Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 November 29 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coinfirm[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A lot of incredibly low-quality blockchain references; many appear to be re-published press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I have mention earlier that I am a students and a researcher. I dig into the things before acting upon. So if you even google the name "Coinfirm" you will find a ton of links (Excluding press releases) going from page 1 of the search engine and not ending at all. Since I am aware of COI I just tried to be cautious about citations as Wikipedia is an open forum where anyone can contribute. I invite you to do a thorough research on the firm and add citations you feel are worth adding and volunteer in improving it. Since it was my first time, creating a page, I probably messed up with the citation cuz of (saying it again) the COI thing. But I am pretty much clear about firm's notability. It seems, its active and people are actually interested in their AMLT token.

I am a researcher, I am quoting it again. And I will keep contributing to Wikipedia. Even in future, If I'll find any company, phenomena, discovery or anything worth adding I will. And being a more mature contributor, I expect some guidance and cherishing attitude from you. I hope you wouldn't mind helping me. But putting up articles for deletion log (Only by looking at references) without actually doing any research, I wonder how you will help others. While all I am trying to do is, to enhance the pool of notable articles on Wikipedia. LolaHowells (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looking at the sources in the article and not seeing any decent ones. Reuters piece comes with a note at the end: "This content was produced independently of Reuters Editorial News. It was created by VCNewsNetwork and was distributed by Reuters Solutions, in partnership with the Commercial Advertising Department for Reuters.com". The TechCrunch piece looks like a press release. The rest are very low-quality unacceptable sources. Retimuko (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find any reliable sources here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:47, 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. North America1000 03:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Dawson[edit]

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

Notability concerns; the only substantial reference is the interview in "Totalprestige Magazine" which I'm skeptical is independent. Other refs are promotion of her book tour, or trivial quotes in magazines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PROMO for a non-notable "financial coach." Fails WP:AUTHOR, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of these sources count as strong evidence of notability per WP:GNG. People don't get over a notability criterion by speaking about themselves or other things in interviews, so even the source Powerenwiki singled out above as the only substantial reference still doesn't actually clinch anything in and of itself — and all of the other sources are weaker for the very reason Powerenwiki identified: they're either routine promotion, or glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite, not coverage that's substantively about her. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Yetishawl (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Parent[edit]

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

This page does not meet the basic guidelines for notability. Parent has no significant coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the topic. Most references provided are to promotional blogs & websites and to her own website. The coverage of Parent is not in-depth, and she is mostly known for her appearance on the The Lang and O’Leary Exchange in 2013, which makes her very close to being known for one event. Some citations point to dead or updated links that are have no relevance to the material being cited. Most sources quoted in the previous AfD refer to the Lang Exchange interview and provide no significant or in-depth coverage of Parent. One of the articles is about Kevin Folta, with some reference to Parent. The article has not been improved since the previous AfD 8==8 Boneso (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I said in AfD1, "possibly speedy delete G11 as promotionalism. A report of a non notable activist's series of minor interviews.". DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as the first AFD, entirely unnotable and feels promotional in nature. PureRED | talk to me | 01:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Continues to meet WP:BASIC per a review of available online sources. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing. North America1000 03:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see what has changed since the "keep" result of last time, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Parent. I think deletion would be a pro-Monsanto move which breaches NPOV. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She seems to have sufficient media coverage to meet WP:NBIO. In fact O'Leary stated "You’re young, you’re articulate, you’re getting lots of media" in a CBC interview. So there you are, "lots of media" equals notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Numerous secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, the first AfD was a Keep, we don't just keep trying. Second, since the previous AFD, we have Rachel Parent to Receive 2018 Rob Stewart Youth Eco-Hero from Planet in Focus, May 25th, 2018, T.O.'s most inspiring women of 2017: Rachel Parent, Growing appetite to see food security as a women’s issue April 29, 2018, and probably others, these were just the first three I found. She's not getting less notable, she's getting more notable. --GRuban (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I noticed her getting used as an example in a Win-Win negotiating book, Step-by-Step Guide to Win-Win Negotiating Every Day. She is still turning up in news items about her (not references in passing) in major Canadian publications. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 14:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As far as I'm aware, hippie-cringe isn't a valid deletion rationale (yet). Friendly reminder that notability is about the sources that exist and not the sources in the Wikipedia article. GMGtalk 15:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BUT Rachel is not just some random kid though. This article is written as if she just "happened" upon GMO and took on the big wigs. Several, well researched articles have pointed out that her father (Wayne Parent) is the CEO of https://www.nutritionhouse.com/ a family run business. It's fairly clear that rather than being what she's sold to the public as, she's a "shill" for her parent's business. I have tried to explain this on the talk page but clearly I don't understand WP etiquette sufficiently. A more experience (and unbiased) editor should take a very close look at this since I have deep social media connections to the Pro-GM lobby and could be accused of bias. Smidoid (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smidoid, I only found this in one independently published article. If you have more independently published sources (i.e., not from the pro GM lobby (because apparently that's a thing?)) then feel free to link to them. GMGtalk 19:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo Apparently we are a thing … we're all shills for Monsanto or Bayer or Big Ag or something. I don't think there's any question who her father is and that should be enough to question the entire pitch that she just happened on GMO doing a school project and it grew from there. I can do some more digging but you have to question why the lede for the page is (or was) a carbon copy of her own webpage. Like many in my "cabal" of science respecting, well-read people with, you know expertise... I'm on a block list and I was blocked by her Twitter feed before I'd even heard of her! Of course I can still read it but that's not the point. This, again, throws into question her real motives since I'm well known under a pseudonym (naturally) for going toe-to-toe with anti-science types and throwing facts at them. I see this as a possible cognitive bias so I won't edit these pages but try to help less connected people who do. I believe the GLP article has a number of cross references to make its point but I'll go check.Smidoid (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is Smidoid, on Wikipedia we can't "build a case" so-to-speak. We have to wait for reliable independent sources to take this type of primary material and do it for us, and then we cite the work they do professionally. GMGtalk 20:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo Sure. I see you're a Brit, BTW, hope the weather isn't too rough right now... The GLP piece I've now linked on the talk page following a suggestion from another user was written by Dr. David Warmflash - a hugely respected author in his own right. I goes into detail about many of these issues (not just why she's utterly wrong about them). Many have compared her to Vani Hari (Food Babe), but her parent's business benefits even more directly from any attack she can make on good science. As for the lede… Might I suggest someone compares it to Rachel's website? This story (about a school project) while widely repeated, is actually unsourced and can't easily be checked. However, even if remotely true, at 11 years of age, its inconceivable that she wouldn't have been directly tutored by her parents. It makes for a terrific narrative - as does the one about her standing up to the Monsanto CEO (I'm working from memory there). But again, this was likely a coached response and her direct, familial connection to a multi-million dollar natural foods industry throws anything she says into question. (I would also question the fact-checkers at the networks who have put her up front and centre for missing this very point.) Smidoid (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Minor addition) Here's Wayne Parent's profile on Bloomberg for reference. https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=225036978&privcapId=49075983 Smidoid (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No Smidoid, not a Brit; a nobody from the hills of Appalachia. I did include some of the bit from the Huffington Post piece by Warmflash and Entine. Yes, they are transparently writing from the perspective of this group, but at least we can say that this came with whatever editorial oversight HuffPo might have exercised (and regarding one of their own contributors to boot). So presumably they wouldn't have allowed someone to just go printing some crazy libelous hack job. But because these other sources come from basically the same group, but without the added editorial oversight, they are both less reliable and not really a "second source" for our purposes. GMGtalk 20:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough I saw some stuff that looked "English" on your page, Greenmeansgo I still find a number of troubling issues with this article. I have no time for HuffPost either - but since that "magazine" publishes both Parent and the critique of her, then I guess we can give that equal weight. I noticed some of the entries are taken from a primary (promotional source) and I question if that's fair on anyone. Parent's narrative remains that she learned about GM via a school project, but Warmflash and Entine contend that she is child of a major played in an industry that directly benefits from her "activism". One of the references even refers to her being attacked by a Monsanto "shill" in the link text. This inflammatory (and completely unchallenged) ad hominem is precisely what I face on a daily basis despite never having worked for any biotech company and only having a few friends in related industry (including Kevin Folta). I'm trying to raise these points here since I found myself openly attacked (presumably under an assumption of misogyny) the moment I opened my mouth on the talk page. Wikipedia has a problem with anti-science and anti-fact bloggers like Parent, Vani Hari, Jeffery Smith and I dare say many others in that it tries too hard to be kid gloves in order to keep things balanced. However, many things in science are settled. The Earth is round, for example and climate change (how it's cause) is a thing. Running these viewpoints unchallenged in the lede and copying Parent's, frankly deeply questionable, narrative as if it's 100% true - without ANY supporting evidence - is dangerous. Would we say that she became an activist after being abducted by aliens? Or After escaping a Nazi POW camp where she'd been frozen for 80 years... Of course these things are preposterous but no more preposterous than the claim she became aware of GMO during a school project... if her dad is who Warmflash/Entine say he is (and they're experience writers) then that blows a huge hole in that entire claim.Smidoid (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive facts. I don't know that my daughter will necessarily get her own Wikipedia article one day, but is she more likely to choose a school project based on my line of work? I mean it makes sense. Presumably that's a lot of what the discussion around the dinner table will be about. Would I use whatever personal connections I have to try to help my daughter be successful in whatever it is she does? As any parent would. That doesn't mean it isn't a concerted effort on their part to advance a POV in the media (she seems to be open about that being her explicit goal), but it does mean that the bare facts are consistent with more than one explanation.
But there are overall probably a considerable number of subjects that deserve coverage in Wikipedia, and where Wikipedia is still sitting on our laurels waiting for the sources to catch up with reality, so that we can write about it here in a way that is compliant with our content policies. GMGtalk 15:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed but the narrative we're presented doesn't sit well when balanced against the probability raised by Warmflash and Entine. We know the Occams razor and that suggests that Parent was running a narrative produced by and favouring her father's business interest. Now if that doesn't scream "shill", I don't know what does. I've admitted I have a likely biased given my connections to biotech (weak as they are) and yet I'm attacked on the talk page for simply raising this? C'mon! Whatever happened to assuming good faith? I believe that she is sufficiently notable BUT that the lede in particular is just a copy of the PR she (or likely her daddy) is churning out. This has no place here unless it can be verified. As a journalist I would have normally gone to interview some of her classmates and teachers but that time has passed. However, I think we need a healthy dose of scepticism particularly given the controversial nature of her entire argument. Smidoid (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree per above. 74.50.214.141 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough reliable source coverage. Curiocurio (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The relevant criteria here are Promotionalism and NOT TABLOID. Press coverage of a person without accomplishments is one of the forms of Tabloid journalism, and nowadays not even the NYT is immune from it. An encyclopedia should be. What I hope has changed from last time is our deceased tolerance of all forms of promotionalism, in and outside of WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an excellent point - although I've said keep, I do wonder if this is promotionalism - and in fact, much of my argument surrounds just that. I question the honesty of the narrative delivered of how KidsRightToKnow came about. It's all a little too perfect and a little to convenient - never mind hugely professional considering her tender years. Smidoid (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. Sdmarathe (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm reading a number of arguments in favour of copyediting, I'm not really reading any about deleting the article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty simple GNG pass, as demonstrated in the first AFD debate. Promotionalism is an editing issue, not a notability issue. Carrite (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Assuming you keep (I don't consider myself an editor in this matter) this article needs seriously looking at through *unbiased* eyes. There's a lot of promotionalism here and much of it pulled from sources which seem to be controlled by anti-GMO groups. Gary Ruskin, for example, rubbished Kevin Folta at length and this is became connected to Rachel because Folta was troubled by how to deal with a child. I know I was. She's not a child any more and crucially, unless someone else can prove otherwise, her father is a senior executive at a company that benefits directly from her material - including the KidsRightToKnow website. We don't have access to the email traffic from USRTK and Rachel/Wayne Parent so we don't know what involvement there was there, if any. However the similarity in both name and function is too close to overlook. In my current "off-internet" research work I've noted a web of connections between these players that cannot be overlooked. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... Rachel is young, pretty and articulate: within the confines of her knowledge. O' Leary was attacked for doing his job - trying to get to the bottom of the story - as have I. It seems to me that because Rachel (was) young at the time we lose all objectivity. Do we give her a pass because she's a kid? She (or some responsible adult) chose to put her into that position knowing fine well she might get grilled. The response was perfect. She got a grilling and people screamed how awful and that elevated her into some martyr. But this all comes back to Wayne. Unless the connection is false (i.e. she has no connection to Nutrition House whatsoever) we have to look at everything as if she is working for her father. Any article written about her (positive or negative) has similarly got to be viewed with suspicion because she's not independent as is repeatedly claimed. Can we all remind ourselves of the true meaning of shill? Now consider that Rachel gives the appearance of being independent of Nutrition House BUT everything she does, by and large, is supportive of her parent's business and business model. We're so swamped in news these days that journalists often don't check source background as they did in my day - and that's a real problem in every area. Not just this one. Smidoid (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • unless someone else can prove otherwise, her father is a senior executive at a company that benefits directly from her material.
  • the similarity in both name and function is too close to overlook.
You realy must stop making these accusations it is up to you to prove these claims not for other editors to disprove your suspicions. Whether she's 19 or 90 she's entitled not to be rubbished. Ask for help at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors if you want a rewrite. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've checked the WHOIS registration for Rachel's site the registrant's name is Wayne Parent, Richmond Hill, Ontario. This is public information, I trust that I'm not going to get slapped for this too! More detailed info is available on the GoDaddy whois search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have managed to prove that when her website was set up she was under 18 and so her Dad did it for her. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Out of interest, I checked the registration address for Mr Parent and guess what? It's Nutrition House 80 West Beaver Creek Road. [1] are we really going to keep pretending this is some strange coincidence? It certainly appears to support the claims made by Warmflash and Entine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.mapquest.com/canada/ontario/business-richmond-hill/nutrition-house-canada-inc-24999806
Congratulations, you have managed to prove that when her website was set up she was under 18 and so her Dad did it for her. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She didn't have to have Daddy do it, you don't have to be 18 to set up a website (even though she repeatedly claims she did) - but that's not as important as the confirmation that she's directly connected to Nutrition House and this calls the entire "plucky teen" backstory into question. In fact, the deeper I look into her - you know due diligence and all - the more the story unravels. All supporting my original assertions. There's more, of course, but Wikipedia would call it original research. You can keep the sarcasm to yourself, when people preach transparency like and hide their business connections, my hackles are raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the deeper I look into her - you know due diligence and all - the more the story unravels. All supporting my original assertions. There's more, of course, but Wikipedia would call it original research. Yes we would because you're drawing your own conclusions from it. WikiPedia is WP:NOTAFORUM the only thing under discussion in this AfD is whether or not the rationale set out in the OP has a consensus. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smidoid, The Vintage Feminist, and GreenMeansGo: Er … folks? Especially Smidoid? Would you be so kind as to move this argument over article content to the article talk page? That's where article content should be discussed. This is the place where we're discussing outright deleting the article. Since all three of you support keeping it, I'd venture this isn't the place for you to argue at great length. Thank you kindly. --GRuban (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: Actually it doesn't belong there either as I pointed out in this diff on the talk page back on 29 November. It's not article content. I also stated that the only thing under discussion in this AfD is whether or not the rationale set out in the OP has a consensus in the post immediately above yours. I don't really understand why you're pinging me to make exactly the same point that I've just made. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr, I guess. Thanks.--GRuban (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my nomination for deletion I mentioned WP:1E. I am very interested to hear what other editors thing about it; can someone address that part of the nomination please? This is what I think about that issue... An overwhelming majority of the sources mention Parent for her appearance on the Lang Exchange and not much else about her. Many of those sources are not independent WP:RS, but anti GMO publications and websites that have copied their article from elsewhere, without coverage from those sources there would be very little at all. Much of the coverage of the Lang Exchange mentions more about what was said to her than anything that was said by her 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 00:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneso: I don't think there's a 1E argument to be had here. She met with two national government officials, she's a contributor to a major publication, she's received fully dedicated criticism in the same publication. Like her or not, (and I think she's a hippie) ... (I trust that's not a BLP violation?) she's received sustained coverage. GMGtalk 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @GreenMeansGo: I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. Many bloggers and bona fidé journalists meet government officials are not notable, but if the consensus is against me I might have to change my mind. I'm interested to see where this goes. Thanks again. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 01:10, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Foods Magazine[edit]

