Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 November	27 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Brussels stabbing attack[edit]

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

A man known "for robbery and violent crimes" stab one person, not life-threatening . Seriously, if we had an article about every such attempt we would have a billion articles. Totally unnotable for an encyclopedia Huldra (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. SPQRobin (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID. This was a stabbing attack on police officers at a police station at Brussels' Grand Place by a man shouting Allahu Akbhar. It is now under investigation for terrorism links. Notability can be reevaluated after the investigation concludes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID and WP:DIVERSE multiple sources around the world reporting this --Shrike (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International news item on the 20th (very wide coverage). Major Belgian coverage on the 24th - [1]. Event has SIGCOV, save for SUSTAINED which we can not evaluate at present due to the recentness of the event. Thus, per RAPID, we should err on the side of keeping the article. Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , at least until ultimate full notability (or lack thereof) of this event can be established.TH1980 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no doubt. The coverage is daily and the investigation is for "murder attempt under a terrorist context". If terrorism in the capital city of the European Union is not notable, then what is? XavierItzm (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand due to continued coverage of the incident. Rzvas (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage, per WP:GNGBabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 28 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley McFarland[edit]

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

This article has had a notability tag on it for a while, so listing at AfD to see what the community thinks. It's dubious whether she meets WP:NACTOR, as none of her roles look like "significant roles", even the Emily Lightman role which apparently is her most famous. I'm also seeing not a lot in the way of 3rd party reliable sources covering her in any significant way. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep 40 episodes in Lie to Me (main), guest and then recurring on Sons of Anarchy, 6th listed cast member in the Conjuring. Ive found this source and some decent (though not necassarly significant) coverage through searches. Maybe just enough hence 'weak' keep.JC7V (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Between being in the main case of Lie to Me and a supporting role in the hugely successful The Conjuring, this person meets WP:NACTOR. Oakshade (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree per above. 74.50.209.78 (talk) 09:23, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal jha[edit]

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

Fails as per WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage found as per my research. Dial911 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for having been candidates in elections they did not win — but nothing else here establishes preexisting notability for other reasons, and none of the sourcing is strong enough to make him a special case over and above most other unsuccessful candidates. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just about everything needed in a rationale was stated there. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:16, 28 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 Sea turtle#Relationship with humans. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle walk[edit]

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

Article largely consists of synthesis of material that could be covered at Sea_turtle#Relationship_with_humans, or in similar sections of specific species, and material about completely non-notable organizations and individuals. No substantive sources about the general concept: such sources as there give passing mentions to "turtle walks" as tourist attractions. PROD unsurprisingly contested, with no rationale, by Andrew Davidson. Vanamonde (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Turtle conservation is quite notable and so it is easy to find sources such as this. The conservationist, Satish Bhaskar, who is highlighted in the article, seems quite prominent in the field – see The Leatherback Turtle: Biology and Conservation, for example. The claim of synthesis is a vague wave unsupported by any details or discussion – the article didn't even have a talk page when I found it. Andrew D. (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, turtle conservation would be a notable subject. This isn't about turtle conservation. Satish Bhaskar might be a notable subject. This article isn't about him, either. I don't see where you're going with this, aside from a knee-jerk "keep". Vanamonde (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear, if someone wishes to write an article about turtle conservation, and redirect this there, I have no problems with that. This article, however, is bunk. Vanamonde (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Sea_turtle#Relationship_with_humans for time-being; wherein a line is enough. Change target, if someone writes up something on Turtle conservation, which currently stands redirected to this article (typical Colonel-Warden-stuff). Agree with nom about the triviality of the mentions.∯WBG^converse 12:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment: the article at the moment relies heavily on a single book; the author of the book also appears to be the founder of one of the groups discussed in the article [2]. As such, the book is not an intellectually independent source. Vanamonde (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as suggested above. I agree with the arguments presented by Vanamonde and WBG. Peacock (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Amply sourced already. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, the topic of turtle conservation is a viable one. Most of the material in this article is far better suited to an article about turtle conservation, and indeed most of the sources here only describe turtle walks as an example of turtle conservation efforts. This title is not workable, and indeed creates neutrality problems, because by framing the material in this really odd way, we're missing a lot of other aspects of this topic. Or to put it another way; if there existed an article about turtle conservation, this would not be a valid spinoff. Vanamonde (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Turtle conservation article does not exist. Your argument is a pure hypothetical straw man fallacy. If it did, I might (hypothetically speaking) support merger. You have not addressed the fact that the concept is itself notable. We will have to disagree.

Nor did you address in a convincing way the fact that WP:GNG is fulfilled, and that WP:Before was apparently disregarded. The article has already been improved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has indeed been improved. It would be improved a lot further if we simply moved it and readded the material I had to removed as irrelevant: this was not a viable option at the time I opened this. Furthermore, my concerns with promotionalism and use of non-independent sources remain. "The ultimate turtle walker though was Satish Bhaskar..." Vanamonde (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as above. Szzuk (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or Retitle~~ ~~Readded the material that Vanamonde deleted.~~ It was already there. Retitling this works for me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's kind of my point. That "Turtle patrol" is very relevant; but at the moment clearly inappropriate, because it isn't a turtle walk; it's in a vehicle, for chrissake. I haven't removed it again because I'm not interested in an edit-war over something that silly; but it is definitely silly. Retitling and reworking, dumping the puffery and the material sourced to non-independent sources would be a big help. Oh, and you should probably strike your !vote above, as this is a duplicate at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both parties are right. This material should be summarized in Sea_turtle#Relationship_with_humans generally like "around the world there are people who walk the beaches looking for turtles" etc. It then links to the main article, where more detail is given about specific places in the world. There are so many regional details that it would easily drown Sea_turtle# with too much weight. It needs a place to beach where they can be examined in more detail. -- GreenC 16:02, 28 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 List of German supercentenarians. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Klink[edit]

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. She lived, she died... and that's all there is here, thoroughly routine coverage. I don't think there's even enough for a minibio. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article 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. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia about her long-lived family and her health. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of German supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of German supercentenarians – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement among the list of oldest Germans ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 10:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per JFG. She's on the list of supercentenarians, so this seems like a sensible course of action. Not saying everybody on the list should have a redirect but in this case it works. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:21, 28 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 List of Belgian supercentenarians. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Godin[edit]

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

Another non-notable old lady. Being the oldest person in an arbitrarily defined geographical area is not inherently notable, and the rest of this is filler routine coverage. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article 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. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia about her family and other peoples age records. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of Belgian supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Belgian supercentenarians – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement among the list of oldest Belgians ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to appropriate list. This is easily one of the most padded supercentenarian articles and an excellent reason for why WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB apply to these articles. The article tells us more about List of Belgian supercentenarians than it does about her. There's an unrelated sentence about the oldest person from Belgium and who here predecessor/successors were in a strained attempt to stretch this article out. There is only three bits of information about her that isn't in the Belgian list: She got married, she had a daughter and she swam until she was 109. Nothing of interest here to justify a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:23, 28 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Westphal[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Apparently originally created as an autobiography, most of the references given either do not mention him or only in passing. There is one reference to a local business award with a grand sounding name but little behind it. Google searches not finding any significant coverage. noq (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN RAJU - the technologies I've designed/developed helped advanced the state entity-based analytics significantly over the past 25 years. Much of my work is used in sensitive (LEA) or classified environments; thus, it is hard to achieve/receive public references. There are many good articles I've written on my LinkedIn page and I am active in several conference agendas: partial list [3]. I can certainly add additional references and citations as they become available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.87.31 (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no real substantive sources, but potentially Chris Westphal could be notable. I cant find anything on a WP:BEFORE. The article reads like he should notable, but nothing there. scope_creep (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The first source is a Raytheon press release; this is not an independent source. The second source does cover Chris Westphal significantly; it just quotes him in the last paragraph of an article about VisuaLinks. The third source is a local business award. The fourth source does not mention Chris Westphal, only Visual Analytics Inc. The fifth source does discuss Chris Westphal in depth, but as a local trade journal, I am not convinced that it suffices for notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:56, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig C. Christensen[edit]

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

A subject that does not meet WP:BASIC:

Various source searches are only providing passing mentions and name checks, as well as quotations and quotations by the subject acting as a spokesperson (the latter two types of sources are primary in nature, and do not establish notability).
Not finding the necessary independent, significant (in-depth) coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article
Three of the sources in the article are primary or unreliable, and regarding the two remaining reliable sources in the article, one has no mention of the subject at all, and the other does not provide significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant indepth coverage in light of his role related to the Utah ballot provision on medical marijuana.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I saw that single source before nominating. Here's the article, which contains a grand total of three short sentences about the email the subject sent, with the remainder of the article consisting of a reprinting of the email (the latter part of which is primary in nature, and not usable to establish notability). Regarding this matter:

This is not significant coverage, and does not establish encyclopedic notability,
Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, and the source mentioned in the keep !vote above does not even provide that. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:30, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MacCullagh ellipsoid[edit]

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

The given definition is exactly that of Poinsot's ellipsoid. The name of "MacCullagh ellipsoid" is highly uncommon, as a Scholar Google search on it gives only three references in English (and two in German). This article is entirely based on a primary source, the original MacCullagh's paper of 1849. D.Lazard (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sorry to tell all that D.Lazard's claim that "MacCullagh ellipsoid the eaxctly Poinsot's ellipsoid is an utter display of ignorance. He was impatient to display it although he was already answered at the ellipsoid talk page. I also provided an additional source discussing the difference in Zhuravlev Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics (Fizmatlit, Moscow, 2008)) [in Russian]. I pledge to all administrators to preclude D.Lazard from further harassing other editors. Just take look at his shameful record. Cocorrector (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Poinsot Ellipsoid and the MacCullagh ellipsoid are different constructions for modelling the same thing, however the differences in the construction make them useful for differing things - see the following references: 1 2 3 4. I have to admit that my initial position, based on my background in physics, was to redirect/merge, however it seems to be not as simple as I thought. Finally - a reminder to Cocorrector that we are all colleagues here and that we should remain civil in our communications. FOARP (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at WT:WikiProject Physics. D.Lazard (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To quote MacCullagh's obituary,

In his first course of lectures (on the Rotation of a solid Body round a fixed Point), he completely solved the case of a body abandoned to its own motions, on receiving a primitive impulse in any direction, under the action of no accelerating forces. This problem he had finished several years before, and was preparing it for publication, when he was anticipated by Poinsot, who published a very elegant tract on the subject. Both theories are founded on the same principles, and exhibit the effects of the forces in different positions of the body, as well as the actual motions of the body itself, by means of an ellipsoid described round the fixed point as a centre. But they differ in employing, not the same but reciprocal ellipsoids, which, though seemingly unimportant, makes this difference, that Mac Cullagh's method, although not superior in clearness or elegance, had the prodigious advantage of enabling him to throw his geometry into the analytical form, and to deduce, from the simplest geometrical considerations, the elliptic integrals which expressed the circumstances of the motion, such as the times of oscillation, revolution, &c. This method also enabled him to find several interesting properties, which Poinsot's mode of treating the question did not so readily exhibit, and which Poinsot had in fact omitted to notice.

