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Capone (Linguist)[edit]

Alessandro Capone (Linguist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite well known and considerate amount of references, the article may not meet the WP:GNG policy. Sheldybett (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep Article is well sourced and does meet WP:GNG. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A marginal pass of WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of the GS profile and a pass of WP:Prof#C8. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The article is notable and in line with WP:GNG based on wikipedia's notability criteria WP:BASIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostafa322 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Contrary to claims above, I don't think the current article on its face passes GNG, as the cited sources are not independent of the subject. The sources seem to consist of journals where Capone works as a co-editor, and his own scholarly work. Nevertheless, I would !vote weak keep, as his editing contributions (specifically, editor-in-chief of a book series at Springer, and editor of a special series within Intercultural Pragmatics) seem tantamount to WP:PROF C8, "head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal". Capone may also satisfy GNG or PROF C1, but the current sources don't show that. Cnilep (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this discussion closes as a keep, the article should be moved to Alessandro Capone (linguist). Thsmi002 (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm skeptical that we can use his editorship of a book series that mostly consists of his own edited volumes as evidence of academic notability, nor would his 11 edited volumes themselves count for much. But I found four independent and independently published reviews of his monograph, which may barely be enough for WP:AUTHOR, and a couple of well cited papers goes some way towards WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Does not appear to satisfy general notability but barely satisfies academic notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - A draft has also been provided. If this article is deleted, this title should be salted to prevent its re-creation from the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:37, 16 November 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 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018#District 2. Sandstein 18:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liuba Grechen Shirley[edit]

Liuba Grechen Shirley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No claim to fame other than being a candidate in an election. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As an unsuccessful candidate for office, she doesn't get an automatic pass under WP:NPOL. While there is some coverage in reliable sources, it is all in the context of her (ultimately losing) bid for office, and she doesn't appear to otherwise be notable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018. Subject fails WP:NPOL as unsuccessful candidate for office. Bkissin (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won — making a candidate notable enough for inclusion requires (a) that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (i.e. Cynthia Nixon has an article even though she failed to unseat Andrew Cuomo, because she was already notable as an actress), or (b) she can be referenced to such an explosive degree of "far more than every other candidate is also getting" coverage that her candidacy can credibly be claimed as a special case (i.e. Christine O'Donnell, who got so bloody much nationalized and internationalized coverage that her article is actually twice as long as, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, the article about the actual incumbent senator she lost to does.) But neither of those conditions are demonstrated here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Unremarkable losing political candidate; coverage is confined to her candidacy. Marquardtika (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Remarkable, as Shirley was the first congressional candidate to petition for and receive from the US Federal Election Commission (FEC) approval to spend a portion of campaign funds on workday childcare during the campaign to allow her to devote her full-time attention to campaigning. C(u)w(t)C(c) 02:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do not just reflexively keep every candidate who can merely claim to have been the first person ever to do a not inherently notable thing. To claim notability on those grounds, she would have to have received a WP:GNG-passing volume of coverage about that achievement to establish its historic noteworthiness. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is even more poorly sourced than normal for these types of articles. SportingFlyer talk 10:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018#District 2. There only seems to be the one claim to notability that would not apply to any congressional candidate, and that was being allowed to use her campaign funds for childcare payments. But that received enough coverage that I recognised her name, though I couldn't have named the district, or even the state, she was standing in. And it is almost certainly enough to get her repeated passing mentions in books and media articles on American elections for the next few decades. Notable enough for an article? Probably not. Notable enough for a sentence in a relevant and otherwise notable article? Yes. PWilkinson (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018. A redirect is an appropriate and usual outcome for losing candidates for a federal election. I continue to believe that these election articles have room for expansion about the race and the candidates. --Enos733 (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination as subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. There will almost always be more losers than winners in a political election. Simply by having contested one, a person is not notable, unless multiple independent sources indicate the opposite - which, in this case, they do not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City of Blacktown Pipe Band[edit]

City of Blacktown Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWeak delete tentatively. The subject is certainly one of Australia's top pipe bands. It has placed second or third, but never won, at grade one Australian championships multiple times, and has also competed overseas. It has a significant number of mentions in IRS over a long period of time, four decades. However, I am not sure that there is enough to meet GNG. On the other side, at the risk of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but for relativity, it would seem to be far more notable than a very large number of very very minor "pop" bands that seem to have concensus as being notable, and certainly has longevity greater than the vast majority of all "pop" bands. I would welcome input from someone who has some knowledge of pipe bands and would readily support a keep if appropriate. Aoziwe (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately WP:Bagpipes isn't very active but the position I've adopted is that any band that reaches Grade 1 at any time is notable, if it already has an article. Generally quality sources can be found and a fairly limited number of bands have ever reached this standard. I must have mistakenly nominated this page when going round looking for Grade 4 bands, a few of which do have articles and definitely should not. If you are happy to change to a Keep then the article can go at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pipe Bands/open tasks and I'll make some improvements, one day! Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ostrichyearning3 Changing to keep accordingly. Will you withhdraw the AfD? Aoziwe (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep will do! Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 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 for any proposed change to the status quo. It is not impermissible to have separate articles on successive sports teams that are separate legal entities, provided both meet WP:GNG. In this case, the new team is an existing legal entity, irrespective of whether it has a roster or a record. In light of this, the absence of a clear consensus either for merging or for deletion of the article does not suffice to result in a finding of deletion. bd2412 T 20:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FC Cincinnati (MLS)[edit]


FC Cincinnati (MLS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the same team as is described at FC Cincinnati, just moving up to a new league. Changing leagues doesn't mean that this is a separate team, even if they had to change legal status.