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

Page was tagged for notability in Feb 2017 and little if any improvement since then. Sgerbic (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Raja[edit]

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

Instagram page/person. Possible promo. No inherent notability. Possible justification under WP:Creative. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In looking over the sources and the sincere drafting process this went through, I think I would like to retract my nomination for deletion. Does seem to have some WP:NWEB. I do think the page needs to separate the person from the company clearly in the article. Apologies for the disruption. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meltan and Melmetal[edit]

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

This reads like an article more fit for Bulbapedia than Wikipedia. Fictional element that fails WP:GNG due to its lack of real world notability in secondary sources. (Interviews are primary sources, they don't count towards an article's notability). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - even assuming that the articles related to the event-caused coverage (release, trailers etc.) doesn't count, see [1] (a review), [2] (an article on its early memes), and [3] (a review from Electronic Gaming Monthly) as examples. Sources are a bit buried beneath the "how-to" guides and the release-timed ones but I'm 98% certain this passes GNG. Juxlos (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Juxlos (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
    • The first one is a primary source, since it's essentially a press release parroting information from Nintendo. It would be hard to call the 2nd one a significant source since it's mostly a bunch of Twitter posts with light commentary. The third one is the most substantial, but I'd call it more of an examination of Pokemon Go's marketing tactics than the Pokemon itself, simply saying that it looks "weird" and "glitchy". That is what I'd call a "trivial mention".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Passes WP:GNG per Juxlos. SemiHypercube ✎ 00:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There are enough sources writing about this Pokémon in enough detail for this six-paragraph article to be fully sourced. It seems the subject meets GNG in large part due to the quantity and variety of sources that have covered it, even if fairly few of them go into depth about the Pokémon itself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 05:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think the Kotaku, TechCrunch, and Bloomberg sources push it (barely) over the line. Some trimming and improvement is, however, warranted. Chetsford (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is enough coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dargah Naqeeb ul Auliya[edit]

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

There does not appear to be reliable sources demonstrating the notability of this institution or shrine in either Urdu or English. Some coverage in Urdu but I could not locate anything I would deem a RS and most of that coverage appeared to just be noting events at the shrine. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 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 10:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jailbreak (Roblox game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There does not appear to be any direct indepth secondary coverage. While several sources used here would be good at Roblox, they only give Jailbreak a passing mention when discussing things such as developers learning the industry, the monetization of Roblox, etc. Redirect was contested on the basis of "We need this", "It's popular" and arguments that Wikia was too biased so Wikipedia must have this. -- ferret (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not notable. No in-depth coverage of this gamemode. I remember playing Jailbreak, and it's boring. wumbolo ^^^ 21:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note, I added the mention in Roblox in response to a user who RfD the article immediately after I redirected it on the basis of "no mention". I felt RfD'ing a fresh redirect was a little... off. Either way, we're here now. -- ferret (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not particularly likely search term for a redirect either, with that disambiguation. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Side note, but isn't this the same type of gamemode that is also played in Garry's Mod? I don't really see a redirect being valid in that case. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Roblox#Legacy, where the topic is covered in adequate depth. JOEBRO64 11:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, the title sounds odd for a platform whose article isn't that indepth either. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC), edited 22:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we should keep this article because jailbreak is a very popular game within roblox and try to get some more reliable sources. --Slenderman7676 (talk) 9:58 AM, 01 December 2018 (GMT)
  • You have to demonstrate that such sources exist. The fact that it is popular does not make it notable on Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats not a valid reason unless/until you provide evidence of reliable sources existing. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Popular does not mean notable in Wikipedia. See WP:NOTABLE. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only indirect sources used, so delete should be a good solution. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are better ways to showcase ROBLOX games. This is not one of them, as this goes in lightly, and there are not going to be many sources. I've played this myself as well, and it doesn't have anything notable. A better alternative is to create an article that showcases notable ROBLOX games. say what (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While there is discussion on the roblox talk page for making wikipedia pages for roblox games with more than 1 million visits (jailbreak has two billion visits and generally around 10,000 concurrent players), Jailbreak itself is not mentioned significantly in publications. A more suitable project would be another page, such as pokemon brick bronze, which received a large amount of attention and was even taken down by nintendo, but had its page deleted on the grounds of the wikipedia article being abandoned. CommissarPat (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

54°40' Orphyte[edit]

54°40' Orphyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on an American corporation has only one source (of questionable quality) and fails the GNG.

In a previous RSN discussion, the solitary source for this article (Designers & Dragons) was closed, in part, [4] as "Not recommended for use in biographies of living people..." Much of the content of this questionable source relates to the financial affairs of living persons, specifically their ownership stakes and transactional activities with regard to this company and is, therefore, circumscribed by the consensus with no substantially non-BLP related content in the book by which the company could, generally, be referenced in any WP:CORPDEPTH manner without intersecting living people. Further, there was no consensus in the RSN discussion that this book could be used to establish notability (half of participating editors specifically rejected using D&D to establish notability).

This single book aside, a standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) finds no RS. I would expect a notable WP:COMPANY to be referenced in at least several unambiguously RS places, as is customary. Chetsford (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if more sources can be found, or merge relevant information to Pacesetter Ltd. BOZ (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really do not understand the "keep if more sources can be found" vote - either show that sources exist, or you have to vote delete/redirect/merge. No reliable, independent sources can be found to support the notability of this article, and based purely on that it should be deleted. Saying "I'd like to save this article - can someone else please do it for me?" is not a valid position to take. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sekandar Amanolahi-Baharvand[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, his citation count is anemic (high of 28), and he doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Onel5969 TT me 15:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have no evidence of passing WP:PROF. That may well be because of the language barrier, but we can't base an article on our ignorance of whether sources exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No opinion yet on the subject's notability. Just pointing out that there is at least one alternate spelling: a Worldcat listing refers to Amān Allāhī Bahārvand, Sikandar. I haven't looked at Worldcat library holdings in a long time, so I don't know if the one book being held in >100 libraries is significant or not. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:41, 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 10:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come What May (2009 film)[edit]

Come What May (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A direct-to-video movie by an unknown director and some homeschooled kids with no professional reviews. Article sources are from press releases apart from Christian Post, which can't establish notability due to its low bar to inclusion for evangelical content and its rather obviously having a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, seems self-promotional as well. Skirts89 (talk) 19:54, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rokeya Lita[edit]

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

The person has no notability in general or as an author/journalist. The language of this BLP article isn't encyclopedic. It highly lacks WP:NPOV. The primary contributor created and edited this article only and had clear intention of adding her name in women writers’ lists only (which is a case of WP:PROMO). Moreover, the notability notice is hanging on since December 2017 and it hasn’t been improved in years. Last time the deletion request ended in no consensus so I am briefly explaining the notability issue this time.

This article doesn’t belong to WP:BASIC because of following reasons.

  • The person has only coverage as a journalist/reporter in numerous online news portal which do not quality to make notable. She made occasional contributions to known media sources like BBC, and HuffPost, but the volume of the work is low and it doesn’t qualify for WP:BASIC.
  • There are no primary sources backing the person’s notability. The primary google search outputs belong to Wikipedia and its mirrors, some BBC article which she wrote and maybe on her being threatened (a case of WP:EVENT) somewhere and some articles she wrote for online news portals. Again, online news portals are not likely to back notability of any person or organization.

This article doesn’t fall under WP:ANYBIO because of following reasons.

  • The person has received no notable awards or nominations.
  • The person made no widely recognized contribution that could be historical.
  • The person has no entry in any notable list as a writer or journalist.

This article doesn’t belong to WP:AUTHOR because of following reasons.

  • The person or her work is not widely recognized. No peer reviewed work as well.
  • The person originated no significant concept, theory, or technique.
  • The person made no contribution to any major/notable work. She did write a few books but those have no notability nor that they received any notable critical review.
  • The person’s work doesn’t belong anywhere as a permanent collection.

Finally, the creation of this article belong to WP:PROMO which Wikipedia is clearly not about. I believe the only contributor contributed mainly to this article significantly backs my claim that this article is intended to self promotion. The contributor also tried to include her as an author in women writer's list and Bangladeshi women writer's list both of the edits were reverted because of her notability issue. — T. 12:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Failed WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. As it said in previous AFD, online news portals in Bangladesh are not a highly reliable source and do not prove notability every time for any BLP. Even subject has no individual identification by any of Authority control identifier. Also, the language of this BLP isn't encyclopedic. Creator has no other contributions except the subject seems trying to promote personal biography herself. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has received substantial news coverage as a result of the reaction to her novel - see this from the BBC, of which Google translate gives a very rough idea. PamD 10:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: How can one BBC report of getting threatened be considered "substantial coverage"? In fact that's what I meant when I mentioned WP:EVENT. If you can understand the report from Google translate, it is not a review of her book. That is simply a news about a writer being threatened because of a book she wrote, what is the say of the writer about this threat, and what are the BBC readers think about threatening writers in Bangladesh. Additionally, that report also states, it happens during every Ekushey Book Fair in Bangladesh every year. So do we have to make all of them notable because of that event? That's exactly why she is not notable per WP:EVENT. — T. 15:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability and most of the news coverage this person got is not for her literary works. The language of the article is not encyclopedic and lacks quality sources. Moreover, the main contributor of this article does not have any other contribution on Wikipedia and looks like it's another case of self-promotion. Ali Haidar Khan Tonmoy (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, it's self promotion article. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have edited the article so that it is shorter, has a neutral point of view and is more encyclopaedic in tone, and also to show the reason for notability in the introduction. (The quality of the article is not a reason to delete it.) It does not matter who the first author of the article was - it has been revised by several editors since then. The subject of the article meets WP:BASIC because she has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The AfD nominator appears not to fully understand the WP:BASIC criteria. No, the subject of the article has not received coverage as a journalist or reporter - she received coverage for the themes of her first two novels and the threats made against her because of them. Primary sources are not required - secondary sources are required, and have been provided. It is irrelevant whether the coverage is in digital sources or print sources - most print and broadcast news media also have an online presence these days. Nor does it matter what the first online search results are - what matters is the existence of coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, and this has been demonstrated. I have added another today, from 2018, which indicates that her notability deriving from publication of these novels is ongoing. If other authors of works released at the annual book fair are also controversial, they may also be notable if there is also significant coverage of them - whether there are Wikipedia articles about them yet or not is irrelevant to establishing the notability of the subject of this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen:, I’m not sure if you can identity reliable sources. Yes, you have added a reference to the article to ensure notability. It’s a news website which isn’t a reliable news site. Bangladesh has hundreds of online news portal like this to spread fake news, trivial facts, etc. According to Wikipedia’s policy this kind of websites cannot be considered as reliable sources and therefore unacceptable. It’s absolutely not what you say, “reliable, intellectually independent” according to Wikipedia’s policy on reliable sources. It seems like you are googling and putting any website link you find without verifying the reliability of the source, and you claim that as ‘significant’. No, it doesn’t work that way. Additionally in the reference links, it say what the writer said during interviews, she said, she brought suffering of tribal women to light. Not an Independence person. I can say anything I like about a book I wrote, right? So, it's not said by notable neutral sources. Mark my point. It's said by the writer. It cannot be considered as a review of her book.
WP:BIO says in a nutshell, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” The source you just added isn’t at all reliable, and the overall coverage isn’t significant. One threat because of a book someone wrote doesn’t make anyone notable. I am not sure if you read what I wrote in reply to PamD. someone can’t be considered notable if they got coverage just of one event! It’s just one single case of getting threatened. There I mention about the event she was threatened. I translated the BBC article (this is a reliable news site). It clearly said this kind of threatening happens every year during this book fair when some groups don’t like some books. She can’t be notable because of this.
I would like to see people defend this article based on reliable sources. There are absolutely no neutral, notable critical review for any of her books. Please do present if you have any! You don’t have to trust me, see what you can find here: search result of dumurer phul and search result for Shomokameeta. Or get some from anywhere you like and present here in this discussion.
Tell me where I am wrong. I would request you to defend article with references, not just by saying things like, “got significant coverage” and so on. You must provide reliable sources. — T. 23:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The subject is notable. There is a reference, that is a review of her book in The Independent, a national daily. There are refernces to Amader Shomoy, Kaler Kantho, Bangla Tribune, and Manab Zamin. All national newspapers which are published. There is a reference to bdnews24.com, a prominent news website in Bangladesh. All reliable and notable sources with their own long standing Wikipedia articles. I am confused by nominator talking about neutral source, what do they mean? Her books have been reviewed on notable national news organizatios and she herself has been talked about. This is not one event, but a young author whose works, yes more than one, have received critical coverage. There are more than 5 reliable sources referenced in the article, I do not understand what the nominator is asking for. Some people create one page, someone they heard about, used google to find out more, and learned that person does not have an account. They proceed to create that article and move on, not uncommon. There is no evidence to suggest COI for creater except pure conjecture. Is she notable? Yes. Does the article have reliable sources to prove that? Yes.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911: The Independent has a review. Okay, you mentioned Amader Shomoy, Kaler Kantho, Bangla Tribune, and Manab Zamin. Yes, they are all notable national dailies. But what do they say? You said review of her book. It's wrong. Only The Independent has a review. Others news sources have only news of her being threatened or her publishing some books which are available in book fair. Now how do you all say, one or two references as substantial coverage? It's not what the policy says substantial! — T. 08:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What the references in the article say on Rokeya Lita (current version as of November 29, 2018)
For better understanding of the community. Please do compare. Thank you.
  1. Source: Kalerkantho Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
    Not a review of her book. It’s a small news consisting an interview of her saying what she thinks about her novel ‘’Shamokameeta’’. The report is full of her quotations of her saying. Not considered independent as she talked about her own books.
  2. Source: Muhurter Khabor Type: Online news portal, not a notable news portal
    Same news as published in reference 1. Full of her saying her own book. Even the wording of the report is same as the first reference. Probably a copy-paste report. Very common in news portal like this.
  3. Source: The Independent Type: Notable English daily from Bangladesh
    The only reference in the article that is a review of her book. The only link we found as a review on her book when we google to find reviews.
  4. Source: Manab Zamin Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
    News of her book being published. What the writer says about her book, the writer’s background, plan about future writing, etc. Also news of her being threatened for the book she wrote.
  5. Source: Parbattanews Type: Blog site (says news on the name but it’s not registered, not details, not considered acceptable source according to Wikipedia policy)
    The post is not directly about Rokeya Lita or her book. It’s about suffering of tribal women in Bangladesh. In the post, the writer mentioned Rokeya Lita mentioned this on her book. That’s all what the reference is all about. Two sentences.
  6. Source: Amader Shomoy Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
    Short news of Rokeya Lita filing a general diary in the police station because she was threatened to write the book. No review of her work at all.
  7. Source: BBC Bangla Type: Notable International daily
    Same news as above. No review of her work at all. The report focuses actually on threatening writers in Bangladesh. Almost half of the report is about what the BBC readers say about threatening writers in Bangladesh. Use google translate if you think I'm lying.
  8. Source: cht-terrorism.blogspot.com Type: Blog site
    Unacceptable reference as it is a blog. It contains details about her threat though.
  9. Source: Kalerkantho Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
    Interview of her talking about her second book. No review from a third party.
  10. Source: Bangla Tribune Type: Notable Bangladeshi news website
    News of her second book being available in the book fair. No review. Mentions the plot of the second novel and quotation of Rokeya Lita about the book. No further details.
  11. Source: Bdnews24.com Type: Notable Bangladeshi news website
    It’s a report written by Rokeya Lita herself! I don’t have to say anything about the report as it’s not acceptable by any chance.
  12. Source: Worldcat Type: Online book listing site
    No review. Simply listing the book with ISBN.
  13. Source: Worldcat Type: Online book listing site
    No review. Simply listing the book with ISBN.