Overall, where there might be an argument for a merge-and-redirect, that can be decided at a later date. There's a whole lot of lovely nineteenth-century classical dynamics here, and a deletion discussion is probably not the best forum for deciding how to present it well. XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not really my cup of suspended colloid, but based on the material presented above there are sufficient arguments for keeping this as a separate article. At the very least the concepts are different; whether a merge would be suitable is a different discusson. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:40, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Page (producer)[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage for this person, fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Flooded with them hundreds 12:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no real claim to notability and few, if not no verifiable sources available. Hiàn (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a WP:BEFORE search shows no significant coverage Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:33, 28 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Campbell[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, and WP:NACTOR for not having multiple significant roles in notable movies or shows (only Bad Girls). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a WP:BEFORE search shows no significant coverage Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:35, 28 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aashna[edit]

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

Non notable show. Same thing as Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz nomination (now deleted) before, this fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES for lack of secondary sources (article had links to a production company and channel as references, with blocked youtube videos) and significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV. Nothing in WP:BEFORE search. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 23:43, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. State Standards[edit]

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

An unsourced WP:CFORK of Common Core implementation by state, at a title that shouldn't be a redirect to that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Common Core implementation by state per WP:CFORK. Ajf773 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of state standards will likely be changing in the coming years as states begin to move away from CCSS in favor of other standards frameworks. As each state falls aware from Common Core, those changes can be noted/updated on this page. TommyGober (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:27, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mzera Television[edit]

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

Speculative advertising Rathfelder (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. This television station was supposedly going to begin operations in 2012, but I have found no sources to indicate that it actually did begin operations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability, especially since the station never reached operational status.TH1980 (talk) 23:46, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Aaron Knapp[edit]

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSIC as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The basically unreferenced article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and I suspect that the article's creator, user Jak5674, is writing about himself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve updated the article and added published works from the newspaper and a magazine. Also, this user account is a publicist with Jak In The Box Productions, a production company that publishes sound and voice recordings. Please let me know if you have further concerns. Jak5674 (talk) 12 November 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...the production company/record label that releases Mr. Knapp's records? You have a conflict of interest then. Are there any other sources apart from two local magazines in Amarillo, where I imagine Mr. Knapp is based, that would demonstrate recognition outside of the city? Richard3120 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the nominator, "Jak" is in the username of the person behind the article. It's also in the company name and happens to correspond to the musician's initials. Maybe a coincidence... ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like the nominator I can find no independent coverage in reliable sources. The musician appears to be DIY, releasing his own music and getting it listed on the usual streaming and retail sites, but no reviewers or journalists have noticed. Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:26, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Memorial Hospital[edit]

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

The article has no sources and it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Meow^STC (Meow back) 09:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any sources. Hospitals are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:25, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Park (Central Saanich)[edit]

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

Article about a park in a small town, referenced only to its own primary source facilities profile on the town government's own self-published website. As always, every park that exists in every town or city is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- it needs to be referenced to a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage in media or books, but nothing like that is being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Seems to but nothing by a WP:MILL local park. NN. Note, there is this coverage about a memorial, but it's not enough. MB 18:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are other non-primary sources. Sources like [4] (the park has a feces problem) and [5] (the park has a cenotaph). Unfortunately for this article, they're hyper-local and routine, and I can't find any other sources which aren't. SportingFlyer talk 04:06, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workato[edit]

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

Non-notable platform sourced only to funding/PR and WP:BEFORE reveals a bunch of random passing mentions and nothing in depth. Praxidicae (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in-depth out there other than talk about funding. There is a book mention but it is still just a mention. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:16, 26 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. Ok, Fram is probably right by policy but the heartfelt consensus of editors mourning the passing of an exceptional colleague shouldn't be discounted by making this nc. No objection to an earlier than usual relist if editors feel so minded. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zu den heiligen Engeln[edit]

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

Prod removed. Prod reason was "I can find no evidence that this is a notable church. All info I can find online seem to point to a run-of-the-mill church, which gets routine coverage, but nothing else. Not noted for its architecture as far as I can tell, not a notable history, just a church."

The sources added since then do nothing to change this. this book (a very specialized PhD disserttation) mentions this church in brackets when discussing another church, but that's it. This is the kind of local routine coverage about a change of priest, not about the church. The other sources are not independent or don't give indepth information about the church. The conclusion remains that this is a run-of-the-mill church which hasn't received the necessary independent attention necessary to have an article here. Fram (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked that a friend here died, and have no words yet. We have articles about toilet paper orientation, men's parking space and obscure card games, but a church which is built as a symbol of the tent of God with men is not welcome? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems semi-notable for it's ecological efforts. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this been commented upon in independent sources? What we have in the article now is this, which is the website of the diocese this church belongs to. Our article states "it was the second parish to be certified", but the source article makes it clear that this means "it was the second parish in this diocese to be certified", which is not really much of a claim to notability, and probably the reason no major independent sources have paid any attention to this. Fram (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly seem to be lots of news sources but I can't speak enough German beyond "Entschuldigung, aber mein Wellensittich ist kaput" to know if any of them are helpful to rescue the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- (You'll need to include Kirchrode in the search, because Peine has one with the same name, and others, actually.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Gerda that it is shocking that a tent of God with men is not welcome in en.wikipedia.--NezLe (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NezLe: I think Wikipedia expects all tents to demonstrate their notability to ensure inclusion? ——SerialNumber54129 14:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I am shocked that a friend died. I am just a bit irritated about Wikipedia letting the socalled reliable sources decide what should be kept and what not. A little fancy thing in newspapers around the globe: notable. A spiritual place for decades, built by an award-winning architect: not notable. - I am sure there were press reviews when it was built, but they are not online, and I don't have them. We know that €400.000 were spent on the improvements in 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the article on the architect here nor the German one indicate that the architect won any awards. His descendants, who continued and expanded the firm, won awards, but that is hardly relevant for the notability of this church. Fram (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blame other articles. What I read - and didn't describe correctly, sorry - was this saying that his St. Bonifatius in Kassel has an entry in the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie saying: "Die Kirche wird als markantestes Kasseler Bauwerk der Nachkriegszeit in den Brockhaus aufgenommen." The church was included ... as the most striking (prominent, clear-cut) building in Kassel after World War II. What if I translate that church? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "blame" other articles, I point out (correctly apparently) that your claim was false. The notability of another church by the same architect is hardly relevant for the notability of this church though: he apparently designed 35 churches, that one of them is notable doesn't make the 34 others notable. For this chucrch to be notable, you need to find sources beyond local and routine coverage, things like the source you found for that other church. Fram (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its city and its diocese rely on the official website, that's different. I'm not afraid of millions of articles, because it would take thousands of editors to write them. Sorry for my failing memory that thought award when it was Brockhaus mentioning. - For other churches, I was told that the official website can be used for facts not found elsewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official website of course can be use, but not to determine notability, which is what we are trying to do here. Fram (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Sunday, the parish will appear on German public television. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-documented parish church of a major religion. Actually I don't see a problem with us having articles on all 12488 Catholic parishes in Germany (they are usually all well documented in news and so on), whether their church is architecturally significant or not. —Kusma (t·c) 12:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why the normal notability rules wouldn't apply to "parish churches of a major religion"? More than 200,000 Catholic parish churches, nearly 4 million mosques[6], more than 2 million Hindu temples in India alone, ... Fram (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, the Catholic parishes in Germany tend to be well documented in the news (events receive at least as much coverage as those of schools, but we can argue whether this is "routine coverage"), and their churches (as buildings with some content) receive lots of coverage (you will find articles written about the art in the church and the organ in the church and so on). So there is no reason to believe they won't pass normal notability rules. I don't know what the sourcing situation is with respect to other churches. —Kusma (t·c) 17:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - But these sources mostly are non-existent for this particular church. The sources in the article are either not independent, or very local. Claiming that all German churches have plenty of coverage, in an AfD for a German church where such coverage seems to be lacking, is not really helpful. And many school articles get deleted or redirected if all we have is such routine coverage ("school X has it yearly christmas event this saturday" kind of coverage, or "our local school gets a new gym hall"). You aptly compare this church to a school, but school articles don't get kept automatically at all... Fram (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, sources can often be quite local (and typically the minority confessions have slightly worse coverage than those of the majority). But I would be really surprised if there wasn't a lot more about this church from the 1960s (and not online). Maybe a list of Catholic parishes and their churches in Hannover is better than individual articles. But certainly deleting this article without replacement is not improving Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 11:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I'm concerned churches (esp. churches with some history to them) are already borderline inherently notable, and I am convinced also by User:Kusma's arguments. This is the kind of thing where it is reasonable to presume there's more sourcing available, and the only thing that stands between the article and sourcing (OK, a few things) is a. the lack of online presence for slightly older things that aren't major things b. the fact that we're not in Hanover where we can see what the local archives have to offer. Note: I just approved this at DYK, pending this discussion of course. Dr Aaij (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I had some luck finding a ref, adding facets like the church a test place for broadcasts of services. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Kuzma et al. --Doncram (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do think that most/all of such churches are likely notable, but this one perhaps even more so for its interesting architecture, apparent in photo and explained in article as the architect choosing to make it like a tent. This is notably different than the architecture of approximately one bazillion U.S. churches I have seen. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 28 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. Sandstein 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lighthouse in Oxford[edit]

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

Though there are references, I can't see that they establish notability for this pub. This article is the only contribution of its creator, apparently as publicity for the pub. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SMERGE to Park End Street#Public house. Although I have some happy memories associated with this pub, I can't see any significant coverage in independent reliable sources of any of its incarnations sufficient to meet WP:GNG: The existing refs don't extend beyond directory entries, mentions and routine coverage. The most substantial ref [7] is a restaurant review in a local paper, and I don't think anyone would contend that every eating establishment reviewed in a local paper merits a Wikipedia article. However, it seems worth rescuing some of the refs and sufficient of the reliably-sourced content to modestly expand the currently unreferenced section Park End Street#Public house without it unbalancing that article. Qwfp (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the author doesn't make it crystal clear that the building has changed its name on several occasions, leading to an impression the building isn't notable and the article is about something else, there is enough history here for inclusion, it needs Wp:Cleanup. Szzuk (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references establish notability – that's the way that it works. There are, in any case, clear alternatives to deletion which we prefer per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe this should be moved to The Lighthouse, Oxford unless "in Oxford" is regarded as being part of the name, although the current name does come up in Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 26 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 Workers' Youth League affair. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Greif Mathisen[edit]

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

This guy was convicted in the early 1990s and given a 90 days suspended sentence, and has never been in the media spotlight again. Totally un notable Huldra (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Workers' Youth League affair~~Weak Delete~~ as BIO1E. The political scandal was more significance than the sentence. Subsequent coverage seems to be limited to a Oslo city council run.[8] Assuming he is indeed a different individual from Anders Mathisen who is somewhat notorious - [9].Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Changed !vote to redirect, which are cheap. Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Workers' Youth League affair, which is where his notability lies. Noting that of the 4 individuals convicted in the scandal, Mathisen was the only one whose sentence was suspended.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 27 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. Sandstein 19:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnar Bøe Elgsaas[edit]