Some key points:

  • In all other sports leagues besides MLS, we do not create a new article when a team changes leagues.
  • In all other sports leagues besides MLS, we do not create a new article when a team legally shuts down and a new legal entity is formed; e.g. Parma Calcio 1913 (shut down and reformed 4 times). We also don't do this for any other type of company outside the realm of sports; e.g. Google (Google Inc shut down 2017 and replaced with Google LLC); Valve Corporation (Valve L.L.C. until 2003), etc.
  • Most reliable sources (both primary and reliable) refer to this as "FC Cincinnati moving up to MLS", not "FC Cincinnati shutting down and a new club forming in MLS". Examples: MLSSoccer.com, Cincinnati.com)
  • There is a discussion at Talk:FC Cincinnati#Splitting article? where the majority of participants oppose splitting the articles.

–IagoQnsi (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A MLS expansion franchise is a completely new team. This team has a different name (Fussball Club Cincinnati vs Futbol Club Cincinnati) and recently announced the branding for the new team, and the official announcement specifically says "the expansion team, which will continue as FC Cincinnati when it joins MLS...," which is not a contradictory statement since it's a new team. We have precedent as well - all other MLS teams which kept their basic branding from a minor league team have distinct splits due to the way American franchises work. The nominator of the AfD was firmly against this in other merge requests (for Orlando and Minnesota), but failed to gain consensus. Other American sports teams (San Diego Padres, Vancouver Canucks, Los Angeles Angels) split their articles between minor and major leagues as well, and this was not a promotion. Finally, two of the votes per consensus on the talk page were "no split, for now" - but now the team has branding, it is no longer WP:TOOSOON. It's a valid split for a new franchise. SportingFlyer talk 00:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, I thought I was creating a draft and screwed up, so I'd like to have this draftifyed if it's WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer talk 00:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team has changed its "official" name, but it was known primarily as FC Cincinnati before and will continue to be known as FC Cincinnati moving forward. The sentence you quoted suggests that the two teams are actually the same team; a team can't "continue" in a new league if it's shutting down. The MLS precedent only includes about ~4 other teams' articles, whereas the precedents I mentioned apply to all other teams in all other leagues -- I think this discussion is a good chance to discuss whether the existing precedent on MLS articles makes sense. For those other American sports teams, I would challenge you to show any reliable sources that refer to the minor and major league teams as the same team rather than as two separate entities. Reliable sources widely consider those to be separate teams, whereas most sources relating to FC Cincinnati refer to them as the same team. --IagoQnsi (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brand can continue. MLS precedent includes the Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps, Portland Timbers, Montréal Impact, Orlando City FC and Minnesota United, and for Seattle, Montréal and Portland at least, whether these the MLS teams were new teams has never even been questioned. No USL players had contracts for the MLS team, whereas a "continuing" team would be expected to have had players on multi-year deals. [40] Sassano said loaning players down to USL from MLS required a lot of paperwork. He declined to comment on the combined salary cap hit of the two players for FC Cincinnati's 2019 MLS season. How an a team loan itself a player, if they are the same team? SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parma Calcio 1913 did not maintain any player contracts between their shutdowns. What basis do you have for saying "a 'continuing' team would be expected to have had players on multi-year deals"? I know of no Wikipedia policy or precedent that supports this statement. My assertion (that we should follow what sources say about the team), however, is supported by WP:RS. The statement from Sassano about loans is clearly about the paperwork behind moving a player between two legal entities. As I've stated in my initial post, we do not typically consider a team/company to be a new team/company just because they form a new legal entity. --IagoQnsi (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MLS team clearly signed Adi and Alashe and then loaned them back to the USL team. Italy has teams go bankrupt and reform often, and we treat them as the same club. The U.S. and Canada has MLS expansion franchises (and MLB/NHL) use the same branding as a previously existing minor league team and we treat them as new teams. SportingFlyer talk 01:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent points. MLS holds all of the contracts for the players of the MLS franchise while the USL team holds the contracts for their players. I didn't realize that Parma Calcio 1913 was an MLS franchisee. I can point to all sorts of other companies and sports leagues trying to support things that don't apply to MLS, but it wouldn't help. MLS is the company and each "team" is a franchisee. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Major League Soccer is a single entity ownership. The old legal entity has ceased to exist and the new will be an MLS franchise. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (But maybe Keep) I would argue creating a whole separate article is kind of confusing since it is still for all intents and purposes the same team from a fan perspective, although I will agree that there is precedent for the article to be split into two. If this does happen though please make the main article (about the MLS team) be titled FC Cincinnati and the secondary one titled FC Cincinnati (USL). Doing otherwise or keeping it how it’s titled now would be confusing for people looking for info about the team. Mjmeck25 (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was nominated minutes after I created it, with the intent on proposing a move after the article was ready to go with the new name, logo, et cetera. Also, why would this article be different than our precedent with the six other teams which "moved up"? SportingFlyer talk 03:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Let's wait until there's enough distinct MLS-only content to spin off into its own article. The two operations are very much merged together at the moment and whatever the USL club had, the MLS club will have for a few months at least. SounderBruce 04:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to FC Cincinnati. Not enough information on the team's history for a standalone article. Maybe if the main article reaches WP:TOOLONG. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect It is the same logical (if not strictly legal) organisation with the same executive group / history / group of fans, on their own website they say

    FC Cincinnati came to life on Monday night – the Major League Soccer version of FC Cincinnati that is. The club’s long-awaited and much-speculated MLS identity was unveiled before a capacity crowd at the Woodward Theater...

    Spike 'em (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as stated above, this is a new team with the same name as the existing team, and therefore merits a new article. Standard procedure in these circumstances is to have a separate article - see eg Montreal Impact and Montreal Impact (1992–2011) etc. GiantSnowman 13:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There should only be one wikipedia related to this franchise. They started in 2015 and made the transition to the MLS. Why would you need 2? That is just super confusing and pointless. The argument of it being a new team is a long shot. I still go to the same website and still pay the same vendor for my season tickets. The history of the club needs to be maintained in the same article. As they are keeping the USL seasons on thier own website as well. Twood06 (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: User:Twood06 is a new editor with few edits. I know Twood06 from a community outside of Wikipedia; he chose to post in this discussion after seeing me talk about this AfD. I did not ask or encourage him to join this discussion, and after realizing what had happened, I told everyone else in the community that they should not "raid" the discussion. I have no intention of using meatpuppets, which is why I'm posting this explanation. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama Why did the Impact keep the same article for USL and NASL but yet get a new page for MLS? Twood06 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Twood06: Because those were the same franchise and the MLS club was a new franchise with the same name. Smartyllama (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Twood06: Same analogy: If the Columbus Clippers (AAA baseball) owners applied for a MLB franchise and were successful, and at their press conference announced the MLB team would be called the Columbus Clippers, that team would have a new article under American sports precedent (for instance, see San Diego Padres). In 2009, the Portland MLS article was initially created as (I'm paraphrasing) "Portland MLS Expansion Team (2011)" until it became clear they were the Timbers, even though the Timbers name was announced at the expansion team launch. SportingFlyer talk 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: Actually just like MLS, NASL and USL teams are purchased franchises. Twood06 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Twood06: The Impact broke away from the USL in 2009 to join the NASL, they did not purchase a NASL franchise. It's a whole jumbled mess of minor league U.S. soccer history. It's similar to independent baseball - the Winnipeg Goldeyes have switched leagues a couple times, but it was the same team, whereas this is a new MLS franchise. SportingFlyer talk 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I don't know about the NASL in 2009, but I know that USL had a $5 million expansion fee for new franchises in 2017 when Tampa Bay Rowdies, North Carolina FC, and Indy Eleven joined (source). No one seems to be arguing that those USL teams are not a continuation of the respective NASL teams, despite the new franchise purchase. –IagoQnsi (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi: Paying the expansion fee isn't the indicator of a new team. USL teams have the right to exit the league after a certain number of years, whereas my understanding is you couldn't move a MLS team to a new league because of the single entity structure. [41] As an aside to this thread you should also read up on the 2009-2010 soccer split if you can, it's rather interesting, and may help explain how the Cascadian teams weren't considered to have "moved up" a decade ago. SportingFlyer talk 01:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NASL did not provide franchises at all. The league was created by the owners of several USL teams (Montreal and Vancouver were founding members even though the latter did not ever play in the league). One of the goals was to give local teams full control of their own operations and for the league to deal with scheduling and the like. It was completely different than the way MLS was run. No clue how USL was run, but the reason that the alternate league was created was to avoid the meddling of the league at the team level, so I can't see it as having a single-owner model the way MLS does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It pretty much the same argument as not the same team as discuss in WP:Footy. The MLS team clearly more than a namesake according to WP:RS, but it is common practice for MLS team to have a stand-alone article and keep the content of the predecessor in another article. So i am undecided on this case, as the history of the team in MLS will pass WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS and not WP:TOOSOON. Matthew hk (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A lot of people are arguing against the merge on the basis that we've created a new article for all MLS teams. I'd like to point out that this precedent only exists for 6 articles (Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps, Portland Timbers, Montreal Impact, Orlando City, Minnesota United), whereas the practice of having a team keep its article across league changes is much more widespread and is used for most other teams in other leagues. If you're arguing for continuing to do things like other MLS teams, I think you should give an argument for why that precedent is worth keeping. --IagoQnsi (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there's been a decade of consensus this is the proper way to do things, the burden is actually on your side: why should we treat this article differently from the other American sports articles? SportingFlyer talk 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My key points on the matter would be:
  • All other soccer leagues in the world do things this way. Just because American soccer doesn't have pro/rel doesn't mean we should handle this differently. What's more, even when a team shuts down and re-forms in other countries, we don't create a new article (e.g. Parma Calcio 1913). The fans consider all the iterations of Parma to be one continuous club, and thus so does Wikipedia. Fans seem to consider FC Cincinnati MLS to be a continuation of FC Cincinnati USL, so we should consider them to be one singular topic.
  • I don't think the precedent for American teams is "always create a new article when a team changes leagues", but rather, the precedent is "create a new article when reliable sources say it's a new team". I haven't seen any reliable sources that talk about Los Angeles Angels (PCL) or San Diego Padres (PCL) as being the same team as their MLB counterparts. The same cannot be said of MLS teams, or at least FC Cincinnati, where most sources consider the new team to simply be a continuation of the old team.
  • Side note: I think part of the reason that sources choose to do this is because there seems to be a much larger gap between MLB and PCL/MiLB than there is between MLS and USL. MLB average attendance is four times that of PCL (whereas MLS and USL attendance actually overlap -- there are several USL teams outperforming several MLS teams -- and the overall averages are much closer). This is more subjective, but I think people may perceive the skill gap between MLB and MiLB to be much greater than between MLS and USL. In general, I think the news media is treating MLS/USL as soccer leagues more than American leagues, if that makes sense. (This side note is just my opinion/speculation on why reliable sources do what they do -- the point is, we should do what the reliable sources do.)
  • The first teams to climb up to MLS had much longer histories in lower divisions, so there was more of a need to split the articles per WP:TOOLONG. For example, there was definitely a need to have Seattle's 1994–2008 history in a separate article. I would argue that we should have articles "History of Seattle Sounders (1994–2008)" and "History of Seattle Sounders (2008–present)", and the History section in "Seattle Sounders" should provide a high-level summary spanning from 1994 to present. However, this is a semantic difference that I don't think is as big of a deal, so I can understand why no one has brought this argument before (pick your battles, as they say). When we apply this precedent to the newer teams with much shorter lower-division tenures, however, it becomes a lot more silly.