Now in all of 13 references, only one (reference number 3) can be considered as a review of her book. Two are blogs, two are book listing websites, one is report written by the writer. Rest are small news of her threat or her publishing some books, or interview about what she says/thinks about her own book. They are not at all independent nor reliable. According to Wikipedia's policy.

If you think the threat makes her notable. Then Wikipedia policy says, one event doesn't make anyone notable. And see the BBC news here (it's also one of the references in her article, only from the international media). Look at the 3rd paragraph. It clearly says, the threatening happens in every Ekushey Book Fair every year (see translation by Google if you don't know Bangla). If you know Wikipedia policy you can't say that makes all of them notable as all of them receive threats! So she can't be considered notable because of one single threat.

This is the full forensic of the references we have in the article. It clearly says, there are no reason for this article to be notable for Wikipedia. Guys, give reliable sources. You have one (kind of, because The Independent isn't high profile like The Daily Star from Bangladesh) but that's not at all substantial and that isn't enough for the article to keep.

Thanks for reading. — T. 09:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. self-promotion. Alieninfluenza (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This user has no contribution to wikipedia aside from this one vote and not a newly created acount. Rather suspicious indeed.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Note to admin! this user is make one vote with new account. I think is be Someone's Sock. 74.50.214.141 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User T. has already showed detailed information regarding the gap of references in this article, which clearly indicates, still there is lack of enough references to show her notability in encyclopedia. The history of this page creation both in Bengali and English Wikipedia also raises question on this article being a self promoted page (WP:PROMO). S Shamima Nasrin (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, Like I said in Bangla Wikipedia this article fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR for a number of reasons and also per Tanvir. One can argue that there are lot of sources to establish notability. But did they really cover in depth about the subject independently? No. Most of those sources are self interviews, news about the release of her book and some trivial coverage. BBC Bangla is a notable source but it's not independent of the subject. She worked for the organization and still writes on behalf of the organization.~ Nahid Talk 10:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Failed WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. As it said in previous AFD, and explain by User:Wikitanvir. All website are not reliable at all.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 16:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You say "One threat because of a book someone wrote doesn’t make anyone notable"; "only one (reference number 3) can be considered as a review of her book .... Rest are small news of her threat". Where is the policy that receiving threats of rape (in this case because of the theme of her books) does not make someone notable? I made no claim at all that she meets WP:AUTHOR. The BBC reference that you refer to says, in translation, "there is a growing mentality of threatening it .... The authors say that, because of this, their concerns are increasing." Then you say, "you can't say that makes all of them notable as all of them receive threats!" If there is significant, reliable, independent coverage of each of those authors being threatened because of what they write, then yes, they could all be notable. At the very least, threats to authors in Bangladesh would be a notable topic. The fact that it happens to many authors does not make it non-notable! Checking to see what else Wikipedia has on this topic, I see that there is a List of journalists killed in Bangladesh, "about journalists killed in Bangladesh while reporting or on account of their journalism." I also find that another novelist, Taslima Nasrin, has lived in exile from Bangladesh and West Bengal after receiving death threats because of a novel published in 1993. That novel "attracted wide attention because of its controversial subject matter". Clearly, threats to writers in Bangladesh are not trivial. To return to your list above, I see that you state that references 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 are reliable Bangladeshi news sources; they are independent of each other and of her; and they report news about her books and/or about the threats to her. (That is not including the reliable news sources which published interviews with her.) How is that not "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs) 18:38, November 29, 2018 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen: Unfortunately, the policy doesn't have a notability guideline for rape threat receivers, but it says someone isn't notable if they got coverage for one event only. See WP:ONEEVENT. It says in this case, The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Therefore, she might be a part of some list where people got threatened because of their published works. A separate article of her own is quite unnecessary. All those people who got threatened can't be notable if they got coverage only for their threat. I agree with you that threat to authors in Bangladesh is a notable topic and we could list Rokeya Lita if we could have an article on that (I encourage you to create one), but separate articles for them aren't notable nor necessary. You mentioned a list of Bangladeshi journalist who got killed during their duties. Now see they might be notable to be in that list but all of them are not notable for separate articles of their own. Many journalists in that article do not have their own article in Wikipedia. That's why they are there. Some also have their own articles because they aren't only notable for getting killed, also for their works. Taslima Nasrin is totally irrelevant here. She is notable for her work, she published many books, got threatened for a few so she lives in exile now. But she is not notable for threats only. She also received international awards. In our case, Rokeya Lita has none of these.
Reference 4 and 10 says she published a book. That's all. It's a notice type news! No review! For all the times you were saying you got "significant reviews/coverage" where are these reviews may I ask? It's just short news that the books have been published and available in the fair. During Ekushey Book Fair Bangladeshi newspapers publish hundreds of similar news saying someone's some book have released and available in some stall. It's not at all significant. Remember she works freelance for some newspapers in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh it's very common to have (even trivial) news about their correspondents' work/family even if they are not significant. It's very difficult for people outside of Bangladesh to understand how trivial that could be (example title: "grandfather of our district correspondent died yesterday", etc)
You consider reference 7, 10, 11 as independent? She writes columns for all of this newspapers. See here Bangla Tribune, BBC Bangla, bdnews24.com. It's their writer. So, they can't be independent! The persons who wrote the reports are her colleagues! How could you say "they are independent of each other"? Please think! — T. 22:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I'm not sure if a comment from an IP without any logical explanations have weight of any kind. However, I would politely request the valued unknown contributor to consider my logical replies to respected RebeccaGreen to change his/her thought. And please create an account, we don't bite. :) — T. 11:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references and sources provided to prove the notability of the article doesn't say why this user is notable. Among the 13 references, few are blogs and non-notable news portals. And the rest are actually interviews of her, which is actually self quotation. Now I'm not listing them again and again as it's already been sorted out above. So among the references nothing states the notability of this person. Some interviews of her or reviews of her book doesn't state the notability of this BLP. --PGhosh (Hello!) 11:42, 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 10:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edico Genome[edit]

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

Non-notable company page suspected to have been created by a paid editor. No significant history. The company sold to another corporation for a mere $100 million. Fails WP:10YT. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't pass notability, seems like it's self-promotional. Skirts89 (talk) 19:55, 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. Consensus is that this video game meets notability requirements. North America1000 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toast Time[edit]

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

AfC accepted during IRC discussion of whether the sources indicated notability or not.

I'm (obviously) of the opinion that they don't, and here's why:

  • 148Apps and Big Red Barrel are both non-notable non-selective app review sites with no apparent editorial oversight or particular journalistic cachet. 148 uses affiliate links in their reviews, so they have an incentive to review anything and everything utterly unselectively. Big Red Barrel doesn't even have an About page. In my opinion a review on these sites doesn't contribute anything to notability.
  • TouchArcade looks like it has an article, but it's a redirect to MacRumors, of which it is a sister site. MacRumors is a rumor/news aggregator for stories about Mac. By its nature it's unreliable. I can't see its sister site having any better editorial standards.
    • Side note: TouchArcade is listed at WP:VG/RS, but in my opinion that's absurd. There's no about page, no editorial policy or information about their contributors, and clicking Product Reviews leads you to https://toucharcade.com/category/amazon-item-of-the-day/. If that isn't flagrant advertorial content I don't know what is.
  • Pocket Gamer is the only one that I would consider even marginally reliable. At least they have a content policy and an editorial team.

On to the awards! As we all know, not all awards are created equal. Winning a notable award (ie, an award that sources cover independently as a point of interest) indicates notability, and usually generates it when third-party sources cover the win. But if an award itself isn't notable, and nobody covers someone winning it, it can hardly be said to be an indicator of notability.

So what do we have? We have the company Force of Habit winning a TIGA business award for "Best new IP" in 2013, and we have the game winning best art design at the 2014 Intel Level Up Game Designer Contest. Neither award is notable in and of itself, nobody covered the wins in independent media, and the TIGA award is for the company, not the game.

In summation: reviews from unreliable/non-notable websites and two non-notable awards. One review from Pocket Gamer isn't enough to hang the article on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is also this review at DigitalSpy but personally I still think two reviews, one of them on a subject-specific site, isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My accept of this article was based primarily on the outcome of this AfD I submitted back in 2016, which had substantially less sourcing and yet still ended in a keep, since most agreed that reviews were enough to pass WP:GNG. I'm genuinely curious to see what the opinions of others are, since apps are such a nebulous area in terms of sourcing.
  • As an aside, I'm really confused behind some of the decisions on WP:VG/S. TouchArcade is listed after several discussions despite having an entire section dedicated to Amazon affiliate farming, and yet Android Police is blocked since it doesn't have an "identifiable editorial team with experience in gaming"? Huh? Nathan2055talk - contribs 08:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another addendum: Tapscape was flagged as unreliable due to their usage of sponsored content and advertising disguised as reviews, which adds further to my head scratching over TouchArcade. Nathan2055talk - contribs 09:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi ♠PMC♠,

  • An addendum r.e. reviews/coverage: There is also a review from Hardcore Gamer which is in the WP:VG/S, and coverage in UK newspaper/website The Guardian. I will look for additional sources shortly so please do not delete this page yet. Ashgwin (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Red Barrel & 148Apps reviews can be removed if they are not notable. The awards can also be removed if they are not notable. Ashgwin (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Touch Arcade is on the list because of this discussion. One might consider reviewing the links provided in the far right column to establish why items are on the list in the future. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was leaning towards weak delete, but a review by mainstream news outlet The Guardian, together with VG/RS Hardcore Gamer and Pocket Gamer definitely meets WP:GNG, in my opinion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. References are padded, article could use some work, but I think there's enough real coverage to meet GNG. Dgpop (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • I made a pass through this, removing the questionable references and some vagueness, and narrowed the game down to a single genre. Dgpop (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, because no one pointed this out yet, the Toast Time page was created by one of the developers. They declared a COI, but they still picked the reviewer blurbs to use. Dgpop (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Meets NFOOTY Fenix down (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barroca[edit]

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

Fails WP:NATHLETE and WP:NBIO due to not having any claim of notability. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 20:33, 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. Sandstein 10:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inetscreen[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 02:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article has been cited with reliable sources including The New Indian Express, Malayala Manorama, Deshabhimani etc. 2405:204:5505:B9E:C183:8D:226A:3DA1 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this falls under advertising. Is non-notable, needs to be nuked! Skirts89 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails GNG as per nom Spiderone 19:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no puffery involved. The entire article is factual and has been cited with reliable sourcesincluding The New Indian Express, Malayala Manorama, Deshabhimani. etc2406:7400:58:FC35:D5A8:80AB:A0D7:CB71 (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion hasn't gone forward since 22 November 2018. I think it is time to close the deletion entry. As mentioned above, the entire article is cited with reliable sources including major publications.103.5.135.9 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's get some more opinions in here. The article is clearly promotional and mentions in major publications do not guarantee notability. Skirts89 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 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. Nominator has effectively withdrew. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lewis (journalist)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet general WP:Notability requirements. The article is virtually a summary of articles the subject has written as a journalist. After doing some research it seems there are very few independent reliable sources that are directly about the subject itself, besides articles about a physical altercation. Derek M (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