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

This guy was convicted in the early 1990s, and has never been in the media spotlight again. Totally un notable Huldra (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the coverage in the 1990s politcal scandal, seems he is currently a union boss - [10][11][12][13][14]. Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources brought by Icewhiz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lol! User:Icewhiz, User:E.M.Gregory, ok, fine that you are wikistalking me, but could you at least try to get an iota of info before you voice your opinion? Mr Bøe Elgsaas is NOT a "union boss", AFAIK he has never hold any elected office since the 1990s. He is (and has been) employed as a consultant (on pensions rights) in various Unions, and as such, has been asked to testify sometimes when issues about pension rights are taken to court. Hence all the links given by Icewhiz. Needless to say; this man is unknown by, oh, in my guess: at least by 99,99% of Norwegians (no article about him on any other wp.) Some "union boss", indeed, Huldra (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit more than a mere consultant. @Huldra:, Please strike your personal attack / WP:ASPERSIONS above. I !vote regularly in AfDs (over 1000 to date [15]). In at least one of the delsorts this is in I !vote in over 90% of listings. EMG is also an AfD regular in a couple of the delsorts here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where does it say that he is more than a mere consultant? A "union boss" implies someone who has been elected into a leadership position, not a mere employee. AFAIK, he hasn't held elected office since 1995 (and even that was in a rather minor position.) Huldra (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Union boss does not imply elected - some of the greatest never were. Here he is forbundssekretær, and he is nominated to run LO Stat.[16] Regardless of his position - he is covered as a topic and has his photo in newsitems (in the trade union rag, as well as elsewhere).Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        "Union boss does not imply elected - some of the greatest never were"...that may be true in the US, or in Israel(?), but it certainly isn't true in Norway. And some people nominated him as leader of LO Stat in 2016, yes, but he was never elected. Egil André Aas was elected leader 01.02.2017 (link), Huldra (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        True all over the world - guy behind the guy, etc. Regardless, he was forbundssekretær (federal secretary) in NTL s from 2010 to 2016, and was covered due to it - so whatever a forbundssekretær does, it does generage coverage. And the 90s political scandal drove coverage and adds notability lest we forget.Icewhiz (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        No, sorry, but just no. Norway isn't the Middle East...you dont operate with the "guy behind the guy" (which is Norwegian political life would more be "the gal behind the gal") in Norway. It is more "WYSIWYG". And forbundssekretær is basically a ..secretary. I can hardly believe it when you say that that is notable, Huldra (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After doing time for the Workers' Youth League affair, he has recovered and gets into the news pretty regularly. He does not always win the elections he stands in [17]. He is a politician within the Norwegian Civil Service Union. Here, from gTranslate and this [18] article about an election he lost, is a sort of c.v.:

• Federal Secretary of the NTL since 2010
• Director of NTL Finanstilsynet between 2006 and 2010, as well as chairman of NTL's county committee in Oslo 2008-2010.
• Educated economist
• Has served in AP and AUF, including 1. to the Storting." Do I understand Norwegian politics, no. But notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY; the Workers' Youth League affair was a big deal, and he continues to be politically active and covered in the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, the Workers' Youth League affair was NOT "a big deal", frankly to claim that is pure rubbish. BUT: en.wp have some (Norwegians?) who have made it a big deal. There is a difference. I doubt if anyone under the age of 40 in Norway has ever even heard of this affair. There is no doubt that the Bøe Elgsaas article was started as a WP:ATTACK page...note that the article about the Workers' Youth League affair is 22K long, compare that with the Orderud case (a triple killing): 15K, the Mossad mess-up assassination, Lillehammer affair: 13 K, the Hadeland murders (a double murder), which is just a redir to Norwegian Germanic Army: 4K, the NOKAS robbery (coldblooded killing of a policeman): 12K. If we are to judge by the care that some have put into the 22K long Workers' Youth League affair, then that case was more important than all the others cases I have mentioned. (Compare it also to Mazyar Keshvari, his defrauding of 290,000NOK gets one sentence...while defrauding by the AUF of 648,000 NOK gets 22k!),
  - There is also good reason why this article does not have any corresponding article in the Norwegian wikipedias, neither in Nynorsk (nn.wp) nor Bokmål (no.wp): the guy is simply not notable, Huldra (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs some expansion, but the stub is good and passes WP:POLITICIAN. Also see above sources brought by E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz. --1l2l3k (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, MP. Geschichte (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are we actually sure he passes WP:NPOL? What's a "deputy representative?" SportingFlyer talk 18:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CBC v New Brunswick AG[edit]

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

Article about a court case, which provides no sourcing except the primary source text of the court decision itself and no analysis or context for why Wikipedia would need an article about it. To be honest, this is so devoid of any real substance about the court case, beyond the cursory "this is a thing that happened", that I strongly suspect this was intended less as a real article about a genuinely notable court case, and more as a back door way of getting a criminal named and shamed in Wikipedia without having to take on the high burden of referencing a biographical article about him well enough to satisfy WP:PERP. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A threshold question is whether every opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada is entitled to an article. We have a longstanding and well-reasoned consensus for that regarding U.S. Supreme Court cases, at least in the modern era where taking cases and issuing opinions is discretionary and fewer are written per year, and they are always well covered enough to satisfy GNG. But I don't know how much of the same reasoning would apply to Canada's high court. postdlf (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching for Re R v Carson brings up a lot of hits 1 2 3 4. Taken together these seem to just scrape it into being notable. On the general question - no, I don't think that the decision of any court (the USSC included) automatically warrants an article absent other evidence of "significant coverage". FOARP (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Case Law notability is tricky (and the last proposal to have a guideline about it failed), but in this case I think the notability has been made out, even though the article should get a rewrite (and references to discussions of the case from law journals added). This is a decision on an important constitutional issue by Canada’s apex court and cited in (according to CanLii) more than 500 cases since. To the comment by User:Postdlf, in Canada the situation is fairly similar to that in America. The Canadian Supreme Court writes fewer and fewer decisions and has very wide discretion on which cases to take. As a result, basically every new SCC decision is subject to a substantial amount of academic discussion in journals, which generally tends to suggest notability. Atchom (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this case is one of the major cases on the open court principle, balancing the right of a victim to some measure of privacy, against the right of the public, through the media, to be fully informed about court decisions and legal principles. ETA: with regard to Bearcat's comment, note that the name of the accused is not mentioned in the article, so it if was an attempt to shame the accused, it's not very successful. ;) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I edited out the name because it the issue at hand was between the CBC and the court, and not really about the defendant. However, insofar as case law often involves otherwise-anonymous people I don't think the "no shaming" rationale works very well. Atchom (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Yadav[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Sources already in article about Whatsapp lawsuit are sufficient to meet GNG. But I can just hear my skeptical colleagues invoking ONEEVENT! Consider, then, that he's also getting a lot of coverage as spokesman for a major party just now. Thus not ONEEVENT. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note the article was deleted in the first AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhir Yadav and the nom statement surmises it the best below and is relevant here.Actually it could be candidate for G4.Article created for promotional purposes and almost all the sources are WP:NEWS and not about the subject.
Autobiography of social activist not yet notable per WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. There are a few passing mentions of his name in the press, in articles about corruption cases, but I can find no significant coverage of him online from WP:Reliable sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The subject is not a national spokesperson for his party only the media incharge for the party in Haryana one of the 29 states of India.AAP is not a major party outside Delhi and Punjab.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being a spokesperson of Aam Aadmi Party does make him notable. Added a recent article on his arrest.

Exploreandwrite (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Keep votes above seem to be confusing the number of references in an article with an indication of GNG. I don't see any indication that this specific person is independently notable. Most if not all of the coverage I was able to located about Sudhir yadav was trivial. Even then, mentions of are almost all trivial name-drops in lists of the filed the cases ,dismissed.None of them are any of that qualify as in-depth coverage.Note he is Spokesman or Media in charge of AAP party for only Haryana one of the 29 states in India.If we look at these sources individually:

[19] - about the dismissal of a case seeking a ban on Whatsup mentions the subject filed the case.
[20] - about DPS school case mentions subject filed the case
[21] - about a case which was dismissed merely mentions subject filed the case.
[22] - about a case mentions subject filed the case
[23] - about a case mentions subject filed the case
[24] - about a case mentions subject filed the case
[25] - about a case mentions subject filed the case
[26] - about a case mentions subject filed the case which is dismissed
[27] - about a case mentions subject filed the case which is dismissed
[28] - about a case mentions subject filed the case
[29] - about the case mentions the subject is a 27 year old Software engineer

1. [30] not a WP:RS source discusses the case and quotes the subject mentions subject is from Gurgoan.
AAP party announced its candidate and the subject as the AAP's Haryana media in-charge made the announcement on behalf of the party at a press confernce .

[31] mentions that Sudhir Yadav made the announcement at a press conference on behalf of the party
[32] Subject made the announcement on behalf of the party at a press conference
[33] Subject made the announcement at a press conference on behalf of the party
Five AAP workers detained - routine news of 5 AAP party workers being detained during a protest including the subject.(added by 2nd keep above)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete party spokespeople are not inherently notable. No other credible claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leading newspapers reference the subject and has sufficient sourcing, including verified social media handles, to meet WP:GNG. I don't necessarily think the current makeup of the article warrants a deletion. WillPeppers (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above even in the First AFD. That the individual lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. A single sentence mention is not significant coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NPOL. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Klamroth[edit]

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

Time for another AfD. Simply being the oldest person in an arbitrarily defined geographical area is not inherently notable, and the extremely stretched associations in this article show that there's absolutely nothing here. WP:NOPAGE The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE, and WP:NOTINHERITED. The coverage is WP:ROUTINE and there is no actual article to be made about this woman, hence the many stretches, like tying her as an affinal relative of some guy involved in a famous WWII event. There is also no notability guideline or policy that "the oldest x" is notable either. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of German supercentenarians – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement among the list of oldest Germans ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. Please also note that the subject expressed being tired of the "fame" associated with her being the "oldest person in region X". Wikipedia should respect her wishes by avoiding to host an unnecessary article. — JFG ^talk 10:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect if someone cares. Bad relist - let am Admin close these AfDs please when there is no opposition. Even the subject would not have wanted a page on her according to the article. Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Abraham[edit]

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

Was redirected to the college, which was reverted with the assertion "notability can be established", which then promptly was not. Searches turned up a single hit, which is already in the stub. In fact, that source is sort of like an anti-notability claim, and has a single line about this coach, "In 1935, under the direction of Lucien Abraham, local high school coach and commander of Batesville's National Guard unit, the Panthers returned to their losing ways." In fact, the season was so bad, the football program was dropped after the season. Fails WP:GNG and utterly fails WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a losing a record as a coach does not erode notability. Abraham later became a chief officer adjutant general of the Arkansas National Guard, as noted with additional source added to article prior to nomination here. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And therefore meets neither WP:NCOLLATH nor WP:NSOLDIER (the title is "general", but his rank was "colonel"). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was later promoted to general. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One can also fail to meet WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NSOLDIER, but still pass WP:GNG. In other words, passing WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NSOLDIER can be sufficient to establish notability, but failing them does not necessarily disqualify the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But he doesn't even come close to passing GNG, so his only shot was under the specialty guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's rare that a head football coach at a 4-year college would not be considered notable, and college athletic directors also tend to be considered notable. I'm not shocked that a head football coach from 1935 does not dominate in a "google news search" but it is nice to see several historical references in the sources. A poor win/loss record in sports can be just as notable is a great one, as seen with Ronald Beard. Sure, it's a stub article but stubs are okay and this one actually has enough information to pass WP:GNG--three of the sources point to that; two newspaper articles from the 1950's and a book from 2003. The "Find-A-Grave" website doesn't establish notability, but it does provide useful information to a stub article that has already passed the threshold.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Query This has also been bugging me in the nomination: the nominator states that the re-direct was reverted under the claim that notability could be established "which then promptly was not" -- but when I look at the history of the article, I see that within less than an hour of that revert, an editor added two more sources to further establish notability before the nominator brought it to AFD. I have no problem with good faith nominations for AFD (even those I disagree with) but I have to point out that the phrase "which then promptly was not" because I don't know how something can be promptly not be done -- what is the meaning of that phrase in the nomination?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER. And yes, that does apply to reservists as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am satisfied with the promotion to Major General which creates presume notability per SOLDIER. Coverage of the 30s-40s-50s-60s (particularly for figures significant on a state level) in digitized form on-line is at times more difficult than earlier periods. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he appears to meet the WP:SOLDIER requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having attained the rank of major general, appears to pass WP:SOLDIER. Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER. I found another image of him [34] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice find! I've added it to the article. It needs some editing, I admit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I would disagree with the sentiment that all college football head coaches are notable (especially for an NAIA school), I do agree that he meets WP:NSOLDIER. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 30 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 19:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Covius[edit]