–IagoQnsi (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi: wikipedia don't care what fans want. All wikipedia should care is what is in WP:RS. If reliable source reported that the fans considered and in legal sense they are the same club, then they are the same club. But in this case, it is pretty much "the editorial judgement" on split or merge articles even they are closely related. It is common for company that break down to smaller article after major rebrand and/or change in the scope of their business. So, it rather whatever or not follow other MLS team to have their own sub-article, or just merge together. Matthew hk (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew hk: Sorry, saying "fans consider it the same team" was a poor choice of words. It's not just fans who consider the teams to be the same; it's the general consensus among all sources reporting on the matter:
The consensus among the reliable sources of all sorts seems to be that the MLS franchise is a continuation of the same team. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to FC Cincinnati. No need for a separate article on the same club. Number 57 15:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MLS creates a new entity for the franchise. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment considering this is largely a content issue, I've started a discussion here Talk:FC_Cincinnati#USL/MLS_transition on what content choices need to be made in order to help navigate the fact we now have two separate teams sharing the same article, in the event this article is deleted. SportingFlyer talk 17:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of legal technicalities and corporate restructurings, reliable sources treat this an one logical entity. BLAIXX 23:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - +1 to Number 57 - J man708 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely feels too soon, but there is a consensus on this. The comparison to Parma is a false equivalence because these are entirely different legal entities (franchises vs. clubs) and they don't carry the same history or nuance. There's not really a strong consensus for other leagues that this doesn't happen (NBA is a good example where there's no clear consensus e.g. the Denver Nuggets). This really is making a mountain out of a molehill. As soon as Cincinnati were to start in MLS, no one would notice a difference. I also don't think a redirect to FC Cincinnati is appropriate because it would be redirecting to the USL team (which presumably will have a new title), and that's not really solving the problem. The current article just needs to be a little more flushed out (e.g. Orlando City SC). Jay eyem (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jay eyem: The Parma comparison is not a false equivalance—Parma formed entirely new legal entities too. In 1968, a court ordered the liquidation of the club, and then in 1970, a different club (Associazione Calcio Parmense) bought the license to the defunct club's name. In April 2004, Parma AC SpA was declared insolvent, and a new club was established as Parma Football Club SpA in June 2004. In March 2015, Parma Football Club SpA declared bankruptcy, and in July 2015, S.S.D. Parma Calcio 1913 S.r.l. was formed. –IagoQnsi (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You misunderstood the point. The point is that the difference between "franchises" and "clubs" is important. The United States does not use a club based system, and franchises that move do not inherit the history of the previous franchises. The same is not true for clubs (e.g. Rangers F.C.). That's why you have that ambiguity and is one of the reasons that the MLS teams that began as lower tier teams have different articles. You see the same thing for other leagues, or at least have an inconsistency e.g. the Denver Nuggets (like I mentioned before). Fans and ownership may claim that they are the same, but that does not make it so. Take a look at the Steaua debate as a good example of this issue and why it's different. Again, I think this is a really silly thing to get hung up on. I think the Orlando City SC article is a good example of how to do it right and I don't see a compelling reason for FC Cincinnati to be an exception. Jay eyem (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jay eyem: We do use a franchise system, but the fact is that reliable sources seem to be treating FC Cincinnati more like a club than a franchise (it is called "FC", after all). Not to mention: what about other franchises? When Tampa Bay Rowdies, North Carolina FC, and Indy Eleven left the NASL in 2017 and 2018, they paid expansion fees to create new USL franchises, and yet, no one is pushing for those articles to be split. It seems to me that it's less important whether or not a new franchise was formed, and more important whether or not reliable sources consider this franchise to be a continuation of the previous one. –IagoQnsi (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gonna go ahead and ignore that whataboutery and just chalk this up to a difference in opinion. Also as a side note, you don't need to @ me, I'm watching the page. Jay eyem (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting that the one time an MLS franchise did inherit a previous franchise's history - the new San Jose Earthquakes after the original MLS franchise moved to Houston - we kept them both in the same article, similar to the Cleveland Browns in the NFL, and split the Houston Dynamo off. If we'd seen something similar happen with the Columbus Crew and Austin FC, I'd support keeping the Crew incarnations together and splitting out Austin, but it looks like the original Crew are going to stay in Columbus at this point with Austin getting an expansion team so that's rather moot. However, another franchise with the Earthquakes name, which competed in several different leagues from 1974-1988, before the founding of MLS, has its own article, which seems to