To be clear I am not attempting to argue esports is not relevant for Wikipedia, WP:ESPORTS clearly demonstrates that. I am also not even arguing that Richard Lewis is not relevant within esports journalism, as his work (on, for example, exposing cheating in professional play) has sparked conversation within esports. What I am arguing is that he is one of the best of a niche field in the already-niche esports. Despite what Richard Lewis has said on Twitter, anger with him is not at all the motivation for this AfD request -- I am actually a fan of RL and when searching for sources to create an article for Thorin I decided I didn't believe he meet WP:N, and so I believed RL didn't as well for the same reasons. Being a fan of RL doesn't mean I believe he meets WP:N though. If I'm wrong, that's still okay, since then maybe I will write that Thorin article after all. Derek M (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I feel like with journalists, if they don't write for a major national newspaper/broadcaster or they have not won an award of some sort, they do not meet the notability stipulation. Moreover, e-sports is not yet seen as a mainstream "sport" - not even by the IOC (currently, it remains under consideration) who has led the way in thinking of considering its appeal. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some cleaning up, but Lewis was broadcasting on television for Turner Sports, which is a major media company. He qualifies under WP:JOURNALIST both being regarded as an important figure and widely cited; a quick search finds the largest industry award for this area, the Esports Awards, honored him in 2016 and he's widely quoted in that field. Whether Esports is a sport or a game isn't really relevant here, the issue is whether Esports is notable and if it isn't, there is a *lot* of cleaning up to do given that there are dozens of Esport-related categories; League of Legends alone has 89 players with entries.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lewis has been a contributor for major publications within his career such as The Daily Dot and Breitbart. He has also been host of a successful sports show on a major cable TV channel. Furthermore he has been nominated and has received many awards for his journalistic work within the category of "E-Sports". Thus I believe he meets that standards of WP:JOURNALIST as a figurehead in the reporting and presenting of "E-Sports" within the mainstream. I concur completely with the assessment by CoffeeCrumbs in that there may need to be some cleaning up to the article. GRSmith0 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Delete I take your point about this not being about notability of e-sports, think that's valid. But just because someone broadcasted for Turner doesn't make them notable. If I read the news on BBC radio in Fife (Scotland), I wouldn't be considered notable, even though BBC radio in Fife is owned by the BBC. Also, given on Wikipedia, the Daily Mail is not considered to be a serious media outlet, then I don't see how we can count Breitbart as a serious media outlet. I don't know whether the Esports Awards are notable. They seem prima facie an award in a pretty niche sector, though I could be wrong on that. But regardless, it's hardly a major national award like a Pulitzer in the US or the British Press Awards in the UK. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with your analogy on the BBC. I'm not saying that he broadcasted on some local station or obscure offshoot that just happened to be owned by Turner Sports, he was broadcasting on TBS, Turner's flagship television station. As for awards, no, it's not the Oscars or an Emmy award, but it *is* the largest award in his industry and at the very least, it demonstrates that he's considered important by his peers (which is another part of the guideline).CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. [5][6][7][8][9][10] And to show that this isn't just in-industry promotional material, there's plenty of sources that depict Mr. Lewis in a negative light. [11][12] And in addition to this, there are numerous articles that do not have significant coverage of Mr. Lewis, but do talk about his work in a non-trivial fashion, which combined with the above would be enough to make WP:BASIC. [13] (winning esports journalist of the year), [14] [15][16] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say I'm still not overwhelmingly convinced. The Telegraph article was really a "passing reference" rather than Lewis being the actual subject of the story (he wasn't - the Youtube live-streaming service was). Having said that, I suppose "Kotaku" could well be a significant source of news in the gaming industry (over 2 million Twitter followers), though for me, it's not quite the level of reliability for a news organisation, say, like the NYTimes, which is Wikipedia's gold-standard. I am starting to think he may be a big enough name in the industry, though. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patar knight has convinced me the subject meets the notability guidelines, so I have changed my mind on this proposal. This is my first AfD so I'm unsure whether the discussion is expected to continue or whether I am expected to close this AfD somehow. Derek M (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 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 10:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brosmania Album[edit]

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

The albums discussed in this article are not independently notable and don't appear to meet general notability requirements. Most sources come from discogs or 45cat with nothing to establish the notability of either album. I don't there is enough relevance to even warrant a redirect to Bros. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Disclosure: I had nominated this article for deletion via WP:PROD.) The article is about two different albums, both of which appear to be compilations that do not meet WP:NALBUM, as there does not appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources that discusses these albums in particular. Notability is not inherited. --Kinu t/c 20:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is part of Bros band music this has same rights as any of their other bros albums or single that have wiki articles. bros fans from the UK who want to know about these album WILL USE WIKI to research, also I not had enough time to link this page to other related articles of bros. <Note:This comment was made by User:HarryConroy5 on the article page. I have moved it here. He's a newbie and may need some assistance.> --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC) on behalf of HarryConroy5.[reply]
  • Dear Sir with the up most repsect you not give me time to upload the SONY Music information you clearly jumping why to soon and can I just also that their articles on here that in factual information so for article to get information and reference an article must start some where — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryConroy5 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: HarryConroy5, the article creator, has been indefinitely blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. --Kinu t/c 21:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article breaks some fundamental Wikipedia rules, with an improper title and an attempt to cover two albums at the same time. It is possible that each album could have its own article, and each would then have to stand on its own. Unfortunately, both albums also suffer from a lack of notability, which is not assumed just because they exist. The albums are merely listed at the usual retail/streaming sites but received practically no notice from the media. Also note that the term "BrosMania" is present on the Internet but it is always applied to the band's popularity back in the day, and not to either of these albums. They can be listed briefly at the Discography section at the main Bros article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 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 10:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MACO Door & Window[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Adding source search for Mayer & Co Beschläge: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article with a longstanding notability query and request for references. The article appears to have been fashioned for the UK subsidiary but its text and (weak) references relate to the overall company. However my searches using both names are not finding evidence that this is more than simply a mundane firm going about its business. Nor do the routine job announcements referenced in the German-language article meet the WP:NCORP requirements. AllyD (talk) 19:58, 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 speedy keep. Meets NFOOTY Fenix down (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Bell (footballer, born 1905)[edit]

William Bell (footballer, born 1905) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to the only source being a passing mention. No claims of notability either, causing it to fail WP:NBIO. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a fully professional league. Player with a career spanning seven years and at least nineteen appearances, so more than a one appearance wonder. I'm curious, how do you know the source is simply a passing mention when it's offline? Kosack (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "no claims of notability" - you mean, aside from a seven-year career as a professional sportsman, including playing in the highest-level league in England (forerunner of today's Premier League)..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 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. Because this was co-nominated with Peter Belohlavek, this article was already deleted before I noticed that there was a separate AfD. The result is the same, though. Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Unicist Research Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable research institute, does not meet WP:NORG, may not even meet WP:GNG, could possibly even be a hoax and/or pseudoscience. I wasn't able to track down any of the non-affiliated publications online, nor was I able to find any other mention of the institute in non-affiliated publications. I could understand some of these articles being hard to find, as the institute was founded before the Internet existed, but not being able to track down any of them is a red flag. Moreover, between their titles and the claims that they are attached to in the article, it's unclear if these articles would satisfy WP:ORGCRITE even if they exist. Searching for either the research institute or its founder, Peter Belohlavek on Google Scholar returned no independent coverage and a paltry amount of papers with very few citations–Belohlavek appears to have an h-index of 4, which is pretty low for any professional academic, let alone the founder of a research institute! And this is despite the article claiming that their research has been put into practice in developing the economies of Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Ukraine, and the UK, as well as supposedly having been employed by Renault and American Express. The sourcing over at Peter Belohlavek is similarly threadbare, and it appears that it is actually a recreation of a previously deleted article (AfD discussion). In addition, despite having spent a significant amount of time attempting to research this subject, and despite personally having an academic background in the linguistic and philosophical fields that the article claims the subject's research is grounded in, I still feel like I barely understand what the institute supposedly does. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relevant criteria- Notability and Verifiability to keep this article.

Following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I am sharing the arguments for keeping this article: The sources can be tracked and provided. From a research on this, national coverage newspapers can be found, and some are among the most prestigious newspapers in the region such as Brazilian, Uruguayan and Argentinian newspapers, and such as “La Nación” and “El Cronista Comercial” newspapers of national coverage among others (As seen in the references).

The sources that are not from the Internet, are in the form of newspaper articles and magazine articles, which are all available for physical consultation. As stated in the guidelines: “There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online.”

I believe the national origin of the newspapers cited is not an issue to consider an article for deletion. If it would be useful to translate the sources, please I would appreciate your advice, since they are all verifiable and reliable sources.

The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Following the guidelines, the article meets the primary criteria, having the 5 required components of: significant coverage, multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources.

Since the ongoing project on the application of the evolutionary economics to Micro-economics driven development for countries is announced for the end of November with the participation of volunteers, I am suggesting to remove this fragment from the article for the time being until secondary sources are provided for this particular case that can be verified, and then include this back with particular information if relevant.

The cases of Renault and American Express that were mentioned have been published and were of national reach in Argentina. The source of this can be found in "Radiografía del caso Renault". published in the magazine Noticias, Editorial Perfil (national coverage) and in the book Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. (Third edition), which are both mentioned in the References. Prague3 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide quoted excerpts from some of the articles in question that demonstrate that they provide significant coverage of the subject, especially the sources that would support the claims regarding Renault and American Express? Spanish is fine, I can read it fluently. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am providing a few below for the mentioned cases, preceded by their source, which I hope will be helpful. Other sources are also available to be shared if necessary. Thanks.
Some sources with excerpts that can be found below:
-Johnson, Peter (2004-12-16). "Argentina faces 20-year transition period". Buenos Aires Herald.
-“Reveladora encuesta de American Express". La Nación. Economía y Finanzas, p. 15. 1988-10-31.
-“Avanzan los gastos por viajes y representación en Argentina". Ámbito Financiero. p. 7. 1988-10-28.
-Gran expansión empresaria en los gastos de viaje y representación, La Razón, Section Economía, p. 7, 31-10-88
-Luchia-Puig, Cecilia (1989). Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. ISBN 950-537-146-2.
-"Radiografía del caso Renault". Noticias. Section: Empresas, p. 58-59: Editorial Perfil. 1990-01-14.


Johnson, Peter (2004-12-16). "Argentina faces 20-year transition period". Buenos Aires Herald.
Argentina faces 20-year transition period
“Future Research and scenario building is a little known area of research in Argentina, yet it has produced a breakthrough that makes other systems obsolete.”
“The methodology on which this approach to the construction of future scenarios is based is the Unicist Theory of Evolution developed by Peter Belohlavek, that enables one to build the drivers that determine the evolution of individuals, institutions and cultures.”
“The next 20 years for Argentina as seen as a transition period. At which point Belohlavek recalled a famous Chinese curse: “May you live through a transition period”.”
“Argentina has opted for a State model that corresponds to shrinking cultures or a country with shrinking sectors, which begins to give it consistency beyond the difficulties generated by actions by individual government officials rather than actions by the State as an institution. ”
“Corruption will continue to drop as the system becomes more efficient and the separation of individuals from institutions increases.”
“Until now the construction of future scenarios had been based on consensus. The Unicist methodology makes them obsolete as it is structured on the drivers that are the result of the concepts that underlie every process of evolution. It is a qualitative jump. Starting with the drivers it is possible to build multiple operational alternative and agreed on courses of action that can influence the future.”


Luchia-Puig, Cecilia (1989). Diners, Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. pp. 25–42. ISBN 950-537-146-2.

Diners
Sobre la base del caso Diners Club realizado por M&T
“La aplicación de un modelo de “organización personalizada” para el cambio de tecnología y cultura.”
(…) “Diners Club Argentina, en el año 1981 pasaba por un momento de transición muy difícil. En manos del grupo Capozzolo, el Dr. Edgardo Gómez Luengo, asume la gerencia general, iniciando una nueva etapa.”
“Comenzó, entonces, un proceso de reorganización que duró un año y medio, que permitiera lograr una orientación hacia el mercado. Para ello se puso en marcha el modelo de “Organización Personalizada”. El objetivo era lograr que el adherente de Diners fuera considerado no simplemente como adherente, sino como un verdadero socio, lo que implicaba que recibiera un trato personalizado. Este plan significaba que debía trabajarse de afuera hacia adentro, con lo cual Gómez Luengo se vio obligado a montar un esquema de marketing diferente, con una publicidad dirigida a los niveles centrales a los que apuntaba Diners y una inteligente segmentación de mercado.”
“El éxito se determinó a raíz de un incremento del 50% en las ventas, un porcentaje que logró alcanzarse en un tiempo de 45 días.”


“Reveladora encuesta de American Express". La Nación. Economía y Finanzas, p. 15. 1988-10-31.
Reveladora encuesta de American Express
“Los gastos en viajes alcanzaron los US$330 millones en 1987
“Las empresas argentinas invirtieron 330 millones de dólares en gastos de representación y viajes durante 1987, es decir, un promedio diario de 900.000 dólares.”
“Una encuesta efectuada a 500 empresas de primera línea permitió demostrar que el 42% de éstas estimó que los gastos en ese rubro mantendrán en los próximos años una tendencia claramente ascendente.”
“El estudio, encomendado a M&T por American Express, reveló también la falta de políticas definidas en el rubro viajes y representación de las empresas privadas en el país.”
“En efecto, a pesar del importante volumen de recursos afectados al rubro viajes y representación sólo un tercio de la muestra mostró tener una estrategia concreta de erogaciones.”
“Un análisis más pormenorizado permite observar que un exiguo 7% de las 500 empresas sondeadas tiene una política escrita y revisada anualmente para esa área.”
“Durante la presentación del trabajo, el vicepresidente de American Express, Pablo Kusher, hizo especial hincapié en que dentro de las condiciones en que se desenvuelve la economía del país, cobra una creciente importancia una correcta administración e inversión en ese tipo de gastos. Kusher estuvo acompañado por el gerente de Sistemas de la Compañía American Express, Esteban Mac Garrell, y el presidente de M&T, Pedro Belohlavek.”