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

I feel like the article is almost a candidate for speedy deletion as an article about a company that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and as borderline spam. But let's assume it's not quite bad enough for speedy deletion, the problem remains that the article does not seem to meet the basic notability criterion. There are currently no references in the article but what I can find through Google consists basically of press releases and other sources that are not independent of the company or routine coverage of the company's acquisitions. It should be noted that recent edits to the page seem to be the work of the marketing director for Covius. (I know that's not a reason for deletion but if the article is kept, this should be addressed) Pichpich (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly written commercial spam without independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Very clearly fails WP:NCORP notability requirements. Blatantly promotional. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:41, 29 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 19:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shivangi Pathak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Youngest of X nationality to do Y in Z way. Too many modifiers. Also an autobiography. I almost A7'ed this but held off due to the presence of three sources, but, IMO, this still doesn't reach the level of actual notability. Courcelles (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this was G11'd through AfD what, ten days ago? Does G4 apply or is this page somehow substantially different? SportingFlyer talk 15:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Very different, this one is sourced and is non-promotional. Also, only an AFD close of delete allows a G4, not a speedy deletion. Courcelles (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing about her is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still not notable Spiderone 20:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has become the youngest Indian to climb the Mount Everest from Nepal side. It is sufficiently covered by media publications. If the achievement is not notable enough, then I guess all the individual pages about people who achieved the same feat, as listed in List of Mount Everest records and List of Mount Everest records of India should be summarily deleted. On another note, the user who created the page should be warned against adding autobiographical information here, which I and Courcelles (talk) have kept on removing. I guess Shivangi or someone from her family is trying to edit the page. I removed all the biographical information and added the 2-line along with the references as visible now. More textual context can be written from the reference links and I hope everyone here will agree, mistakes of an ignorant page creator should not deter the creation of a Wikipedia page with the help of experts. Maybe protecting the page will help for now. Csgir (talk)

@Csgir She isn't the youngest indian to climb everest, Malavath Purna is. This article is about the "youngest Indian" to climb everest from "the nepal side". That's what the nominator is suggesting, too many modifiers. Daiyusha (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, @Daiyusha. An error on my part (fixed now) and I agree with the nominator too about the many modifiers but I still stand with my vote. This can be categorized as a "stub" and protected from edits by the page creator.Csgir (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Presley[edit]

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

I might be wrong on this one, but I don't see how he passes WP:MUSICBIO. #2-11 are clearly not met, I don't think the Reading and Leeds festival satisfies #12, and the sources presented are mostly interviews, promotional, or brief album reviews from sources which aren't clearly reliable, such as the "God is in the TV" blog/zine, so I think he also fails #1/WP:GNG as well. SportingFlyer talk 14:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The brief coverage in RS like The Guardian and Metro indicate that this may simply be WP:TOOSOON, but there doesn't appear to be enough significant coverage in RS to meet notability guidelines, and I don't see anything in the article that would qualify for subject-specific guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 26 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 19:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea Resham Bari[edit]

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

Non notable model, may be notable one day but isn't right now. Fails WP:GNG. Whispering^(t) 13:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 12:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/r/changemyview[edit]

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

Notability? Openlydialectic (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- No valid reason for deletion propounded. And there can be none. The sources already in the article, particularly NPR and Wired, make this a clear pass of the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. The NPR source is secondary and in-depth; taken with the rest this would seem to add up to a pass of WP:GNG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: changing to a full keep; I missed the Wired article as well. This is also secondary and in-depth. Definitely seems notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page does have notability via the sources, I'd just say that the page needs to be expanded a bit more (e.g. that single sentence with 5 citations). Also, there are a few other subreddits with pages anyway, so why not this one? - Tisafa (talk) 06:37, 27 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) 11:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/r/science[edit]

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

Notability? Also, in all references the forum is only mentioned in passing, except for the first two references, that are links to the forum itself. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What with the high-profile AMAs and the PLOS partnership, I think this is notable. Among provided sources, it seems as if the Scientific American article [35] would almost be sufficient on its own to document that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Nom's claims are somewhat misleading. First of all, the first two refs are enough to pass GNG. Second, the slew of articles about /r/science's decision to ban climate change deniers absolutely do not just contain passing mentions. First, they discuss the nature of the sub at length. Second, the fact that a wide range of mainstream national news outlets chose to cover this change in the rules of a single subreddit shows that that subreddit is notable. You don't see National Geographic covering the rules of very many subs, so when they do it's good evidence that the sub is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep - I think the interesting aspects of Allen's involvement, the PLOS partnership, and prominent AMAs all provide credence to WP:GNG. My initial reaction was delete, but after reading the article in depth I'm a soft keep.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was initially going to say a reddit sub really shouldn't be able to pass GNG that easily, but as Elmidae's source and others listed at the article show, there actually is some coverage with a bit of depth beyond passing mention of X post that got attention that happened to be a r/science. I'm basically in the same boat as Shibbolethink. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:52, 28 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 Draft.. Move to draftspace until qualifying WP:NAFL (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delma Gisu[edit]

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

Has not played a game yet, does not meet WP:NAFL [[WP:Too so onwards] Screech1616 (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Will likely be notable in a few short weeks time. SportingFlyer talk 15:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify AFL Women's starts in a few weeks and Gisu is likely to debut. – Teratix ₵ 02:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 30 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 List of Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Reynolds (Australian footballer)[edit]

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

Has not played a game yet, does not meet WP:NAFL WP:TOOSOON Screech1616 (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yep, probably just a bit WP:TOOSOON for Mr. Reynolds. Would draftify but not much will change in the next few months and this will be easily refundable. SportingFlyer talk 14:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: WP:TOOSOON. Could be draftified, but it's a very short article about a player unlikely to debut this season. – Teratix ₵ 02:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. Valid search term, why hide it completely? The-Pope (talk) 13:34, 27 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 List of Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Foot[edit]

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

Has not played a game yet, does not meet WP:NAFL WP:TOOSOON Screech1616 (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: less likely than Rankine or Blakey to debut this season or indeed at all, so draftifying is not as useful. – Teratix ₵ 12:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. Valid search term, why hide it completely? The-Pope (talk) 13:34, 27 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 List of Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin McInerney[edit]

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

Has not played a game yet, does not meet WP:NAFL WP:TOOSOON Screech1616 (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: less likely than Rankine or Blakey to debut this season or indeed at all, so draftifying is not as useful. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. Valid search term, why hide it completely? The-Pope (talk) 13:34, 27 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 List of Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Rowbottom[edit]

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

Has not played a game yet, does not meet WP:NAFL Screech1616 (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: less likely than Rankine or Blakey to debut this season or indeed at all, so draftifying is not as useful. – Teratix ₵ 13:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. Valid search term, why hide it completely? The-Pope (talk) 13:33, 27 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 Draftify. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Blakey[edit]

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

Has not played a game yet, does not meet WP:NAFL Screech1616 (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify clearly WP:TOOSOON for an article, but is a high draft pick and likely to debut in the upcoming season. No harm keeping this as a draft. On the other hand, it's a very short article that could easily be recreated if Blakey debuts, so I'm not opposed to deletion. – Teratix ₵ 12:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify will almost certainly be notable, but doesn't quite pass WP:GNG or WP:NAFL yet. SportingFlyer talk 15:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is fine, although notability WP:GNG is debatable given the media coverage (radio, tv, print and web) of the individual over the past 18 months and the coverage leading up to the draft. Agree that article doesn't meet WP:NAFL Jmitchell38488 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. Valid search term, why hide it completely? The-Pope (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The-Pope: that's a more useful solution for the majority of players that haven't played a game yet, to redirect to that search result Jmitchell38488 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Generally I oppose userfying a BLP but, since the subject will so soon meet inherent notability, this seems to be an okay exception. Chetsford (talk) 01:45, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Izak Rankine[edit]

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

Has not played a game, does not meet WP:NAFL Screech1616 (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify clearly WP:TOOSOON for an article, but is a high draft pick and likely to debut in the upcoming season. No harm keeping this as a draft. On the other hand, it's a short article that could easily be recreated if Rankine debuts, so I'm not opposed to deletion. – Teratix ₵ 12:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NAFL. -The Gnome (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mining in Pakistan. Sandstein 19:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of metals in Pakistan[edit]

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

I see no list similar to this elsewhere, it cites no sources, and seems to not be encyclopedic. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge (if feasible) and redirect to Mining in Pakistan. Pburka (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pburka. Local resources and industries of a country are of course encyclopedic, and the information is undoubtedly verifiable. But I agree with Pburka that this information is better handled as part of the parent industry article. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mining in Pakistan, this list is unsourced and unnecessary. Ajf773 (talk) 17:12, 26 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 Temperament test. Sandstein 19:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Temperament Test Society[edit]

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

Non-notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The huge and redundant "cite pile-up" for a single statement in the article, and the few other sources elsewhere in the page, are about dog temperament testing in general, or simply about pit bulls. They are not about this organization, which is mentioned in passing at best. Of the sources that are still working URLs, several make no mention of ATTS, and two are self-published ATTS documents. Zero provide in-depth coverage of ATTS. Some WP:SUMMARY-style information about the organization should simply be included at Temperament test, which already has two subsections for other specific testing approaches. Denuded of redundant ciations, the current stub's full text is probably okay as the full text of such a subsection, so merge to Temperament test is probably the way to go on this. I'm opening this an AfD because a merge proposal on the talk page might languish for a year or two, and this quasi-article should not be retained in the interim. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am willing to accept a merger to Temperament test as a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwanyewest (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, currently fails GNG. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The American Temperament Test Society is recognized by the American Kennel Club as legitimate that surely counts for something surely? [36]. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would an agreement between company A and company B be meaningful in this context? Microsoft probably has a contract with a catering company to provide food at its board meetings, but that doesn't make the caterer notable. Notability does not rub off. This fact you've brought up is not indiscriminate trivia of course, so it's good to mention in the text, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether to use a stand-alone article page for it. Please understand, Dwanyewest, no one is critical of the content or you for having added it; this is just a matter of where to put it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:12, 26 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 09:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brielle Daniele Edborg[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 07:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Timedborg The creator and biggest contributor to the article probably isn't "Timed borg". It's Tim Edborg, her father.[37] Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 09:06, 28 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. The arguments to keep are unconvincing since they assert that there are sources, but don't present them. In particular, providing a link to a google search is not a useful argument to make at AfD. Those sources that have been presented were shown to not be WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor: Edge of Extinction[edit]

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

Article uses spoiler site that doesn't disclose its sources, unlike other third party sites that report on Survivor, like Entertainment Weekly or Hollywood Reporter. Site is also not affiliated with either CBS (company that owns the US version of Survivor) nor Survivor production. In addition, the article used even states that this season is rumored. Sinjoh2015 (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article lists its sources, which are indeed affiliated with CBS, the producers of the show. The season has been confirmed, even if it was only a rumor when the article was written, which was June 2018. Time has passed since the season was merely a rumor, and it is a confirmation now. Keep the article, but the sources should probably be updated. If not now, then when more details are provided besides the ones known (which are in the article). UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the season was announced to have been renewed for up to Season 38, but CBS has not yet revealed anything about season 38 at all. Sinjoh2015 (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article can be recreated closer to the show's airdate. I would not be opposed to draftify this though. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wide array of sources. The person that started this discussion is looking at only one source, but plug survivor 38 into any search engine and you'll find 5-6 independent links discussing next season. TheEditster (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's about 3, Inside Survivor, which has two articles, one on the rumored season and one on the rumored cast, Reality Blurred (has one article), and Surviving Tribal (which has 2), which the latter two use Inside Survivor as their source. Inside Survivor does not inform the reader where its information is coming from, so for all we know, the information they got is false, since again, the season and cast is rumored. How is a rumor a reliable source? I also want to bring up that none of the other season's used Inside Survivor as a source at all for when their page was created. Sinjoh2015 (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Inside Survivor is self-published, which precludes it from being a reliable source. – Katanin (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:11, 26 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 09:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J Hanna[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. References are all movie reviews, cannot find any reliable secondary sources. Received one award for an independent film Rogermx (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing indicated in the article clearly indicates notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 27 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. Sandstein 09:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gleneagles Kuala Lumpur[edit]