suggest that this is the precedent. With regards to the name, MLS team names are stupid and prove nothing. D.C. United wasn't "united" from anything, nor are any of the other "United" clubs. Real Salt Lake isn't supported by any Spanish royalty. And, for that matter, it's certainly not a "football" club, at least how we define football over here. I do think the distinction between clubs and franchises is rather artificial, but reliable sources that cover the league seem to see it differently. Smartyllama (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, technically Houston was considered an "expansion team" and San Jose was considered "on hiatus" (there was an option contract created as a part of the move? Or some option was granted to Lew Wolff? Sources aren't the easiest to find anymore...) even though San Jose relocated to Houston! See also: Talk:Charlotte_Hornets#Lineage_of_Charlotte_and_New_Orleans_franchises for the NBA - you may be familiar, but for those who aren't: the Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans and became the New Orleans Hornets, two years later Charlotte becomes the Bobcats, and after nine years of being the Bobcats New Orleans "returned" the Hornets name to Charlotte and became the Pelicans! Now the NBA considers the Hornets/Bobcats as "one team" and the Pelicans as a "new team," even though it's revisionist history. But such is life in the world of sports franchises, SportingFlyer talk 10:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Charlotte_Hornets is a more complex case and can't be compared with soccer. Charlotte Hornets case actually had two franchises or spots in NBA, with 4 names (Charlotte Hornets, Charlotte Bobcats, New Orleans Pelicans and New Orleans Hornets). The claim on succession was not quite clear according to the current citation, the treatment on grouping which to which is nightmare. (New Orleans Pelicans and New Orleans Hornets as one group, or Charlotte Hornets, New Orleans Hornets, Charlotte Hornets as one group, or other combination is more suitable?} Also it is pretty much WP:CRYSTAL on assuming every franchise would be suffered from relocation, renaming and the identity crisis. Matthew hk (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is an American sports comparison, which is applicable to this article - see the Houston/San Jose relocation. The NBA officially recognizes Charlotte Hornets/Bobcats as one franchise and New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans as one franchise, but until 2013 it was Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets and Charlotte Bobcats. History can in fact be "transferred" between franchises. But we're getting into the weeds here, might have to hatnote this :) SportingFlyer talk 11:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Then the scope of the article would be "X is a franchise in MLS, which used the name of soccer club Y original founded in year Z." i don't mind to split if defining the scope of the article on the franchise /spot in MLS. Matthew hk (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @IagoQnsi: Actually Italian system is more complex. Parma FC was established by liquidator of Parma AC, but all means they are the same club, just something change in legal person. While the current Parma Calcio, actually established by claiming a clause of Italian Football Federation. Which a totally new legal person to register as a successor of football record and league position. The new owner can ignore the old club and did not buy anything from the liquidator (which was the criticism of this clause according to WP:RS, actually an inferior new owner to start a namesake and take a free rider on the branding of the old dead club). But new Parma did bought back the training ground and the trophy, as well as according to WP:RS, fans considered they are the same. However, it-wiki are more loose on grouping the successor, which Potenza S.C. and Potenza Calcio are clearly two clubs, and i can't dig out the citation about the true connection except they played on the same stadium, but it-wiki group it and en-wiki did not. To sum up, in en-wiki, Italian clubs and its true phoenix club are grouped in one article, but the original and phoenix club can be very distinctive on assets sense.
Back to US system. franchise is a fancy word which is not well appeared in WP:RS. The MLS team and the original team are way more than namesake and very very near as the same club, only if you argue on legal person point. However, it should based on "editorial judgement" on splitting or merge, such WP:TOOLONG (may be?), or consistency with other MLS team article. Matthew hk (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Only if you argue on US system, is the spots in certain sports league are fixed. Teams can be bought and relocated (and renamed), making the article is about the spot not the club. For example Utah Jazz still kept the history as New Orleans Jazz, also New York Red Bulls still kept the history of MetroStars. Matthew hk (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reliable sources love pointing out that MLS teams are franchises, not clubs. I personally find the distinction rather silly, but we can't go by what I think or what you think, we have to go with what reliable sources say. Smartyllama (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A post related to this article split was recently posted to /r/FCCincinnati, the Reddit community for fans of the team. One user named TheAmplifier posted a comment that I'd like to share: "From a user's perspective, two different articles makes no sense. If I go to FC Cincinnati I should see everything regarding the team and it's history." This seems to be a shared sentiment there, as the comment is currently sitting at 11 upvotes. Per WP:ASTONISH, we should not do things that would surprise/confuse a reader. It seems to me, and to these Reddit users, that having two separate articles would be surprising/confusing to many readers.