"Avanzan los gastos por viajes y representación en Argentina". Ámbito Financiero. p. 7. 1988-10-28.
En 1897 se usaron 330 millones de dólares con este fin.
“Algunos datos que se manejan al margen de las grandes estadísticas alimentan la impresión de que en el país la situación y las perspectivas de las empresas privadas no son tan desalentadoras como usualmente se las ven. Por caso, los resultados de un trabajo de investigación encargado por American Express a M&T, que demuestran que las empresas argentinas gastaron en viajes y representación 330 millones de dólares a lo largo de 1987.”
“Esa erogación está enormemente lejos de la que hace los Estados Unidos (95.000 millones de dólares anuales) o el Brasil (2600 millones), aunque más cerca de México (500 millones). Pero sin embargo el estudio demuestra también que 39% de las compañías aumentó sus gastos de viaje y representación en 39% durante 1986 con respecto al año anterior, estimándose que entre 1986 y 1987 el aumento fue de 43%.”
“Además, 42% de las empresas encuestadas opinó que estos gastos mantendrán una tendencia creciente en los próximos años lo que vinculan a inminentes expansiones tanto de la compañía como del mercado donde operan.”
“La investigación demuestra que sobre las razones que motivarán el aumento, 42% de los encuestados opinó que se deberá a la expansión de la empresa, 16% a la mejora en los resultados obtenidos o expectativas favorables, 13% a la necesidad de abrir y conquistar nuevos mercados de exportación y 5% a la necesidad de mantenerse actualizado.”
“La encuesta se realizó entre 440 empresas privadas de capital, Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Rosario y Mendoza, y se las clasificó de acuerdo al personal empleado en chicas (hasta 50 agentes), medianas (hasta 200) y grandes (más de 200), aunque también se las clasificó según la metodología de decisión en clásica, industrial y tecnológica. En la organización clásica el proceso decisorio está centrado en sus líderes, en la industria en el método o técnica, y en la tecnológica la decisión está puesta en la tecnología.”
“El estudio demuestra que 92% de las empresas tecnológicas define a los gastos de viaje y representación como muy importantes. Señala también que el promedio anual de ese tipo de erogaciones es de 25.000 dólares para las empresas chicas, 145.000 para las medianas y 420.000 para las grandes.”
“Sin embargo, como indicio del limitado avance que todavía tiene la cuestión en el país, el estudio demuestra que sólo 32% de las empresas cuenta con una política de gastos de viaje y representación a los efectos de un adecuado manejo administrativo, 68% restante suele resolver los diferentes temas en base a las circunstancias que deben enfrentarse y de acuerdo a la jerarquía de la persona que las asuma.”


Gran expansión empresaria en los gastos de viaje y representación, La Razón, Section Economía, p. 7, 31-10-88
“Las empresas argentinas gastaron en viajes y representación 330 millones de dólares a lo largo de 1987, es decir una cifra cercana al millón de dólares por día, revela un informe realizado por M&T a pedido de American Express Argentina.”
“En la ocasión el vicepresidente general de la División Viajes y Sistemas de Compañía, Pablo Kuscher, dio a conocer el estudio de mercado que, entre otras cosas, refleja que el nivel de gasto no es casual, “por cuanto un 42% de la muestra opinó que las erogaciones en ese rubro mantendrán una tendencia creciente en los próximos años”.”
“Concretamente a través del sondeo efectuado a 500 empresas representativas del mercado total, se observa que un alto porcentaje de los consultados espera que sus gastos de viaje y representación se incrementen debido a inminentes expansiones tanto de la compañía como del mercado donde operan.”
“Un análisis pormenorizado muestra en este sentido que entre las razones de ese esperado aumento el 42% opina que se deberá a la expansión de la empresa, el 16% a la mejora de los resultados obtenidos o expectativas favorables, el 13% a la necesidad de abrir y conquistar nuevos mercados de exportación y un 5% a la necesidad de mantenerse actualizado.”


Luchia-Puig, Cecilia (1989). Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. pp. 3–23. ISBN 950-537-146-2.
Caso Renault
(…) La utilización de un modelo de management como catalizador del proceso (p. 3) basado en el caso Renault Argentina realizado por M&T.
Renault, en la Argentina, intentaba reproducir la organización conceptual de su casa matriz, en donde la empresa se dividía en áreas funcionales. En el organigrama de Renault se podía apreciar claramente esa situación, en la que la existencia de comités aseguraba que esos planteos funcionales se integrasen en los objetivos de dirección. Se manejaban diferentes comités, entre los cuales estaba el que definía un producto, y es ahí donde se integraban las áreas funcionales que hacen a la definición del mismo. Este modelo de organización es fácilmente comprensible desde la óptica del modelo de organización francés y argentino. (p. 9)
… De esta manera en Renault incidieron en forma muy significativa los modelos implícitos de las dos culturas, el modelo de Francia y el modelo de Argentina. (p. 9)
El programa de productividad en el área comercial se plasmó en la aplicación de la “Administración centrada en el cliente” para definir los procesos, uniendo a ella una mayor productividad de los hombres de ventas. Se estaba evidenciando que la productividad no era la reducción de los costos sino la optimización de la relación costo-beneficio. Esto exigía, entonces, reducir costos y al mismo tiempo centrar los esfuerzos para ganar en las ventas. (p.23)
(…) Esto sucedió con Renault, que en ese entonces, a pesar de su liderazgo comercial y su penetración en el mercado, tenía un rojo contable (…) de veinte millones de dólares. Una situación que quita el sueño a cualquiera y de la que Jacques Ramondou, director general de Renault Argentina, no estaba excluido. El es quien decide entonces buscar alternativas de cambio, montando lo que se llamó el “programa de productividad”.
(…) A partir de un análisis organizacional, se detectó la necesidad de rediseñar los puestos de trabajo con el objeto de acortar los tiempos de proceso, lo que significó también pulir los procedimientos pertinentes. (p. 5)
… El empleo de este enfoque para analizar el valor agregado de la comunicación (al proceso) permitió, en Renault, eliminar funciones intermedias redundantes, y por el otro lado obligó a crear funciones intermedias que faltaban. Este esquema se relaciona directamente con el tema, es la investigación de la imagen, que permite determinar cuan centrífugas o centrípetas son las imágenes de cada uno para darles el lugar adecuado de manera que resulten confiables. Una vez se puede observar la utilización de técnicas de investigación de mercado aplicadas a metodologías de organización. (p. 21)
(…) Renault buscaba que sus productos fueran diferenciados y, a su vez, aplicaba la estrategia de segmentación, con lo cual necesitaba una gran habilidad comercial. Por otra parte, estaba obligada a mejorar su situación de costos a través de un proceso de productividad que le permitiera compensar las ventajas competitivas que tenían otras automotrices debido a los convenios de intercambio con el Brasil. (p. 22)


"Radiografía del caso Renault". Noticias. Section: Empresas, p. 58-59: Editorial Perfil. 1990-01-14.
Radiografía del caso Renault: Como remontar la cuesta
Sobre la base del caso Renault Argentina realizado por M&T
(…) “El programa que encaró la dirección general estaba basado en la necesidad de producir un importante mejoramiento en la efectividad, concretado en mayor productividad, enfrentando a una competencia fuerte encabezada por Sevel, Ford y Volkswagen.”
“La técnica empleada en este caso fue la de trabajar de forma participativa con todos los integrantes de Renault que estaban involucrados en el proceso.”
… “El programa de productividad en el área comercial se plasmó en la aplicación de la “Administración centrada en el cliente” para definir los procesos. … Esto exigía reducir costos y al mismo tiempo centrar los esfuerzos para ganar en las ventas.”