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

No significant coverage. I was about to prod this, but it was deprodded on July 22, 2017 with no explanation. This was created by a now blocked SPA to promote the hospital. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did more searching and found run of the mill coverage except for this article. If the IMTJ Medical Travel Awards are notable, I will withdraw this nomination. SL93 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most hospitals are notable, even if few of them generate detailed coverage.Rathfelder (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 26 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 09:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Owumi Ugbeye[edit]

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

Actor fails WP:NACTOR as she has not had a lead role in two or more notable films. A BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find enough WP:SIGCOV to indicate she passes the WP:GNG Chetsford (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I do not think having a major role in a single film is enough to demonstrate passing WP:NACTOR. Ideally, Stolen Lives is a notable film, and her role in the film was significant as seen 1, 2, 3. She was even nominated for "most promising actress" at 2015 Best of Nollywood Awards for her role in the film. The other notable film production she has appeared in is Shuga Naija, where she is listed as a "supporting cast" (appearing in 6 out of 8 episodes). Considering that this a 2010s actor, where internet penetration has largely improved, I have to trigger my strict policy of major roles in 3 or more films to demonstrate passing WP:NACTOR. If she have more decent coverage, then she may qualify through WP:GNG, but presently what I am seeing are centered on her just being an upcoming actress, and not yet ripe enough for a Wikipedia entry. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see that she has also had stage roles, though I've found only one review so far, not very positive (of the play, or of her). She almost meets WP:NACTOR, but I think it's WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom's and RebeccaGreen's rationales. --1l2l3k (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Firstly I’d like to clarify that per WP:NACTOR no number(s) of notable films one must have featured was specified. However there seem to be little evidence of notability per HandsomeBoy, but perhaps his conclusion WP:TOOSOON. With my little web search on finding additional sources to try and establish notability, the RS available lacks editorial control, hence she fails WP:ENT.

Is Nutin 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Burke (songwriter)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Only one ref provides any substance and that appears to be based on an interview. The rest are advertisement sites. Most of the claims to notability are based on shared work as co-writer. This appears to be a member of a team producing songs . On his own , he fails WP:GNG by a very wide margin. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Issues with establishing GNG are large. His project Meme (band) has a page but that's not enough, and for what it's worth, I checked against WP:COMPOSER and can't find anything in there that would save this article. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:17, 26 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 Writer's Digest. Sandstein 09:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writer's Digest Short Story Contest[edit]

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

Three years, two edits, one sentence. Suggest merge what little there is into Writer's Digest. HalJor (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Writer's Digest. Vorbee (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:06, 26 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. Sandstein 09:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Finney[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR. I attempted to find sources for the various films it was claimed she performed in in addition to Families, but was unable. Any references that appear to be out there lack sufficient depth and merely confirm that she is an actress. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another article about an actor which completely omits her work on stage! I will try to add more information and references to the article, as it currently does not have enough of either to assess her notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a table with some of her stage roles, references, and some quotes from reviews. I think these, together with her screen role in Families, show that she meets WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs discussion of RebeccaGreen's edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:04, 26 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 09:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Korean nationality[edit]

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

Strange mix of North and South Korean nationalities without sources on such an entity. Wikisaurus (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. As it stands, this is clearly original research. Deb (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There is no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Gnome. There's no reason to believe that the combination of North Korean citizenship and South Korean citizenship is a thing. The ethnic group Koreans has a well-established article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbari dialect[edit]

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

"Barbari", or "Berbari", is the name of an ethnic group, presumably belonging to (or descended from) the Aimaq people. However, there doesn't appear to be any language or dialect with this name: the article's only source states that the Barbari speak Dari dialects. We can't rule out that they might have a distinctive dialect, but there don't appear to be any sources about that in the usual places. – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala:. What is the problem with the source already in the article? It's not available in full view so I can't read what it says, but snippet says there is a hit for the the exact term in the text. SpinningSpark 21:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The exact term is used only as a demonym. As far as I could see, the only information about the Barbari's language in this source is that they speak Dari dialects. – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can "Barbari dialect" be a demonym? That doesn't make sense. What exactly does the source say. Sure, the visible snippet is "Barbari" used as a demonym, but that doesn't prove that's all they say. ~~If that's your basis for nomination, then I'm at keep per WP:BEFORE failure and WP:AGF on the source.~~ Plus this, while hardly a reliable source itself, says the term with that meaning has an entry in Dehkhoda Dictionary which surely must be RS. I'll AGF on that one as well pending a Persian speaker looking it up. SpinningSpark 22:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, sorry, you mean that google books says there's a mention of the exact phrase "Barbari dialect" in the source? Well, yes, it apparently does [38], but no, there isn't. The page with the "hit" is 31 and the only relevant content there is this: "Those [Aimaq] separate and living in Iran are called 'Barbari' or 'Berbari'. They speak Dari dialects with a mixture of Turkic vocabulary." This is in the middle of a paragraph that gives a brief overview of the Aimaq, part of a few pages long enumeration of the ethnicities of Afghanistan. Page 31 doesn't say anything else about the language of the Aimaq. I haven't checked the rest of the book (its index doesn't have an entry for either "Barbari" or "Aimaq"), but given the topics of the papers there, it appears unlikely that there might be another mention elsewhere (and after all, it was p. 31 that was cited in our article).
      As for BEFORE: I've only checked google scholar and google books for stuff in English (couldn't find any), and I've skimmed through the pages of Encyclopedia Iranica that mention "Barbari" (couldn't find any suggestion that there was a language with this name). I've checked glottolog's entry for the Aimaq dialect, and there "Barbari" is given as an alternative name (sourced to multitree). Now if this were to be trusted completely, I would have simply redirected the article to Aimaq dialect sparing everyone the fuss of an AfD, but multitree is not a reliable source for dialect names. We can't redirect, because we aren't certain of the equivalence between the two, but we can't keep the article as it is because its content is contradicted by its source. I don't know anything about Persian dialects, and I haven't checked for sources in languages other than English, but maybe somebody will? – Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - My apologies, I read your post as meaning you had only read this snippet. I have struck my keep !vote as now I have no evidence of existence, let alone notability. SpinningSpark 18:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no dialect with this name, and the ethnic group(s) speaks multiple dialects, so redirect is not appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clust[edit]

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

Fails notability - just published, no citations, self-added: obvious WP:COI. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binarization of consensus partition matrices. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to save Wikipedia from biased articles or articles with no sufficient reliable sources.

However, although peer-reviewed publication just published in Genome Biology but the method and a pre-print publication have been around for more than a year with a user-base (e.g. number of users of the github version and the size of publicity on social media such as Twitter). The article is written from a neutral point of view. If any WP:COI signs of bias appear in the article, please point them out to be edited by whoever has expertise in gene expression clustering in general or in using this particular algorithm in particular. If still in doubt, you can always keep a warning sign at the top of the article inviting experts and expert users to edit as long as Wikipedia editors think the article is not 100% written from a neutral point of view. I cannot see how this article warrants complete deletion. Basel1988 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Basel1988 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability for this software from any sources I've looked for or found in the article. Citing the original paper and a couple primary papers that used it will never satisfy GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. The only citation to the article topic is the paper itself; the other citations are just supporting secondary statements and don't seem to mention this algorithm. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The subject does not meet the criteria for verifiable notability. (It appears that the whole contested article is but a synopsis of this paper, which is practically the article's exclusive source. But Wikipedia is not a depository of scientific papers.) -The Gnome (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zahran tribe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a recreation of this version of the previously deleted article. It's not a CSD G4, because the two most problematic sections were removed before it was AFDed last time; but as far as I can see it's, therefore, a worse article than the one that was AFDed last time. The useful content was merged to Azd; no purpose is served by resurrecting it, especially since it is still essentially unsourced. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So many of these Arabian 'tribe' or 'family' articles are empty POV vehicles, wild assertions and most/all unsourced. Oh, and GNG. *sigh* Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment there are enough sources for this article! and I think you are wrong about that Arab tribe articles are not sourced.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough sources about this tribe and its not just a branch of Azd it has gave a lot of branches like Banu Daws tribe. here are just some references to this tribe(note I can provide lots of Arabic sources and non-Arabic sources) [39],

[40],[41],[42],[43].--SharabSalam (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The issue, then, is that these sources need to be integrated into the article and the information they contain included and the unsourced assertions in the article removed. There's no point putting sources here - they belong in the article itself! As it stands I'd still support deleting the article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: you are right. these sources should be in the article I was willing to add them and the other sources I got but I wasnt able to because I didnt have much time. please note that this is a pre-Islamic tribe it has many branches like Ghamd Banu Hajr; one of its branches is Banu Daws tribe which Abu Hurairah(a friend of prophet Muhammed) came from.[44] ––SharabSalam (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the best option would be to move it to Draft space until it is actually ready for mainspace, and to go via the normal Articles for Creation process to ensure it is suitable. That would render this deletion discussion moot.

NB that while an edit summary said "I will be exetremly improving the article in the next few days and I will be adding many sources", nothing had actually been done for some days until the AFD kicked off a flurry of activity. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

note that I didn't create this article in the first place and I think it should not have been deleted instead it should have been moved to Draft space. I saw in this page history that there were attempts to delete this article especially from the user @Zahran80: (I guess he created his account for that purpose). I actually saw the previous deletion debate which involved him and other editors (who I think weren't familiar with Arab tribes). I was a bit busy (and still until now) after I recreated this article and I didnt get much time for adding sources although I think it's a good thing that I am involved in a new deletion debate--SharabSalam (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough sources exist to meet GNG; article needs improving not deleting Spiderone 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 26 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. Sandstein 08:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Collison[edit]

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

WP:NMODEL Article is poorly sourced to verify claims made in it so I tried to look for some. In my before, I couldn’t find any significant coverage. Or at least not enough for an article. I found only one interview in Interview of all places. Trillfendi (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets WP:GNG with international RS coverage over many years. Some examples: Ash, Amanda (19 July 2013). "Local models make Italian Vogue; Coveted covers for Dorian Reeves, Meghan Collison". Edmonton Journal. p. G.3. — Traill-Nash, Glynis (16 December 2007). "Collison right on Cue for campaign style". The Sun-Herald. p. 26. — Akhtar, Amina (2008). "Everybody's Favorite Face". New York (Spring Supplement). pp. 148, 150–151. — Fernández Abad, Ana; Rinciari, Francesca (14 February 2015). "Meghan Collison: "Comprendo la nostalgia por las décadas pasadas. No puedo culpar a los diseñadores por mirar atrás"". El Pais (in Spanish). Bakazaka (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 26 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 European DataWarehouse. Sandstein 08:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABS Loan Level Initiative[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and none exists in the article. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into European DataWarehouse. The ABS Loan Level Initiative was just a working group of the European Central Bank. There might be half-a-dozen ECB working groups of similar stature each year. This one was successful and founded the European DataWarehouse, which seems to have been its goal from the start. So the material from the ABS Loan Level Initiative should just be the historical intro to the DataWarehouse. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 26 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Heyder[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Daiyusha (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a passing mention in billboard and loads of download/retail links do not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Cabayi (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Links are social media and user submitted/download sites except for a trivial mention in Billboard article about multiple subjects. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I can find shows significant coverage for this subject. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I see a few independent sources though they aren't sufficient for GNG. I did a quick search and there might be one article in there that is useful, but even that may not contribute to GNG. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lameka Fox[edit]