Disclaimer: I am an active user in /r/FCCincinnati. However, I did not make the original post, and all of my comments in the thread have included a warning that people should not join this AfD discussion if they are not already active Wikipedians. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, favoring deletion I agree with following both the fanbase and general media perception that the "FC Cincinnati team", as a whole, is continuing on, uninterrupted, just in a new league. (And the reddit thread cited above is a good barometer of the fanbase.) While there may be contractual reasons why there is a different legal entity and certain player contracts are not continuing, those are mere technicalities. The colors are the same; the management is the same; the offices and stadium are the same; the popular name, web presence, and social media accounts are all the same. Season ticket holders for 2018 were given the same priority for 2019. From a popular, non-lawyer's perspective, the 2019 FC Cincinnati is the same entity and entitled to the same feelings as the 2018 entity. That there is a precedent here for splitting other teams is an interesting footnote, but it would cause less confusion for the average user looking for FC Cincinnati information here if that precedent were abandoned. It should be abandoned. Liffer (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jesus have we really stooped to using a reddit thread as a source? This will literally make zero difference once the team actually begins playing in MLS and this article is moved to FC Cincinnati. You don't see Orlando City or Minnesota United or Seattles Sounders fans etc. complaining about this. Jay eyem (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I felt the same about the Timbers article ten years ago, but I was wrong. The leap to MLS was huge, and you've seen this play out with FC Cincinnati's new name change and brand. I've added the notavote template. SportingFlyer talk 23:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I'm not familiar enough with the Portland Timbers to say if that was the right call or not. Readers are less likely to be looking for info on the pre-MLS days as time goes on, but that doesn't mean it should be entirely separated. A big point I'd like to make is that the transition will most likely be much less drastic for FC Cincinnati than for most previous expansion teams. The FO has been running MLS-level marketing campaigns and drawing MLS-level crowds. The local news followed the team very closely and their coverage felt more comparable to the attention they give to the Reds and Bengals (the other major league teams in town) than to their coverage of the Cyclones or UC/Xavier college sports. This is anecdotal, but to those of us in town, moving up to MLS just feels like a logical step forward, not a big leap. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on account of subject clearly failing WP:TOOSOON. (But reserve the necessary web space until next year. ) -The Gnome (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: Why is it WP:TOOSOON? They even have three players on their roster, and most other MLS expansion teams have received articles as soon as they've been announced. SportingFlyer talk 22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know other bad stuff exists in Wikipedia. This is practically a certainty considering how big the English Wikipedia already is and how bigger it is getting by the day. Plus, I do not believe we can fix everything. This is why the community has accepted (see WP:OSE) that one article that should not have been created in the first place cannot be used as an justification to have another, similar article in Wikipedia. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Despite the legalese, this is WP:OR. WP:RS cover this as the same team moving from USL to MLS. The clincher for me is the discussion in the media about the Hell Is Real game being advanced into a real rivalry, not as a separate relationship between two MLS teams, but as a continuation of the history between the two teams. Maybe this will change as FC Cincinnati establishes an MLS tradition, but not yet. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Mitolo[edit]

Giorgio Mitolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced WP:BLP – I thought these were all supposed to have been weeded out? Anyway, I can't find one single reliable source for this person; he is apparently not the Giorgio Mitolo who was general manager of SIAT and was prosecuted by the Guardia di Finanza for fraud and conspiracy in 1981. Please note: the article was longer before I removed some unsourced personal information and a good quantity of other unreferenced stuff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was an WP:AUTOBIO by the subject himself. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to write about themselves — it is an encyclopedia where the ability to qualify for an article is conditional on how well it can or can't be referenced to reliable source coverage about the person. But there's none here whatsoever, and there never has been at any other time either — it's always been just a prosified résumé, which is not what we're here for. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-promotional . PKT(alk) 15:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, fails our notability crtieria. It seems he did have a profile at Omni Television but it is a deadlink [42].HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Rodriguez (Video game player)[edit]

Adrian Rodriguez (Video game player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a gamer, whose notability claim of being a world record champ on various video games is referenced entirely to his own self-published YouTube videos and social networking profiles (Twitter, Instagram, Twin Galaxies) rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles by making grandiose claims about themselves, they get Wikipedia articles by receiving coverage about them in real media. You know, the kind with editorial standards and fact-checking. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 13 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_13&oldid=1142615429"