Luchia-Puig, Cecilia (1989). Estrategia Política, Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. pp. 105–116. ISBN 950-537-146-2.
Estrategia Política: Gobernación de San Juan, Argentina realizada por M&T.
“Podemos hablar de seis órdenes en la estructura social sanjuanina, el económico, el político, el militar, el religioso, el social y el familiar, y parte del trabajo consistió en analizar cómo se articulaban estos seis órdenes en la estructura social sanjuanina. En lo que hace al orden económico en San Juan, la economía tradicional está orientada a la monoproducción, con una escasa incorporación de tecnologías de avanzada. La minería y la industria aparecen como elementos marginales a la estructura, dado que el sanjuanino, más allá de lo que señalen las estadísticas, se siente sobre todas las cosas identificado con la vitivinicultura.”
(…) “La publicidad oficial, a no ser que sea realmente sutil, tiene un efecto paradojal y se vuelve contra el propio gobierno, porque no resulta creíble. Frente a este planteo, mientras el candidato radical dedicaba páginas en los periódicos como parte de su campaña, el Dr. Gómez Centurión decidió no valerse de los anuncios publicitarios más que para hacer públicos sus debates y exposiciones.” Prague3 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through these sources, the only one that mentions "Unicist", whether as a theory or as an institute is the Buenos Aires Herald excerpt. This excerpt is also suspicious because of the number of grammatical errors in the text, including errors that are not particularly likely typos, and strange capitalization decisions. I'm thus a bit skeptical that this content was actually published in the Herald–moreover, if the claims in the excerpt are true, it is quite frankly astonishing that no other paper would have reported on them. If "Future research and scenario building" had really produced a breakthrough that "rendered other systems obsolete", we would expect to see other publications reporting on this as well.
The other sources do not mention the subject at all; exactly one of the sources mentions Peter (well, Pedro) Belohlavek in passing as the "president of M&T". Now right off the bat it is original research to conclude that just on the basis of Belohlavek's involvement that the Unicist Research Institute's theories are employed, and it's even more tenuous to claim that just because M&T was involved that Peter Belohlavek was involved, which means that these sources are not particularly useful for establishing the subject's notability. Additionally it's left unclear what "M&T" is. If this refers to M&T Bank, which would be a reasonable financial partner for AmEx and Diner's Club, then there doesn't appear to be any evidence other than this article that Belohlavek was ever employed there. At this time, I can't say that I've seen any evidence that actually establishes the subject's notability, and remain concerned that this is a hoax. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Would it help you to receive a scanned copy of the Buenos Aires Herald article? Please tell me where I can send it. I always presume good faith on both sides and I will do my part with pleasure to provide all the information that you request and ask. I retyped myself the quotes from the article that you asked, so I apologize beforehand if I made any mistakes, with capitalization that you mentioned, which I have not noticed. I believe there is no issue to consider an article for deletion based on this. I can offer you to send a scanned copy of the full article, I have a photocopy reduction with me that I used which can solve this easily.
M&T was the previous nomination of the Group as it is particularly specified on the right of the article that you could see (see Formerly), which stands for Management and Technology Consulting Group. If it is part of Wikipedia´s policies, I will be glad to send you all the articles scanned if you want for you to verify all the information in which this appears. The Institute was founded by the Slovakian Peter Belohlavek, and, as it is stated on the right box, there were 2 previous nominations to the group: M&T and ASOU. These sources do mention M&T as also mention the works developed in the social and institutional fields that are mentioned and related to the article (see article). I believe there is no issue in this fact, since the “Formerly” concept is of common use in Wikipedia and the information is open and provided. But if there is a problem with this, I would appreciate your advice to proceed, following the specific guidelines. I can send you additional articles as well.
I trust this will clarify your doubts. But if necessary, please let me know if sending you a copy of the article/s will be useful, sending other articles, or sending a copy of the organization´s open list of clients could be of help. If necessary, let me know which are the guidelines for doing so since I have never been asked for doing this before, and the image format that is accepted. If you have any suggestions on possible changes or additions, please let me know. I appreciate your help. Thank you very much. Prague3 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A scanned copy of the Herald would be good for establishing that source's verifiability, yes. I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for submitting scans of coverage in sources for verification purposes, and WP:OFFLINE doesn't seem to mention anything; personally I'd be fine evaluating documents sent either over email or hosted on a third party site. If possible, it would also be good if you could provide sources confirming that M&T and Unicist are the same organization, as that appears to be an uncited claim in the current revision of the article. signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 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 01:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sending you the scanned copy of the article from the Buenos Aires Herald and also an access where the connection between M&T and Unicist can be verified. I count this will be useful. I am sharing them below. I hope the location of the pdf is fine to verify the information, but if you prefer some other place, please let me know. Thank you.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Z62DPcx5HYGqWl1JRQFomg3xv_Rp-U2/view?usp=sharing
https://www.unicist.org/milestones.php Prague3 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing these sources, I believe they establish that the coverage is indeed legitimate, and the Herald article in particular is a strong piece of evidence in favor of notability. However, it's unclear to me based on the excerpts provided of the other pieces of coverage that they provide sufficiently in-depth coverage of M&T/Unicist to meet WP:ORGCRITE, and thus the notability of the subject is still a borderline case in my view at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I am glad that you could access and confirm the sources I have sent you. I understand your interest in good quality articles and I hope to be doing the best to arrive to a good result. Following your request, I am sending you a scanned copy of other sources I have here, please I would appreciate if you could confirm they are helpful. I appreciate your help and guidance and any suggestion to fulfill the next steps to come to a solution.
Additional sources:
"Peter Belohlavek & The Unicist Research Institute". Segundo Congreso Nacional: Argentina necesita emprendedores. Nº 91, p.9: Ediciones Mañana Profesional. August–September 2005.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ONY-tWTqOzl7HVrnym4ONBvXYNE6idzP/view?usp=sharing
Ferro, María Laura (2003-01-05). Teoría Unicista: Otra manera de aprender - “Acá todo el mundo quiere ser Dios y, entonces, es nada”. Revista Nueva. Nº 599, p. 12: Agrupación Diarios del Interior.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17TLibYvaUb-VJyAYwJLs85Y3gp1l-O31/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ljBa8UpwjR0gG5i_hv3_zefDWD3o1H0U/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16UO08XUayocQyvXw8-jLwc-kUtwRtAE9/view?usp=sharing
Gesualdi, Patricia (2013-05-06). "Refutación a la Teoría de la Demanda". Mañana University. p. 22-23: Ediciones Mañana Profesional.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FCkStwA2Jkdq2BKwFvW_NZdUKSiNpquC/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oPv1bz0MAeA3noCfD2YqAhswH1mkze4D/view?usp=sharing
"Brasil: Sanear para así crecer". El Cronista Comercial. p.9. 1990-03-18
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VQAbHuTPUzp43Mum-7Lf6ynCGjG4TvSo/view?usp=sharing
"Espíritu deportivo y eficacia profesional". Mañana Profesional. Investigación. p.30: Ediciones Mañana Profesional. Nº 84, Nov–Dec 2003.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L9emGkFOcyOFFcEyydZvihEqVUxEL3T-/view?usp=sharing
Thank you. Prague3 (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that some of these sources are not reliable. In particular Mañana Profesional appears to be an industry publisher that offers publication services to other companies. While they do appear to also have their own publication, the "Quienes somos" link on their website is broken and I wasn't able to find information elsewhere. My search for Revista Nueva led me to here, a website that doesn't list any editorial information and doesn't even have an "about us" section, and which may or may not even be the same publication as you cited. The El Cronista source is reliable, but only discusses Belohlavek, not the Unicist Institute. signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sending you the required information. Following your request, I am sharing additional sources to the Buenos Aires Herald, La Nación, Ámbito Financiero, La Razón, etc. that have been previously confirmed, adding 2 additional reliable sources (Cronista and El Dia) that I hope will satisfy your request and I am also sending you information about the Nueva Magazine in Argentina that you needed to confirm.
-Johnson, Peter (2004-12-16). "Argentina faces 20-year transition period". Buenos Aires Herald.
-“Reveladora encuesta de American Express". La Nación. Economía y Finanzas, p. 15. 1988-10-31.
-“Avanzan los gastos por viajes y representación en Argentina". Ámbito Financiero. p. 7. 1988-10-28.
-Gran expansión empresaria en los gastos de viaje y representación, La Razón, Section Economía, p. 7, 31-10-88
- Ferro, María Laura (2003-01-05). Teoría Unicista: Otra manera de aprender - “Acá todo el mundo quiere ser Dios y, entonces, es nada”. Revista Nueva. Nº 599, p. 12: Agrupación Diarios del Interior.
Revista Nueva is a known Sunday Magazine that comes together with the newspaper in Argentina in the cities of Cordoba, Santa Fe, Rosario, Misiones, Corrientes, Entre Rios, La Plata, San Nicolas, Junin, Bahia Blanca, Neuquen, Rio Negro, Mendoza, La Rioja, Catamarca, Tucuman and Santiago del Estero. You can find the name of the newspapers in the footer of its website:
http://nueva.com.ar/ and you can also find an “about us” link in the menu under the title: “sobre nueva”.
As far as I know, the Manana Profesional magazine was sold some years ago, in one of the Argentinian crises.
I am providing additional reliable secondary sources to add to the previous ones:
Brea, José Luis. “El consumidor exige funcionalidad a los productos”. Cronista Comercial, p. 31, 1989-7-20.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QcMq8o_7B20F6AdkjimahiwPA9zP0MVH/view?usp=sharing
"Destacan la estabilidad del Uruguay en América Latina". El Día. Información Nacional, p. 7, 1989-5-16.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11isntHR7duQFUaSPNpjpsgUjI_cvFg3h/view?usp=sharing
I appreciate your help and guidance in this process to reach a solution. Thank you very much. Prague3 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing the Revista Nueva source, I'm not sure its coverage can be considered independent. It is mostly an interview with Belohlavek about his various opinions–while it includes a separate section about the Unicist Institute, in that section it explicitly quotes the institute's website. Additionally, I'm still a little puzzled by the relationship between M&T and Unicist. Between this source, which extensively quotes one Marcela Gonzalez Arcila as the director of M&T, as well as other vague claims that Unicist was an "unincorporated association" and that it was "spun off" from M&T, I'm not sure it's accurate to conclude that coverage of M&T is equivalent to coverage of the Unicist Research Institute for notability purposes. Thus, while I believe there's substantial evidence that the subject exists, the nature of the coverage's focus on Belohlavek and M&T as opposed to on the subject itself with the name "Unicist Research Institute" leaves me uncertain as to whether the subject meets WP:NORG. I would appreciate the opinions of more editors at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sending you additional information to answer your requests. The Nueva magazine is an independent, reliable source. As specified in the summary of the magazine, Nueva is property of ADI (Agrupación Diarios del Interior). This ensures the complete independence of the source.
The connection between M&T and Unicist is explicitly stated in the “Formerly” section of the Infobox in the article as well as in the source provided. I believe there is no issue in this fact, since the “Formerly” concept is of common use in Wikipedia and the information is open and provided. I hope this is helpful to reach a solution. Thank you for your help. Prague3 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone sum this all up? Right now, it's impossible to discern precise points. And I'd like to know said points before throwing my gloves into the ring. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there's a lot of borderline trivial or unreliable coverage that has been presented. The sources that mention "Unicist Research Institute" directly (other than the Unicist Research Institute Website) are this article attributed to Mañana Profesional, and an interview with Peter Belohlavek in Revista Nueva (split across three scans, [17], [18], [19], with most of the coverage of the research institute being in a section of the third scan). Additional sources either mention "Unicist Theory" or purport to publish research associated with the Institute (although they give minimal coverage of the Institute itself): Buenos Aires Herald, Mañana University ([20], [21]), and Mañana Profesional ([22]). Further coverage has been provided of a firm called Management and Technology, with which Belohlavek was at one point heavily involved, and which has an unclear relationship with the Unicist Research Institute (The Unicist Research Institute website has an attempt at explanation [23], but it remains unclear whether notability should be inherited across the two organizations) in El Cronista, [24], as well as other sources whose scans I did not request because their coverage clearly did not mention the Unicist Research Institute based on excerpts provided above (“Reveladora encuesta de American Express". La Nación. Economía y Finanzas, p. 15. 1988-10-31., “Avanzan los gastos por viajes y representación en Argentina". Ámbito Financiero. p. 7. 1988-10-28., Gran expansión empresaria en los gastos de viaje y representación, La Razón, Section Economía, p. 7, 31-10-88, Luchia-Puig, Cecilia (1989). Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. ISBN 950-537-146-2., "Radiografía del caso Renault". Noticias. Section: Empresas, p. 58-59: Editorial Perfil. 1990-01-14.). All in all, my current stance is that there isn't enough coverage of the Unicist Research Institute itself to demonstrate notability: what we have is lots of coverage of another organization with unclear affiliation, and a handful of interviews with the director of the Institute that do not provide significant coverage of the institute. I think that the sources which mention the Unicist Research Institute fall significantly short of WP:ORGCRITE–the only path to notability that I see is if we judge that coverage of M&T should be considered equivalent to coverage of the subject, which I do not think is justifiable based on currently available evidence. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The strong overlap of sources between this and the article on Belohlavek makes clear that this institute is not independently notable from Belohlavek. We should not have two separate-looking articles that are really on the same subject. If we are to have one article (and whether we should have even that much is unclear) it should be on Belohlavek rather than his corporate shell. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence to keep the article. Based on your request, I reviewed the wikipedia guidelines and the sources so as to provide you with the necessary information for your convenience. The sources provided follow the Wikipedia guidelines, they provide significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. You can see some of the main national newspapers as sources that can be accessed in the public library archives and that have been also provided for verification.
The “formerly” concept that is used in the Infobox is of common use in Wikipedia. For this particular case, I looked for the information, and the relation between M&T and The Unicist Research Institute to confirm it and I verified that it is open and public. Looking for additional information, to answer your request, I found this information in the website as part of the history of the institute confirming the information that is already in the article.
Please find the relation between M&T and The Unicist Research Institute in its history: https://www.unicist.org/history.php
(Just on a side note, in this history page that I found, together with this information, you will also find a list of clients and an access to the unicist school with more than 100,000 followers in 56 countries.)
Since the previous sources that had been provided during the last 2 weeks have national coverage and can be verified as reliable secondary sources, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I hope that this information is useful to confirm the relation and keep this article. I count with your help to solve this soon. I appreciate your guidance. Prague3 (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Prague3: TL;DR. Please see Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and Wikipedia:Wall of text. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability as none provide in-depth information on the organization itself. Most mention their involvement in various studies or research work but that is not sufficient for establishing notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 12:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:ORG; significant RS coverage not found. Passing mentions do not establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. As an aside I'd like to note that posting huge walls of text (especially when not in English) is not a very effective way of presenting an argument. Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Belohlavek[edit]

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

Non-notable pseudoscience peddler, has a h-index of 4 despite having founded a "research institute", does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NBIO. Nominating alongside The Unicist Research Institute. More in-depth explanation of notability problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unicist Research Institute signed, Rosguill talk 20:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Arguments: Notability - This 2012 article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Additional references have also been added. It follows the general notability guidelines that apply, including multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Bridge2007 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Most of the sourcing I could find like this aren't independent, and others are more passing mention. Even from a WP:FRINGEBLP standpoint, I'm not seeing anything to really write up an article with in terms of WP:PARITY-based notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a secondary note that after the relisting and wading through through Bridge2007's text below, but the substance of my previous !vote doesn't really change. There hasn't really been a case made for GNG yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically per nom. For academic WP:FRINGE cases, WP:BIO/WP:GNG are the main operative guidelines. There is too little coverage in independent mainstream reliable sources in this case to pass WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability – Independent and reliable sources available offline: This article has offline sources that are available for consultation and can be shared. From what I understand from the guidelines: “There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online.”
These are independent reliable sources of very well-known newspapers and magazines of national reach that are available for this subject. This article meets the primary criteria, with the required components of: significant coverage, multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources.
They are independent and reliable secondary sources from Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. From the research on the subject and the global discussion, I understand that the language of these sources is not an issue to consider the article for deletion, so I am sharing these sources, so they can be verified. If required, I can offer a translation.
  • Required Sources: Available
In response to the request, I am sharing the mentioned offline references, transcribing some of the excerpts from the news found in Folha de Sao Paulo (Brasil), Buenos Aires Herald, El Cronista Comercial, Segundo Congreso Nacional Argentina necesita emprendedores and El Dia Journal from Uruguay (others are also available), that I trust can be useful to verify the sources.
I am sharing some of them in their original language. If necessary, I can also offer to share a translation of the available sources:
• Johnson, Peter (2004-12-16). "Argentina faces 20-year transition period". Buenos Aires Herald.
• Mañana Professional. “Peter Belohlavek & The Unicist Research Institute”, Segundo Congreso Nacional: Argentina necesita emprendedores (August–September 2005) p.9.
• Folha de São Paulo. “Brasil tem tudo para ser uma potência”. March 12, 1990, p. 2 Negócios.
• Brasil: Sanear para así crecer. El Cronista Comercial. p.9. 1990-03-18.
• “Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos”. Section: Información Nacional, Diario El Día, Montevideo, Uruguay, p.14, 1989-08-18
• Landeyro, Norberto. Brasil buscó un planteo nuevo: la seguridad. El Cronista p.15. 1989-11-26


Johnson, Peter (2004-12-16). "Argentina faces 20-year transition period". Buenos Aires Herald.
Argentina faces 20-year transition period (By Peter Johnson, Herald Staff)
Future Research and scenario building is a little known area of research in Argentina, yet it has produced a breakthrough that makes other systems obsolete.
An event held in Buenos Aires recently mapped out the forecast for the next 20 years based on this new approach, showing that there will be a period where diplomacy prevails over wars and those countries that have managed to organize the State independently from government will have natural advantages due to the consistency of their diplomatic efforts.
The methodology on which this approach to the construction of future scenarios is based is the Unicist Theory of Evolution developed by Peter Belohlavek, that enables one to build the drivers that determine the evolution of individuals, institutions and cultures.
The World in the Next 20 Years
During the event the outstanding issue was the strength that the national interest has as a driver of this period that is dominated by globalization and diplomacy. The power of the national interest determines the capacity of cultures to be mutually influential. Heavy emphasis was places on the fact that the USA and Europe aim to be the prime influential forces in the world.
Globalization becomes sustainable where it is upheld by the national interest. Where this support is lacking globalization is not sustainable.
Diplomacy implies an integration of cooperation and competition. Where there is a past that has included cooperation then it becomes a natural process. Cooperating in diversity is the European Approach. Where a historical concept that draws these together is lacking integration tends to function as an alliance and not as institutionalization.
The power of dissuasion becomes an important driver in this period that can be called post-perestroika. Dissuasion takes on all possible forms: military, cultural, religious, economic and ideological.
The power of dissuasion enables competition. Competition in the world during this period becomes almost cut throat due to the need of developed countries to maintain their levels of employment in the face of the encroaching globalization and the new technologies.
The fight for the vital space becomes global as the developed countries need wider spaces to be implanted that will sustain their levels of employment. Diplomacy will therefore become the main driver in this period that will be marked by an infinite number of negotiations and renegotiations.
Terrorism therefore, whether military, economic or drug related is forbidden in this period. Counties breaking the rules will be severely sanctioned but always within the framework of each participant’s national interest.
Argentina in the Next 20 Years
The next 20 years for Argentina as seen as a transition period. At which point Belohlavek recalled a famous Chinese curse: “May you live through a transition period”.
The foreign debt, the tenuous separation between government and State, and the loss of its natural role of State administration has generated a dysfunctionality in its social and economic behavior with the consequent difficulties in the political arena.
The transition will begin with the modification of a vertically-aligned education model focused on teaching, to one more focused on learning. As happened in Spain which needed 40 years to develop its current model from changes to its educational model, Argentina will need more than a generation to build a base that will enable sustained and sustainable growth. Growth based on consumption and investment incentives will be all the rage in this period, as they are the natural defences to stimulate employment.
Argentina has opted for a State model that corresponds to shrinking cultures or a country with shrinking sectors, which begins to give it consistency beyond the difficulties generated by actions by individual government officials rather than actions by the State as an institution.
People will keep on believing, as a result of a culture of plenty, that wealth is what one has and not what one produces, which will lead to an attitude where wealth is viewed as illegitimate as it is considered appropriation and not production.
Technologies adopted in this period will be those producing immediate results, those producing profits in the short term. Work, giving the structural lack of proactive international production and expansion, will be linked to employment rather than added value. This can only lead to high levels of employment protection.
This period should also see the emergence of new leaders that will generate policies to increase productivity after having overcome the transition period of beginning to pay off the foreign debt.
Economic culture will be based on cost advantages rather than added value and the culture will tend to operate as a free trade zone open to the influential cultures of the world.
The installation of equality of rights, which precedes that of equality of opportunities, will begin to take place slowly and heavily influenced by developed countries and the leading countries in the region (Chile and Brazil).
Corruption will continue to drop as the system becomes more efficient and the separation of individuals from institutions increases.
The transition of the next 20 years is a massive adaptation process and implies that people will have to pay a price and that governments in the period will have to compensate for this.
Until now the construction of future scenarios had been based on consensus. The Unicist methodology makes them obsolete as it is structured on the drivers that are the result of the concepts that underlie every process of evolution. It is a qualitative jump. Starting with the drivers it is possible to build multiple operational alternative and agreed on courses of action that can influence the future.