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

WP:NMODEL Notability has not been established here and I have not found enough reliable sources to establish notability at this time. Another editor feels that appearing in a notable magazine is notability but I’ve always been told otherwise. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Its enough to defeat a speedy deletion A7 Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Featured in editorials and front covers of notable magazines would suggest WP:GNG should be passed Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case Draft:Chase Carter should be approved. But looking at it for what it is, I still believe there isn’t enough significant coverage out there, at this time, for Miss Fox. As this article stands, it relies on a single source, Elle, and since when is that acceptable around here? That’s ridiculous. (And no offense but Harper’s Bazaar Arabia and Vietnam are a bit far fetched for notability) Trillfendi (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Elle is a reliable source for models and non-English national magazines also count as significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But by itself it’s absolutely not enough for a whole article. What is going on here. This goal post moving is troubling. Get the sources!Trillfendi (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to copy and paste all the contents of that Elle piece because it’s propbably copyrighted, but you can not in good faith (or common sense) justify questions like: Diet coke or normal coke? Define yourself as a Disney character. And Ultimate snack? as notability. You just can’t! Trillfendi (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, which is not surprising given that her path to a contract was unusual and that she was one of the subjects of the documentary Baring It All: Inside New York Fashion Week, which aired on ABC Family (now Freeform). Article needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. Added two more sources to article. Bakazaka (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not as unusual as it was when it happened to her (I can name many models discovered on Instagram) but thank you for trying to improve it. Finally someone is actually bringing sources.Trillfendi (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pity it wasn't you before nominating Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 Even greater pity that my house doesn’t get Freeform and all I could find was one reliable source. Sacre bleu. 😿 (This still isn’t enough for significant coverage though) Trillfendi (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - With the documentary that is four reliable sources which is enough Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coverage in reliable sources including being one of the models featured in a national television documentary Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 26 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 08:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vi Robbins[edit]

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

Non-notable old lady. She was the oldest person in a given geographical area for a few months, she volunteered... and yeah, that's it. At most we're left with 2 paragraphs, thus WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE local coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that the "oldest X" is notable. The content of the article is just routine trivia fancruft. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of supercentenarians by continent, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement among the oldest Oceanian people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 09:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She received coverage not just for reaching an advanced age, but for doing things at an advanced age, as in volunteering from the age of 100 to the age of 110. An award for volunteers is named in her honour. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a nonnotable award named for you does not make you notable. Can't add much to the good delete rationals above except to ask why this was relisted? 3-1 delete seems pretty clear, just need an Admin to close it. Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voice computing[edit]

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

Created by an editor with a clear WP:COI; appears to be a WP:CFORK of Speech recognition. The only references that use this term appear to be by the page creator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination is way off. The claim that this is a content fork of speech recognition does not stand up. Voice computing is much broader than that – the "other end" of voice computing is speech synthesis (sadly, not currently linked from the article) which cannot by any stretch be included in speech recognition. Also not standing up is the claim that this is a neoligism invented by the author. A simple gbooks WP:BEFORE search would have shown this. Here's a usage of the term way back in 1987. Unarguably notable subject: Talk to me : how voice computing will transform the way we live, work, and think is a book not written by Schwoebel and gscholar shows plenty of scholarly papers using the term. SpinningSpark 11:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a valid topic, however there seems to be overlapping of information between the two articles and other separate articles. There is a good premise to Voice computing however I think it needs an overhaul. I think the article could work and could be kept if sorted out. Govvy (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree there probably needs a bit of an overhaul to this article. I wrote the bulk of this yesterday. In regards to the conflict - yes, I did write a textbook in voice computing; however, I've tried to write the article in a neutral view. It would be good to do some more research on the definition of the term, as it's often used in many different ways by the media and can be confused with conversational computing. It's partly why I wanted to start a Wikipedia article, as I think we can all collaborate on a definition that we all agree on :-). Nonetheless, if the article is not removed, happy to spend a week or so editing it and review it with the team here to make it suitable and sufficiently non-overlapping with other articles. Jim Schwoebel (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this needs to be deleted. Some of the terminology definitions (A voice computer is assembled hardware and software to process voice inputs.) appear to have no references or usage whatsoever. None of the conferences listed refer to voice recognition. The whole article is original research. And I don't dispute that speech recognition is a notable topic, nor do I claim that voice computing is a hapax legomenon of Schwoebel. Some of the sources use it to refer to Voice command devices. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Reread WP:COI please. It only says that an external academic role can trigger a COI. It absolutely does not say that academics are not welcome to contribute in their domain of expertise. Welcome Jim, thank you for contributing to WP, and don't let this misguided deletion proposal discourage you. -- Oisguad (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I re-read it. Adding In August 2018, Jim Schwoebel released a book (Introduction to Voice Computing in Python) with a GitHub repository. with references to his own LinkedIn and Amazon.com pages is very clearly a COI violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deleting one sentence will fix that. No need to delete the whole article. SpinningSpark 22:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I deleted that paragraph. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable – see Voice in Computing: An Overview of Available Technologies, for example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:29, 26 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. Sandstein 19:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Designer baby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is page about something theoretical -- "a human embryo which has been genetically modified -- which treats it as an entirely real thing. It is hopeless from the foundations up. I took what was useful here and merged it into Assisted reproductive technology in this series of diffs, along with content from Germinal choice technology, Reprogenetics, and New eugenics, all of which covered this same science fiction territory from different angles. The page was restored in this diff, with its interesting edit note. In any case, this page and topic should not stand alone in WP, and certainly not in its current form. The topic is covered solidly in the merged-to location in the ART page. If the content there is expanded with well-sourced content it can be split out at some point. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears you did a great job of merging this into the other article. WestWorld42018 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete This is an entirely real issue. Nuclei from human eggs are being transferred into other eggs to avoid mitochondrial disease in the U.K. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30094357 Research on gene editing of human embryos for other conditions is proceeding: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28942539. Technical leaders in the field are proposing applications of gene modification for enhancement: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29141159 StN (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mitochondria topic is covered at Mitochondrial replacement therapy which has nothing to do with designing babies. As I mentioned the sci fi stuff ("proposing applications...for enchancement") is covered in the merge target. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence of the article states: "A designer baby is a human embryo which has been genetically modified, usually following guidelines set by the parent or scientist, to produce desirable traits." This is precisely what "mitochondrial replacement" (actually nuclear replacement in an egg containing healthy mitochondria) does. StN (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a notable subject from the many reference provided in the article. It is also separate from Assisted reproductive technology since this relates to technology to assisting achieving pregnancy, and not in genetic modification of the baby per se. All of the other titles simply redirect to Assisted reproductive technology. That this is often talked about in terms of future applications doesn't matter - what matters is that it has received "significant coverage". FOARP (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is incompetently covered here as though it were real and in addition there are bad sources and no sources (essay writing/OR) for significant stretches; the content is sourced well and tightly written at the target page. There is no need for this page. Finally ART is ART and the same techniques would be used for this (if it ever starts happening) as are used and researched there. This too would be "assisted reproduction".Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page quality issues aren't a deletion issue. Whether it is real or not doesn't matter - what matters is if it has received significant coverage, and it very obviously has (1 2 3) ART is a technique for assisting achieving pregnancy so it is clearly not the appropriate place for discussing the subject of genetically engineered babies (including babies potentially having genetic modifications having nothing to do with genetic diseases) in general. FOARP (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is covered much better elsewhere. Yes ART is currently, actually used to help people who can't conceive; the concept of "designer babies" is discussed where it belongs there as some possible future application of current and under-research techniques, which is the appropriate context for it. Context matters in an encyclopedia. The theoretical ethical matters (which are all that the popular media refs you brought are good for) are discussed in the other page. I won't reply to you further. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to engage in debate isn't conducive to an AfD, which is about achieving consensus through discussion. It is not clear, at all, why the subject of designer babies (which, as you say, is in large part a potential future phenomenon, one widely discussed and given significant coverage) is best covered within a narrow article about a single current technique for assisting childbirth. Furthermore what you are really asking for here is a merge/redirect - so why is this being handled via AfD and not via the talk page? Finally, the subject of moving the content appears to have been discussed on the article talk page and closed with no consensus in 2009, so why did you simply merge the page without discussing it first on the talk page to see if it was possible to achieve a new consensus for moving? FOARP (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debate is fine but this is clutter. You are not making valid arguments nor dealing with the reality of this trashy page and you have completely misrepresented the target page. Deletion debate is not about making invalid claims and I won't use my time "countering" claims not based in reality. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are now responding, I hope you won't mind if I respond in turn. The subject of the target page is described in the header: "Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is the technology used to achieve pregnancy in procedures such as fertility medication, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy" (my emphasis). It is clear from this that ART is a technology (a specific technology) used to achieve pregnancy. The topic of Designer Babies is completely different - it is, as you have said, in large part a future phenomenon, not necessarily linked to any specific technology. Editing ART to cover the topic of designer babies does not make sense as they are separate topics - designer babies are created not just to facilitate pregnancy but for other reasons. The moral concerns around designer babies are not related to facilitating pregnancy, but instead theoretically possible future event such as the selection of e.g., hair-colour or skin-colour. Mergin makes no sense in that circumstance.