Mañana Professional. “Peter Belohlavek & The Unicist Research Institute”, Segundo Congreso Nacional: Argentina necesita emprendedores (August–September 2005) p.23.
“Peter Belohlavek nació en Zilina, Eslovaquia en 1944. Es el autor de la teoría unicista de evolución y los modelos unicistas aplicados a la prospectiva y la estrategia en los campos social, institucional e individual. Fundador de The Unicist Research Insitute viene construyendo, desde hace más de 30 años, los escenarios nacionales e internacionales con notable acierto.”
(…)“Belohlavek es autor de la Teoría de Evolución Unicista que se basa en el descubrimiento de la estructura de conceptos. (…) Para el autor de la Teoría Unicista de Evolución, el vuelo de un negocio depende de la ética que tiene ese negocio. Compuesta por aspectos funcionales, ideológicos y morales, la ética y la moral apuntan a la convivencia.” p. 9.


Folha de S.Paulo. “Brasil tem tudo para ser uma potência”. March 12, 1990, p. 2 Negócios.
Brasil já lidera a América Latina e dentro de dez anos será uma das grandes potências mundiais. Essa é a opinião do consultor Pedro Belohlavek depois de dois anos de contatos e trabalho no país.
Numa entrevista à Folha por telefone de Buenos Aires, o consultor disse que para consolidar seu crescimento são necessárias duas ações principais – a abertura para mercados competitivos e mais interessantes para a exportação e um programa educacional que resolva de uma vez por todas as carências dessa área.
Belohlavek mostra um gosto por opiniões polémicas. Para ele, Sarney foi “talvez o melhor governo de transição que o Brasil poderia ter”. No seu entender foi a primeira vez que o país separou de uma forma mais clara “a economia da política”. A iniciativa privada atuando sem o apoio do governo era algo pouco experimentado na história brasileira”, disse o autor de “Estratégia – A arte do êxito”.
Belohlavek afirma que a sociedade brasileira favorece o crescimento econômico. Segundo ele, uma base estrutural forte permite a mudança nas ações com uma velocidade de adaptação social bastante rápida. “No Brasil se desenvolveu uma mentalidade industrial”, garante o consultor. Segundo ele, isso coloca o país numa situação de vantagem em relação à maioria dos seus vizinhos na América do Sul.
O sistema financeiro, o setor de exportação e a informática são três áreas que segundo Belohlavek sofrerão grandes transformações nos próximos anos no Brasil. Análises que fazem parte de um estudo sobre os próximos dez anos do país enviado durante a campanha eleitoral para cinco candidatos à Presidência – Fernando Collor, Lula, Leonel Brizola, Mario Covas e Paulo Maluí.
Depois de percorrer muitos países, o consultor discorda enfaticamente do mito do brasileiro preguiçoso e mais interessado na fruição do lazer. Segundo ele, na América Latina, apenas os executivos do Chile trabalham mais horas que seus colegas brasileiros, conclusão a que chegou depois de um estudo particular.
Outra característica que afirma ter encontrado no Brasil é a vocação para o trabalho em equipe. Essa última conclusão se apóia também na observação do futebol “Presto muita atenção aos esportes nacionais dos países que estudo. Geralmente é uma amostra muito relevadora do comportamento”, afirmou Belohlavek.
Ele disse ter encontrado a vocação expansiva da economia brasileira também ali. “O futebol” brasileiro se apoia muito num jogo de equipe e de ataque enquanto o argentino tem uma retranca muito forte e precisa de estreias como Maradona para dar certo”.


Brasil: Sanear para así crecer, El Cronista Comercial, p.9., 1990-03-18.
Opina un especialista
Brasil: “Sanear para así crecer”
(…) Recién llegado de Brasil, fue consultado por El Cronista, Pedro Belohlavek, especialista en América Latina y titular de M&T, con filiales en ambos países.
“Luego de una transición liberal en la cual se dejó que la economía se independizara de la política, Brasil acaba de entrar en una etapa dirigista que conducirá hacia una profundización de esa independencia. Lo importante es que, si bien todas las medidas son dirigistas, la meta es una economía libre”, sostiene.
“Hay que tener en claro que es un plan que juega a más, es un plan de crecimiento, no de achique de la economía del país. La idea central es hacer un saneamiento de la economía para crecer en forma inmediata”, dice. “La prueba de ello es que el plan de privatizaciones, que es virtualmente total -sólo permanecerán en manos del Estado Petrobras y Banco de Brasil – se basa en la venta de las empresas al capital mayoritariamente nacional.
Eso, a juicio de Belohlavek, es una de las características que lo diferencian del plan argentino, que privatiza en base a capitalización de deuda. “Otra diferencia es que el de Brasil es un plan dirigista, no realizó moratoria de la deuda interna y abarcó de golpe lo económico, lo social y lo político. El plan argentino se hace a pedacitos, por lo cual nunca se termina de establecer la seguridad jurídica”, sostiene.
Pero agrega que “la Argentina no podía haber hecho un plan así, porque el estado de ambos países es sustancialmente diferente. Un dato interesante es que 84 por ciento del PBI de la Argentina se destina al mercado interno, mientras que en Brasil es menos del 60 por ciento.
En cuanto a su opinión acerca de que el plan brasileño conduce al crecimiento, Belohlavek lo corrobora cuando afirma que “continúa la orientación exportadora”, se privatiza para el capital local, no se achica el sistema financiero, y al indexarse mutuamente precios y salarios, las pérdidas son pequeñas, con excepción de las grandes disponibilidades.
Señala que la Argentina va a tener una excelente oportunidad exportadora, en el marco de la integración, si el plan y su criterio aperturista funcionan. Otras consecuencias podrían ser una reestructuración del sistema financiero, una baja en la Bolsa, al nominativizarse el capital, y el riesgo de que la economía se dolarice. La clave del éxito o el fracaso de este plan es el grado de confianza que el gobierno logre por parte de los empresarios y en general de todos los brasileños”.
“La credibilidad del modelo va a hacer que Brasil dispare hacia adelante”, agrega Belohlavek. “Este es un plan que está en el límite de la audacia por atacar a todas las variables simultáneamente. Hoy Brasil es la octava economía del mundo. Puedo asegurar que dentro de 10 años va a haber adelantado posiciones”, sostiene.
Belohlavek considera que los medios argentinos se equivocaron en considerar que la alta inflación brasileña era hiperinflación, “porque la híper se da cuando a un país se le escapa la inflación, pierde el control de la economía. Los brasileños tuvieron una economía indexada, que es algo diferente. Pero la consecuencia de este plan, por supuesto, va a ser una disminución de la inflación. Otro aspecto remarcable es que, de aquí en más, la palabra “productividad” va a escribirse con mayúscula y letras doradas”.


Landeyro, Norberto. Brasil buscó un planteo nuevo: la seguridad. El Cronista p.15. 1989-11-26
(This source is proposed to be added to the article in the application of the models. One excerpt from the first lines of a full one-page offline newspaper article of national coverage in Argentina, El Cronista, is provided below. A transcription of the full article can be provided if necessary.)
“Brasil buscó un planteo nuevo: la seguridad. La definición corresponde a Belohlavek, modelador de escenarios y estrategias, que en larga charla con El Cronista analizó la realidad y el futuro del mayor país de América del Sur, a la luz de los resultados de la primera vuelta electoral. Quiénes son y que representan los dos candidatos que definirán el pleito en diciembre próximo. Reflexiones sobre Uruguay – celebra hoy sus comicios – y Chile que lo hará en diciembre.”


“Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos”. Section: Información Nacional, Diario El Día, Montevideo, p.14, 1989-08-18
(This source is proposed to be added to the article. One excerpt from this offline newspaper article of national coverage in Uruguay is shared below.)
Insertado el estudio de nuestro país dentro del análisis mundial, señaló que todas las sociedades evolucionan tratando de satisfacer sus necesidades, de tal modo que cuando ellas están satisfechas, se ha llegado al techo, del cual se va a bajar, porque en ese momento comienza la corrupción.
De ese modo fue como en Uruguay se pasó, en determinado momento, luego de un auge económico, a un gran distribucionismo, al que siguió la corrupción del mismo, el deterioro del sistema, a un planteo de izquierda, a un planteo de derecha, hasta que se llegó al piso. Y eso es absolutamente lógico y no podía haber sucedido de otra manera, añadió.
En cuanto al escenario futuro de Uruguay se refirió a él comparándolo con la situación de un americano y un japonés que van a la selva y aparece un león. Entonces explica, el japonés se saca las botas y se pone unas zapatillas. A lo que el americano le pregunta, piensa que así va a correr más que el león. “No más que el león- es la respuesta- pero sí más que tú.” De ese modo tiene que correr Uruguay más que los que están a su lado, explicó Belohlavek.
Analizó durante su charla una serie de conceptos tales como ideología, tipos de sociedades, familia, pobreza, mercado, proyectos nacionales y comparó especialmente a la sociedad uruguaya con la argentina y la brasileña.
Y dedujo de ello que Uruguay tiene que aceptar sus propios valores y sus propias limitaciones.
Conectando esta afirmación a lo que para él significa subdesarrollo, explicó que éste no es más que querer ser lo que no se es. Definió así a nuestro país como el más coherente de América Latina y explicó que hasta ahora no había tenido marketing porque no había necesitado del mismo.
Pero ahora, añadió, sólo se desarrollan las sociedades que se expanden, no las que se contraen.
Refiriéndose a la teoría de su método de análisis tridimensional, explicó que es una síntesis del pensamiento oriental y el occidental, ya que el primero tiene una concepción del Universo como una unidad y el otro, dual. “El oriental integra, el occidental divide”, dijo. Las cosas son, y después se analizan, continuó explicando. Y ejemplificó diciendo que: “el árbol es anterior a la Botánica”.
Luego de un profundo análisis de otros factores de la evolución de las sociedades, el Dr. Belohlavek finalizó exponiendo la idea de que en todos los órdenes de la vida, lo que uno gana lo pierde el otro. Por lo que Uruguay está frente a la disyuntiva de jugar el papel de Latinoamérica – “donde es ganador frente a la inestabilidad de los demás” – o sigue tratando de mantenerse en el primer mundo, al que perteneció y ya no pertenece.
“Hay, por lo tanto, que salir a vender, no a Argentina o Brasil, sino afuera y averiguar cómo es el comprador extranjero y qué necesita, porque es el que va a comprar las artesanías uruguayas.” Bridge2007 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Would it be possible for you to provide scans of these written sources to establish that they are legitimate, especially the coverage in the Buenos Aires Herald and El Cronista as these articles appear to provide the most significant coverage? signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources provided later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I have scanned the required sources for your verification. Notice that you will also find the name translated into Spanish in the region, even though he has a Slovak name. I hope the format of the files is fine to read, if not, please specify so I share them again. I trust this will be helpful.
Please find the links below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hdgdj86SphTUTbGHrOcx8zk7x60J1Iva/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UNZIfCLdeOaQtxi2vfda3_JmNzEcQ7on/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aIGjKhEhkn5kmEsGH6qIvILwu23gAU9t/view?usp=sharing
Bridge2007 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thanks for providing these sources, they establish that the reported quotes are indeed real. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that they provide the in-depth coverage of Belohlavek necessary to demonstrate notability. While the interviews approach Belohlavek as an expert on the subject, there is no actual coverage of Belohlavek himself beyond very brief introductions, which is ultimately what is needed to demonstrate notability–the content of the interviews is focused on current events in Brazil. The Herald article may be a bit more useful toward establishing notability, as it discusses to some extent the research that Belohlavek is associated with at the Unicist Institute, but even that seems a bit borderline. At this time, I'd like to hear from other editors (but could also be swayed by additional in-depth coverage of Belohlavek). signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. Following your request, I am providing additional in-depth coverage. I hope these additional sources fulfill your request. Please let me know.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tN5NPBFdVYVc2lWXJepKq7Cox8yT5eo7/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zsrnXyIXBSSQWvVemjPLWUk4uKS17CsW/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16miW9d5_-31NKG2U61aVymPO7HeYuiCl/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yCmCizcQrdgsshKhxGJamRIJlsgJiWFu/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PxsMSe5gne6S3f4TaFyPgAqKhfJ7JNsz/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SwIDd6pT8cVH6XDsgm7gKhs6x9hHI8Cc/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QxBLcEFN2StqtI6AZMUWb3UT16U4E3E/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I0SObczvIuT_3OBUUBOyn9118oxkFfrF/view?usp=sharing
Thank you. Bridge2007 (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Could you please list the sources next to the files? Not all of them have it marked in the image. signed, Rosguill talk 08:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I am including the additional sources (full articles) that have been added with an access to their scanned copies below:
3-page article Revista Nueva:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tN5NPBFdVYVc2lWXJepKq7Cox8yT5eo7/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zsrnXyIXBSSQWvVemjPLWUk4uKS17CsW/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16miW9d5_-31NKG2U61aVymPO7HeYuiCl/view?usp=sharing
[1]
2 page-article Revista Mañana University:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yCmCizcQrdgsshKhxGJamRIJlsgJiWFu/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PxsMSe5gne6S3f4TaFyPgAqKhfJ7JNsz/view?usp=sharing
[2]
Folha de Sao Paulo, Brazil:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SwIDd6pT8cVH6XDsgm7gKhs6x9hHI8Cc/view?usp=sharing
[3]
El Día, Uruguay:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QxBLcEFN2StqtI6AZMUWb3UT16U4E3E/view?usp=sharing
[4]
O Estado de São Paulo, Brazil:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I0SObczvIuT_3OBUUBOyn9118oxkFfrF/view?usp=sharing
[5]
  1. ^ Ferro, María Laura (2003-01-05). "Teoría Unicista: Otra manera de aprender - Acá todo el mundo quiere ser Dios y, entonces, es nada". Revista Nueva. Nº 599, p. 12: Agrupación Diarios del Interior.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  2. ^ Gesualdi, Patricia (2013-05-06). "Refutación a la Teoría de la Demanda". Mañana University. p. 22,23: Ediciones Mañana Profesional.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  3. ^ Folha de S.Paulo. “Brasil tem tudo para ser uma potência”. March 12, 1990, p. 2 Negócios.
  4. ^ "Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos". El Día. Información Nacional, Uruguay, p.14. 1989-08-18.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. ^ "Economista prevê mudança nos anos 90". O Estado de São Paulo. Economia, p.4. 1990-04-05.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
Thank you. Bridge2007 (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time reading the El Día and Folha de São Paulo sources due to the poor image quality–would it be possible to provide higher resolution images?
As for the other sources, is there any authorship information for the article in O Estado de São Paulo? The piece appears to exclusively discuss Belohlavek's book (which based on citation searches does not appear to have made a significant impact in its field), and I'm concerned that it could actually be an advertisement. Additionally, I'm concerned about the reliability of Mañana University and Revista Nueva as I can't seem to find any information about the former and searching for the latter led me to this site, which provides no editorial information and may not even be the same publication. If the coverage in El Día and Folha is solid it may not end up mattering, as those sources are definitely reliable, but as I stated previously the image quality is very poor and makes it difficult to read and evaluate the depth of coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 20:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fortunately, I can resend you now the information with a better image in the case of El Dia and a closer one in the case of Folha de Sao Paulo, as well as the full texts I typed for you to follow just in case. As you mention to focus on the main newspapers, besides all the other media that cover this, I count that Buenos Aires Herald, Cronista, El Día (Uruguay), Folha de Sao Paulo (Brasil), are very well known and reliable secondary sources.
( As a side note the Nueva Review is an Argentine magazine that is distributed with the Sunday Newspaper in some of the main cities in Argentina. http://nueva.com.ar/portal/sobre )
For your convenience, I could find specifically what you requested, a new high definition copy of the El Dia article that I had already sent you (see link for image 1). I am also sending you 2 other images for 2 articles published in the prestigious newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo (the first, a better quality image and the second, an additional one). In this case, I found out that the library in Brazil has a better copy, of course, but I believe we can manage with the one we have. Of course if you need the one from the library, I am not in Brazil, but I will be able to get it as well. I believe since all the information is provided, you will be able to verify the sources perfectly.
1) “Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos”. Section: Información Nacional, Diario El Día, Montevideo, p.14, 1989-08-18
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JDCb5MsRpc1CyLbg86TLoaryaHrraCJX/view?usp=sharing
2) Folha de S.Paulo. “Brasil tem tudo para ser uma potência”. March 12, 1990, p. 2 Negócios.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16eZA__b-xlusMP3GY4zc-bRWeBT7Spn0/view?usp=sharing
3) Rangel, Teresa. “Processo levará dez anos, diz o consultor”. Folha de S.Paulo. August 31, 1990, p. 2. Economia.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rORa1Z7nkRhQxiXf50HTk3kW8cwTj-NC/view?usp=sharing
Additionally, I took the trouble of transcribing all the information that is already in the images below.
I trust this will satisfy your request to solve this very soon.
Thank you for your help.