BTW - Refusing to even engage with the arguments against deletion is not conducive to the conduct of an AfD, because AfD is about reaching consensus and that can only be achieved through discussion. Especially where an article has existed for a long time and has already passed through a deletion discussion there will always be arguments against deletion that should be addressed by the proposer. Your proposed grounds for deletion include things that are not relevant to an AfD (i.e., whether designer babies are purely theoretical or not, whether or not they are a future phenomenon, whether or not the editor who restored the page after you wiped it did so correctly), these things don't matter for AfD because, per WP:RUBBISH, AfD is not for clean-up, page-quality, or other surmountable problems. The only place where I see you having a point is that there may be duplication, but if there is duplication it is hard to see how it can be duplication with ART since ART is a very different topic based on a simple comparison of the opening paragraphs of each topic. FOARP (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I had to write a paper on this topic and I severely doubt I am the last one who will have to. This article helped briefly sum up what exactly "designer babies" are in a non-biased format. The other article contained information that was unrelated to my topic, and so I found it very confusing and finding the information I needed was hard. Please do not delete this, as it was very helpful to me and I'm sure that it will be helpful to others as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:100:817f:d7f7:2970:6012:617a:19ed (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC) — 2601:100:817f:d7f7:2970:6012:617a:19ed (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The useful content is at the redirect. My goodness what an odd keep rationale. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this may be just a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL argument, but the real question here is whether you were right to copy that material over to Assisted reproductive technology and whether it really belongs there. I don't think it does, since ART is a specific current technology used for assisting pregnancy, which is very different to the subject of design babies, which are in large part a future phenomenon that doesn't necessarily involve the technology discussed in ART and may be done for purposes other than assisting pregnancy. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per recent news about the Chinese scientist, He Jiankui. The New York Times states "If true, some fear the feat could open the door to 'designer babies.'" Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethics of that sort of thing are already discussed at the ART page, and if people look for "designer babies" they will be sent there, as they should be. As the NYT states actual designer babies are still science fiction and will be for a very long time. Jytdog (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something being science fiction isn't a valid rationale for not including it as an article in Wikipedia. The only thing that matters is if there's significant coverage showing it's notable in independent, reliable sources and it doesn't fall under WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the nominator's rationale, article Designer baby should have been put into the process of proposing a merger, not articles for deletion. Deletion means deleting the page's entire edit history, which is not applicable for this case. The result of proposing a merger will be either "keep as an independent article" or "keep as an redirect page". In either case, the result will be "keep". It is not appropriate to discuss the merger issue on the AFD page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term "Designer baby" is a lay/pejorative term mainly used in ethics to describe future possibilities of ART/PGD and CRISPR. I'd like to work on this article in light of Lulu and Nana. -- Callinus (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Assisted reproductive technology~~ Human germline engineering. Designer baby is a WP:NEOLOGISM (though used in lay-media), and relevant content has already been merged to the target. Nothing in the keep votes really justifies keeping as is as opposed to an uncontroversial redirect considering the current state of the two articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why that particular page? ART is a very different topic to designer babies, since it is a specific technology for assisting childbirth, rather than the general subject of genetically editing babies using any technique for purposes that go beyond simply assisting childbirth. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Assisted_reproductive_technology#Research_and_speculative_uses, though Human germline engineering might be an even better redirect. The current article is really just a summary of Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and Human germline engineering, so there really isn't unique content either way that isn't already handled by any of the above articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating designer babies *isn't* (or at least, isn't specifically) a speculative use of ART, since it isn't tied directly to a single technology and isn't specifically about assisting childbirth. Human Germline Engineering looks a more suitable target but ultimately that's better discussed in a merge/redirect discussion, not an AFD. FOARP (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are where merge/redirect discussions can occur if you weren't aware. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The use of the term "Designer babies" was popular before this latest kerfuffle. There is more than enough information out there to write an article on the ethics and potential of such a process if it ever becomes a reality.[45] AIRcorn (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, since the content in the article has been merged to another article at the very least the edit history needs to be kept for attribution. The easiest way to do this is to keep it at a redirect, but if it gets consensus for deletion it will need to be kept at a subpage or something similar. See WP:MAD for a better explanation. AIRcorn (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aircorn I had redirected this. Unfortunately this very bad page was restored and rather than edit war I went for deletion. This is going to fail and I am going to argue for merge. This page is a magnet for woo and hand-wringing in ways that you and I are familiar with. I redirected this and several others to the science-based core page, and that is where the content should be. A redirect is fine... Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but we deal with this stuff all the time and that doesn't necessarily mean the article can't or shouldn't exist. I am not sure where I would stand on the merger proposal, as merging this to ART could cause undue concerns. I would also suggest you slow down a bit with the redirecting. Its this all in guns blazing approach that got you in trouble in this topic area in the first place. After a lot of hard work it has become relatively stable for the last little while and I would hate for it to return to the time sink it used to be. AIRcorn (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely used in the media, the previous article to a section of which this page previously redirected was sufficiently different in it's content (it was actually the Assisted reproduction techniques article). Openlydialectic (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a thorough article, many sources, this should not even be a discussion. Especially now with the news that the scientist He Jiankui has possibly been successful. Zaathras (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that sourcing is just summaries of what's at Preimplantation genetic diagnosis human germline engineering, etc. if you look at how the article is actually sectioned out. Regardless of sources, the current article is really just a bunch of summaries put together from other articles with nothing particularly unique that would satisfy the requirement for a standalone page, especially since it's redundant with human germline engineering. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I find the concept to be a confused and unprincipled one as it implies a distinction between 'medicine' and 'improvement' that doesn't exist in reality and have no particular opinion on whether it should be merged into PGD & editing articles, the nominator is incorrect in calling it 'something theoretical' and implying it is absurd to 'treat as entirely real'. This is badly mistaken and discussions should take into account that 'designer babies', as popularly understood, already exist and will only become more of a thing in the near future.

On the editing side, He's CRISPR babies would seem to be 'entirely real' and certainly not 'science fiction' and are being criticized for attempting to add what most would consider an enhancement (HIV resistance) rather than fixing any genetic disease or disorder. (They weren't announced when this was nominated, but as human embryos have been edited for 4 years now, everyone knew this was only a matter of time, and not 'something theoretical'.) On the PGD/selection side, Genomic Prediction in NJ began offering selection on many complex traits months ago and has customers and is just one of (at least) 3 such companies, and of course people have been doing PGD for optional non-medical purposes (even excluding generic embryo quality) like sex, eye/hair color, or most infamously, deafness, for many years now - and those are just the documented traits people are willing to own up to, I am told rumors that other things have been selected for in the past. If none of that counts as 'designer babies', then I have no idea what would. Further, all that is just what has already happened. Harvard's Neuhasser is continuing to research CRISPR editing of sperm, I know people who are seriously looking into CRISPR injections for adult in vivo edits (as potentially much cheaper & more reliable than editing embryos), the very rapidly advancing work on human gametogenesis or oocyte maturation may take GenPred-style PGD from a curiosity to compelling, and we're not even talking about what becomes possible with gametogenesis+PGD in a iterated multiple-generation ('iterated embryo selection') or with the Moore's-law-like progress in genome synthesis (currently at yeast-scale synthetic organisms, and heading towards human-genome scales).

So, make of that what you will in discussing whether to keep this article or break it up into others. --Gwern (contribs) 19:19 1 December 2018 (GMT)

The two humans created in He's widely condemned clinical trial are not "designer babies" as that term is generally used - they are not meant to be smarter or prettier or faster; there is some putative (weak and widely criticized) medical rationale. The concept of designer babies is still science fiction. Adult somatic gene editing has nothing to do with germline gene editing of embroyos. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained, they are being condemned in considerable part because they fall under most conceptions of 'designer babies' in the edit not fixing an inherited genetic disease like beta-thalassemia or Huntington's but an optional enhancement granting enhanced HIV resistance. (How many people define 'designer baby' as solely and exclusively 'smarter or prettier or faster'...?) And perhaps the context was insufficient, but I never said merely 'somatic', I said 'adult in vivo edits': specifically, injections into testes. (Their rationale there being, among other things, that while you only have 50% chance of passing it on when you have modified sperm rather than embryos, it's easier to edit testes long in advance of reproduction and it avoids entirely the large expense of IVF, so allows use in more than IVF's ~1% of live US births.) Even dismissing both of those real-world examples, Neuhasser, Genomic Prediction, the two stealth companies, and all the past uses of PGD for optional things remain real and not 'sci fi' as you repeatedly claim in your minimizing comments. --Gwern (contribs) 09:06 2 December 2018 (GMT)

Nope, he justified as a medical thing. On the Harvard sperm thing, people have been gene editing human embryonic stem cells and yes sperm for a while now. That is still basic research. Nobody sane is creating babies, as the reaction to He's work shows. On the Genomic Prediction company, their EPGT test is putatively medical (and I am surprised they are allowed to market that test, and wonder how long it will be before the FTC and FDA come after them....). I have no idea what you are on about, with regard to people injecting stuff into their testicles. This is WP not PeopleDoingorTalkingAboutWierdShitOpedia. Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, with regard to this: and we're not even talking about what becomes possible with gametogenesis+PGD in a iterated multiple-generation ('iterated embryo selection') or with the Moore's-law-like progress in genome synthesis. That is science-fiction, futurism, what have you. When tech people approach biology (and medicine) they often have these sorts of ideas, and what you get is Theranos. Biology is difficult; medicine is even more difficult. See this important blog posting, (and this further commentary on it" Software Eats the World, But Biology Eats It"). You might find WP:Why MEDRS? interesting/useful....

Designer babies are science fiction stuff, in 2018. It is still illegal in most of the world to edit the germline of a person (or intended person) Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He justified it as medical thing but no one is buying it. Again, they are designer babies: they are not being edited to cure any disease they have, or are likely to get, but to add in an optional enhancement present in only a small minority of humans. I see you have moved from 'this is sci fi' to 'no one sane is creating babies... Your dismissive comments about GenPred or the testes editing do not respond to my point that they exist and are real, the point of sperm editing research is to, you know, use them at some point, you continue to ignore my other points about past applications of PGD, and it would be ridiculous to dismiss things as 'sci fi' simply because they have not happened when they are obvious straight-line applications of existing research (like, say, implanting CRISPR babies). Again: this is not sci-fi.

To the closing admin of this AfD, you may want to also take into consideration Jytdog's behavior on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genome-wide complex trait analysis. By the way, Jytdog, how is nominating this article for deletion not a violation of your indefinite topic ban on GMOs? CRISPR designer babies are pretty obvious 'genetically modified organisms', even if we exclude PGD etc. --Gwern (contribs) 21:12 2 December 2018 (GMT)

I've acknowledged below that this is ~probably~ be going to be kept one way or the other. The !votes are what they are and we will deal with the page after the close. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And your lifetime topic ban you are violating by this and the other AfDs? --Gwern (contribs) 22:35 2 December 2018 (GMT)

Please play the ball, not the man. My TBAN is on ag biotech, not this sort of thing. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted". And no, I think this is relevant to this AfD, whether it should even have been allowed to be opened in the first place - never mind your subsequent harassment of users for disagreeing with you. --Gwern (contribs) 23:04 2 December 2018 (GMT)

The locus of the case was ag biotech. I have been regularly editing human gene therapy and related topics and you are the first person to make drama over this. In any case, WP:AE is thataway. What you are doing here, is really inappropriate. I won't be responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that we also had a blown up Human germline engineering page which covered the exact same topic as this page and was created as a student project in 2017. Gah. I have merged that into the Assisted reproductive technology#Research and speculative uses page with the other ones so it now redirects there. Maybe the best thing to do, would be to redirect this page to Human germline engineering, and bring the consolidated content at the ART psge there with a bit of expansion to include "designing" via pre-implantation selection. This is probably going to end up as keep or no consensus at best.... and I guess we can discuss after the close. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I haven't seen anything in the keep votes that would count against a redirect (most didn't seem to look at the state of the articles in the first place). The closer would have a tough time saying the page shouldn't be redirected, but that redirect is probably going to happen one way or another. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am surprised nobody has mentioned that WP isn't a dictionary because that argument may be applicable here. However, due to this passing GNG, I think it's a definite keep. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/r/AskHistorians[edit]

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

Notability? I can understand creating standalone articles about website sections that are notoriously well known (e.g. The_Donald, /pol/) but this, this doesn't strike me as notable at all. The referencing is even worse. Out of 3 links, in two the website is mentioned in passing, and the third one is a link to website dedicated to data about subreddits. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be large, but isn't notable in terms of Wikipedia. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 11:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Passes GNG. First, see Slate and History News Network sources in article. Also these: The Observer and Vice Germany. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first two sources were more than passing mentions, I'd say, and additional references are available as shown above. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is in-depth coverage of this forum in particular, e.g. - [46][47]. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources brought during this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – I see some sources, but I'm unsure if that's enough for GNG. I'd like to see the article expanded and have it implement more sources over the next few months. If anyone fails to do that, I could see a revisit of the nom happening. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tobey Bartee[edit]

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

All coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL. Never held office so doesn't pass WP:NPOL and almost no coverage to begin with, so fails WP:GNG. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOL as failed political candidate. Bkissin (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable failed political candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful election candidates — but there's no claim here that he had preexisting notability for other reasons, and not nearly enough sourcing to make his candidacy a special case over and above all the other unsuccessful candidates who don't have and aren't getting Wikipedia articles for that. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 28 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 08:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Fernandez[edit]

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

She was a candidate for the House of Representatives in Minnesota in the 2018 elections, and she lost. She does not meet WP:NPOL and does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She ran and lost in both 2016 and 2018, and there have been no sources cited since before the 2016 election. Kablammo (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Kablammo. Fails WP:NPOL Bkissin (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a host website for campaign brouchures. The fact that this one has lasted over two years is a sad commentary on our lack of control on article creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful election candidates — but not only does she not have a strong claim to preexisting notability for other reasons, this article doesn't even attempt one. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments and nom. Normally I would say redirect to the election she ran in but that article doesn't even exist. If no sufficient redirect target, no need to redirect. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India Policy Foundation[edit]

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

No indication whether this organisation is a part of government or has national stature. Fails on WP:ORG. Routine coverage and passing mentions are not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 03:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of sources independent of the subject Spiderone 20:50, 30 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 08:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Olaf's Episcopal Church, (Amherst, Wisconsin)[edit]

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

A WP:MILL church. Only citation is published by overseeing religious authority. WP:BEFORE search shows only passing mentions. Although the building is old, parish churches are not notable simply because they exist. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 26 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 08:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Blaylock (voice actor)[edit]

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

non-notable voice actor with an already create protected article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Blaylock&redirect=no . All the article consists of is one line of text and a list of roles TheMesquito^buzz 02:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Redirect works for me. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 03:40, 27 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 Kalamazoo Promise. Sandstein 08:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Brown (superintendent)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local school board superintendent. This is not an "inherent" notability claim that guarantees a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but the article is not sourced anywhere near well enough to get her over WP:GNG: it's referenced 2/3 to primary sources that do not support notability at all, and 1/3 to a YouTube clip of her giving soundbite in a TV news report that is not about her. Nothing here, either in the substance or the sourcing, is enough to make a superintendent encyclopedically notable. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article which does not give a deep context, especially in light of this becoming a more and more common occurance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kalamazoo Promise. Brown appears not infrequently in news sources [48], [49], [50], and many others, but all of the coverage is in relation to the fact that she announced this particular program, a fact better covered at the other article. It's also a valid search term. Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Kang[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable only as chief of staff to a county District Attorney. This is not a claim of notability that clinches an encyclopedia article in and of itself, and being the first person of her particular ethnicity ever to hold an otherwise non-notable role is not in and of itself enough to make her special -- and the only "reference" here is her primary source staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer, which is not a notability-supporting reference. Getting into an encyclopedia for this would require her to be the subject of enough reliable source media coverage to clear WP:GNG, not just her own employer's website providing technical verification that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The position the subject holds isn't the kind of position that clearly conveys notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The actual county prosecutor/district attorney is not even in all cases default notable (I have even seen articles on US attorney's deleted, but most will survive if enough research is done, county level is another story). However anyone under them needs significant and deep coverage. Kym Worthy may be a person whose role as a staff attorney in a county prosecutors office was significant enough to make her notable. However Worthy has since become country prosecutor, took down "King" Kwame "The Hip Hop Mayor" Kilpatrick, initiated a major effort to follow through on unprocessed rape kits, and as the chief prosecutor for a country (Wayne County, Michigan) with nearly 2 million people that as the location of Detroit also gets more attention than its size alone would suggest, the notion that she would be notable without having become county prosecutor is hard to test (you could retroactively do an indepth search of all information on her published before she became prosecutor to get some sense, but I am sure some of the information on her most famous case, the prosecution of officers Budzyn and Nevers for the alleged murder of Malice Green, has been published since she became prosecutor, and how that influences the other material may be hard to know.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 30 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shean Duff O'Higgins[edit]

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

Article, flagged as unreferenced for two years without improvement, about a person notable only as the purported founder of a family line. As always, however, people do not inherit notability just because they may have had some notable descendants, and since literally any man who has ever had kids could technically claim to be the patriarch of a new family line if you just handwave his father away, just saying that isn't enough to get him into an encyclopedia if reliable sources aren't being shown to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article, that looks like at best it would be a geneological placeholder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete creator of page looks to have a COI, I checked JSTOR and the like and no significant coverage came up. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:11, 28 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 08:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Ranberg[edit]

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

Article with just one source and one sentence since it's creation, ten years ago. And the only one source is not reliable. —Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 00:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find substantive coverage of this individual in reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poole People Party[edit]

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

Article about a local political party at the municipal level, in a city not large enough to make its local politics a topic of encyclopedic interest — for example, none of its three councillors, not even the party leader, are getting articles under WP:NPOL on this basis. The article is referenced 2/3 to primary sources that don't assist in building notability at all, and 1/3 to the purely routine local media coverage that's simply expected to exist for people and entities in local politics, so they don't clear WP:ORGDEPTH's requirement that coverage of a topic like this is more than just local. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

maybe keep. It is a real political party, in a real polity (pop.~ 150,000). The several politicians elected under this party banner could be mentioned on this page. Party gets regular coverage in the Bournemouth Daily Echo, but also intermittent coverage on the BBC, and other media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found lots of BBC coverage of the party; 1 2 3 4 (the included articles are just some of the BBC coverage of Poole People - there is more). These are not just mere mentions; they extensively talk about the party. Additionally, many local papers (such as the Bournemouth Echo) talk about Poole People. Overall, I believe it suitably passes notability guidelines and the party is worthy of having its own page (hence why I created the page in the first place!). Greenleader(2) (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources brought by Greenleader form which article can be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 27 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. GNG not supported by keep votes. Editor's are reminded that, per WP:NRIVALRY, the notion of a rivalry must rreceive significant coverage in a number of third party sources. It is not enough simply for the name to be mentioned in match reporting. It is also highly unlikely that a genuine rivalry garnering such coverage would materialise after only a small number of games and recreation. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Is Real[edit]

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

No evidence that this single game was notable. Nothing out iof the ordinary happened, and no titles were decided. Just a routine cup game between two teams that happen to be located nearish to each other. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - topic draws nearly quadruple, if not quintuple the amount of web results compared to a routine match between teams, and about 7 or 8 times the amount of traffic to a typical U.S. Open Cup game, which meets WP:NOTABLE. Further, the phrase and terminology has received extensive third party coverage. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill cup game between two local sides. Citations/links are WP:ROUTINE coverage.Dougal18 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that FC Cincinnati is in MLS, this will become a regular rivalry, played (likely) three times per year. It already has quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV to help it meet WP:GNG, and should continue to get more as it is played in the future. I plan on rewriting the page in the near future to better reflect that this wasn't just a one-off match. 21.colinthompson (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But it was a one-off match. They have played one time. And if we end up with separate articles for USL Cincinnati and MLS Cincinnati, it will remain a one-off match forever from a WP perspective as any future games will involve a different Cincinnati entity. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, as of "right now" it is a one-off match, but they will be playing more times in the future (barring the unlikely event (at this point) that the Crew aren't sold). And even if we do end up with separate articles for the two clubs, the rivalry would still be contained under one article: Portland Timbers–Seattle Sounders rivalry, Canadian Classique, and Heritage Cup (MLS) are just some of the MLS rivalries that also include rivalry matches from "previous eras" in one or both clubs' histories. We would still include the 2017 match under the Hell is Real banner, just with the note in prose that it occurred during "FC Cincinnati's USL era". The argument of this one has to be over the coverage – not over the status of the match. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be better to discuss this on the talk page, but I will wait until I know whether the article is deleted or kept. All I'll say now is that I'm concerned that WP:CRYSTALBALLing might make a delete more likely.Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and has no substantial coverage after the fact. Wait until a few rivalry matches are played before trying to revive this one. Sounder Bruce 00:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not convinced by GNG arguments. Coverage seems run-of-the-mill to me. Giant Snowman 10:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and redirect Not real convinced that this meets WP:GNG right now but it seems likely that this will become more clearly notable once Cincinnati actually begins play in MLS. There's also not a very clear redirect except for maybe 2017 U.S. Open Cup#Fourth Round, so that might work. The information is also mostly in the respective teams' articles as well. Jay eyem (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON without prejudice on recreation. The match itself isn't notable, but the rivalry will almost certainly become notable with the new Cincinnati MLS team if Columbus don't end up moving. SportingFlyer talk 23:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can the supporters of this article please do something about the coloring of the text and background in the "Results" section? The blue text on a red background is hard to read. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Add six months and this will pass WP:GNG as a rivalry because Cincinnati will have played Columbus in MLS. The two teams and the MLS are desperate to call this an in-state rivalry, and WP:RS will enthusiastically cooperate. Put it on the back burner to allow 21.colinthompson and others improve it so that it's ready for mainspace early in the 2019 MLS season. It will save the effort of re-writing it. Yes, it can be WP:REFUNDed, but I've been around long enough to know that is not what happens, then we have history merge and so on, along with the risk of misattribution. It's more efficient to move to draft and move back later. If the "Hell Is Real" name becomes stale, or is applied to the first game but not the rivalry, then the draft can be moved to whatever people commonly call it. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:56, 26 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tona Boyd[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Served in a position that does not meet WP:BIO. Only coverage is simply passing mentions or not Reliable sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasat least expecting we would be told of something she did as Senator Booker's counsel, but we are not even told that. Nothing at all of note to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--indeed, as JPL says, nothing of note, and there's nothing inherently notable about the position. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:52, 27 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ng-A-Fook[edit]

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

Very résumé-like WP:BLP of an academic, referenced entirely to his own writing rather than to reliable source coverage about him. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles by being the author of their own sources, they get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of coverage written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this bloated BLP. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with only 97 cites in GS. Would need to be ten times higher for a chance of a pass. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Very interesting work, but not many citations, WP:TOOSOON. Could someone add this to Canada-related deletion discussions, as that is where he is mainly based? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous articles/coverage authored by others either about or featuring Ng-A-Fook have now been added. Additionally, Ng-A-Fook was the past President for the Canadian Society for the Study of Education and has received the Ted. T. Aoki Distinguished Service Award, which I believe meets criteria 3 and 2, respectively in WP:ACADEMIC Bdags (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being the president of an organization is not a pass of criterion #3 — that requires being selected for membership in a learned society that grants membership to selected people, not just being on the board of directors of a voluntary association that anybody can join by paying the fee. And criterion #2 is also not passed by just any academic award that exists — only a certain specific "elite" subset of highly notable awards are enough to pass that, and you haven't shown any evidence that the Ted T. Aoki Distinguished Service Award is in that set at all. (For example, not only do we not have a Wikipedia article about it, we don't even have a Wikipedia article about the person it was named for. And even if it had those things, that still wouldn't necessarily clinch the award's status as an "inherently" notability-making distinction for its winners in and of itself, because a lot would still depend on how important the article could demonstrate the award to be, but an award that has neither of those things definitely can't make its winners notable for winning it per se.) Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant criterion for presidency of an organization is #6, not #3. But the case is undercut somewhat by the question of whether the Canadian Society for the Study of Education is really a "major academic society" — if it's so major why don't we have an article about it? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points. I'm curious if the new additions of outside sources/articles has impacted Ng-A-Fook's notability at all? I am also curious of the defining criteria for a major academic society- is it necessary to have a wikipedia page to be considered major?Bdags (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that a Wikipedia article is a core condition per se, because sometimes organizations that are notable enough for Wikipedia articles just don't actually have them yet, and sometimes organizations that are technically notable enough to have Wikipedia articles still aren't "major" enough to be conferrers of encyclopedic notability on people just for being affiliated with that organization per se. But what is necessary is some form of actual hard evidence that the organization is "major" — just saying it's "major" isn't enough in and of itself, if we have no way to evaluate its majorness or lack thereof. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. For the record, the Canadian Society for the Study of Education is the largest organization of professors, students, researchers and practitioners in education in Canada. CSSE is the major national voice for those who create educational knowledge, prepare teachers and educational leaders, and apply research in the schools, classrooms and institutions of Canada. Founded in 1972, the bilingual CSSE is an umbrella organization consisting of several national constituent associations. The president is nominated by peers and then elected by members. Here is a link for reference https://csse-scee.ca/about/. I'm not sure if this counts as evidence that it's a major organization, but definitely worth checking out. Additionally, Ng-A-Fook is a memeber of the Professor of Curriculum (POC). Bdags (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat, RebeccaGreen, and Xxanthippe.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The edit history of Bdags [51] is instructive. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. It seems like all the edits that have been made since the beginning of this dicsussion have dissapeared- why? I know users are allowed to edit the page while it is up for discussion, so I am just wondering where all the edits have gone. Thanks Bdags (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:33, 30 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.