1) “Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos”. Section: Información Nacional, Diario El Día, Montevideo, p.14, 1989-08-18
Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos
“Galileo murió por haberle dicho a la gente que el Universo era distinto a lo que la gente creía.”
“Eso mismo es lo que pasa con los pueblos. Si todos creemos que el gobierno va a cumplir, vamos a trabajar y hacer algo. Pero lo vamos a hacer nosotros, no el gobierno. En cambio si pasa lo contrario, no vamos a hacer nada. Y los que no vamos a hacer nada vamos a ser nosotros y no el gobierno”. Con estos conceptos revolucionarios e introductores comenzó la conferencia el Dr. Pedro Belohlavek al cierre del fórum: “El marketing y el Uruguay”.
Autor del método “Teoría del análisis tridimensional”, al que él califica de casi “una mala palabra”, por su extensión, se refirió al mismo explicando que se trata del estudio de las sociedades a través de sus componentes fundamentales y de la evolución de los mismos.
Insertado el estudio de nuestro país dentro del análisis mundial, señaló que todas las sociedades evolucionan tratando de satisfacer sus necesidades, de tal modo que cuando ellas están satisfechas, se ha llegado al techo, del cual se va a bajar, porque en ese momento comienza la corrupción.
De ese modo fue como en Uruguay se pasó, en determinado momento, luego de un auge económico, a un gran distribucionismo, al que siguió la corrupción del mismo, el deterioro del sistema, a un planteo de izquierda, a un planteo de derecha, hasta que se llegó al piso. Y eso es absolutamente lógico y no podía haber sucedido de otra manera, añadió.
En cuanto al escenario futuro de Uruguay se refirió a él comparándolo con la situación de un americano y un japonés que van a la selva y aparece un león. Entonces explica, el japonés se saca las botas y se pone unas zapatillas. A lo que el americano le pregunta, piensa que así va a correr más que el león. “No más que el león- es la respuesta- pero sí más que tú.” De ese modo tiene que correr Uruguay más que los que están a su lado, explicó Belohlavek.
Analizó durante su charla una serie de conceptos tales como ideología, tipos de sociedades, familia, pobreza, mercado, proyectos nacionales y comparó especialmente a la sociedad uruguaya con la argentina y la brasileña.
Y dedujo de ello que Uruguay tiene que aceptar sus propios valores y sus propias limitaciones.
Conectando esta afirmación a lo que para él significa subdesarrollo, explicó que éste no es más que querer ser lo que no se es. Definió así a nuestro país como el más coherente de América Latina y explicó que hasta ahora no había tenido marketing porque no había necesitado del mismo.
Pero ahora, añadió, sólo se desarrollan las sociedades que se expanden, no las que se contraen.
Refiriéndose a la teoría de su método de análisis tridimensional, explicó que es una síntesis del pensamiento oriental y el occidental, ya que el primero tiene una concepción del Universo como una unidad y el otro, dual. “El oriental integra, el occidental divide”, dijo. Las cosas son, y después se analizan, continuó explicando. Y ejemplificó diciendo que: “el árbol es anterior a la Botánica”.
Luego de un profundo análisis de otros factores de la evolución de las sociedades, el Dr. Belohlavek finalizó exponiendo la idea de que en todos los órdenes de la vida, lo que uno gana lo pierde el otro. Por lo que Uruguay está frente a la disyuntiva de jugar el papel de Latinoamérica – “donde es ganador frente a la inestabilidad de los demás” – o sigue tratando de mantenerse en el primer mundo, al que perteneció y ya no pertenece.
“Hay, por lo tanto, que salir a vender, no a Argentina o Brasil, sino afuera y averiguar cómo es el comprador extranjero y qué necesita, porque es el que va a comprar las artesanías uruguayas.”


2) Folha de S.Paulo. “Brasil tem tudo para ser uma potência”. March 12, 1990, p. 2 Negócios.
“Brasil tem tudo para ser uma potência”
Brasil já lidera a América Latina e dentro de dez anos será uma das grandes potências mundiais. Essa é a opinião do consultor Pedro Belohlavek depois de dois anos de contatos e trabalho no país.
Numa entrevista à Folha por telefone de Buenos Aires, o consultor disse que para consolidar seu crescimento são necessárias duas ações principais – a abertura para mercados competitivos e mais interessantes para a exportação e um programa educacional que resolva de uma vez por todas as carências dessa área.
Belohlavek mostra um gosto por opiniões polémicas. Para ele, Sarney foi “talvez o melhor governo de transição que o Brasil poderia ter”. No seu entender foi a primeira vez que o país separou de uma forma mais clara “a economia da política”. A iniciativa privada atuando sem o apoio do governo era algo pouco experimentado na história brasileira”, disse o autor de “Estratégia – A arte do êxito”.
Belohlavek afirma que a sociedade brasileira favorece o crescimento econômico. Segundo ele, uma base estrutural forte permite a mudança nas ações com uma velocidade de adaptação social bastante rápida. “No Brasil se desenvolveu uma mentalidade industrial”, garante o consultor. Segundo ele, isso coloca o país numa situação de vantagem em relação à maioria dos seus vizinhos na América do Sul.
O sistema financeiro, o setor de exportação e a informática são três áreas que segundo Belohlavek sofrerão grandes transformações nos próximos anos no Brasil. Análises que fazem parte de um estudo sobre os próximos dez anos do país enviado durante a campanha eleitoral para cinco candidatos à Presidência – Fernando Collor, Lula, Leonel Brizola, Mario Covas e Paulo Maluí.
Depois de percorrer muitos países, o consultor discorda enfaticamente do mito do brasileiro preguiçoso e mais interessado na fruição do lazer. Segundo ele, na América Latina, apenas os executivos do Chile trabalham mais horas que seus colegas brasileiros, conclusão a que chegou depois de um estudo particular.
Outra característica que afirma ter encontrado no Brasil é a vocação para o trabalho em equipe. Essa última conclusão se apóia também na observação do futebol “Presto muita atenção aos esportes nacionais dos países que estudo. Geralmente é uma amostra muito relevadora do comportamento”, afirmou Belohlavek.
Ele disse ter encontrado a vocação expansiva da economia brasileira também ali. “O futebol” brasileiro se apoia muito num jogo de equipe e de ataque enquanto o argentino tem uma retranca muito forte e precisa de estreias como Maradona para dar certo”.


3) Rangel, Teresa. “Processo levará dez anos, diz o consultor”. Folha de S.Paulo. August 31, 1990, p. 2. Economia.
Processo levará dez anos, diz consultor
A integração entre Brasil e Argentina se dará de fato marcada pelos governos dos dois países. 1 de janeiro de 1995, não será cumprida. A opinião é do consultor de estratégias empresariais Pedro Belohlavek. Ele apresenta há mais de dez anos projeções sobre o desenvolvimento econômico de países de América Latina. Cinco anos é tempo para a integração começar, diz.
Apesar de vaticinar o não cumprimento da data firmada pelos presidentes Fernando Collor e Carlos Menem, Belohlavek defende a integração como a saída mais vantajosa para as duas sociedades. Será quase uma questão de sobrevivência dentro do quadro de mercados unificados que surgem, afirma.
“Os mercados estão aumentando. Por isso, para participar da economia mundial é preciso um tamanho mínimo”, diz Belohlavek. Para ele quanto mais forte ficar o mercado europeu unido, mais rápida se dará a integração latino-americana.
O consultor considera legítima a integração começar por Brasil e Argentina, uma vez que há um contato já estabelecido e firme entre os dois países. Belohlavek diz que de nada adianta governos assinarem protocolos para melhor relacionamento comercial e econômico, se não há fatos isolados, pontuais, de integração. Ele diz que esses fatos podem se notar em relação a Brasil e Argentina. A Scania, por exemplo, produz motores para exportar ao Brasil.
Diz que a integração se dará em duas fases. Na primeira, haverá cruzamento de interesses reais, troca de tecnologia e mercadorias para atender a uma necessidade de consumo. Na segunda fase, os países vão se associar para conseguir competitividade no mercado externo.
Os dois principais empecilhos para a integração, na opinião de Belohlavek, são a desconfiança que os países têm entre si e a instabilidade econômica.
Brasil e Argentina sempre se viram como inimigos potenciais. “Enquanto os dois países trabalham com hipótese de conflito armado com seus vizinhos não é possível pensar em uma integração completa”.
Quanto a crise econômica dos dois países, Belohlavek diz que a inflação pode ser um “inimigo mortal” para a integração. Para ele, os governos têm de tomar medidas para tornar a economia mais estável.
Além do enfoque monetário, Belohlavek diz que o setor estatal deve passar a ser eficiente e os monopólios têm de acabar.
Aponta, também, particularidades de cada um dos dois países que podem atravancar o processo de integração. A Argentina, em sua opinião, apresenta uma “identidade nacional débil” e pode resistir à presença da cultura brasileira.
O desafio brasileiro, afirma, é resolver a questão de coabitação no mesmo espaço geográfico de dois países, um desenvolvido e outro pobre. “O Brasil tem de criar condições para integrar os milhões de habitantes que hoje estão à margem da economia”, conclui.
Bridge2007 (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Low citation counts on Google Scholar [25] show a clear failure to meet WP:PROF#C1, no other criterion of WP:PROF seems to be met, and the article doesn't appear to even be attempting to claim any form of non-academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your affirmation on the criteria, I would like to clarify that the categorization is based on Notability (People) WP:BASIC. I trust this information is useful to share for categorization purposes to assess and improve the article. This article meets the Wikipedia guidelines for notability (people). Please consider that the subject is the founder and researcher of a private research organization in the field of applied complexity sciences and not an academic researcher (see sources). Since the subject is not an academic, the academic notability guidelines do not apply for this article. This article is based on reliable, secondary sources from very well-known and respected media in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, which have been verified during the last fourteen days with the texts and scans provided for verification. Thank you. Bridge2007 (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This seems like special pleading. If a leader of a research institute is going to be notable for that, then the research itself would have to have significant coverage to even begin claiming that while also avoiding WP:INHERIT arguments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification. The notability has to do with the subject, not with the research institute, it is independent. This subject is independently notable. The subject is an expert in the study of adaptive systems’ evolution, such as social and economic systems, which can be found in the news on social, economic and business scenarios, among other applications. I would be adding this information to the article: “…is a Slovak complexity science researcher, dedicated to the study of the evolution of adaptive systems, and known for his work in the building of social and economic scenarios and its applications.” You can verify this information with the provided sources: Buenos Aires Herald, El Cronista, El Dia, Folha de S. Paulo, Revista Nueva, O Estado de Sao Paulo, etc. I hope this is of help. Bridge2007 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now this is going circular when you just just said academic research background metrics didn't apply to this BLP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there are two types of researches, academic and industrial research. The subject belongs to the field of industrial research: https://www.arunmujumdar.com/file/Selected%20Presentations/Academic_Vs_Industrial_R&D.pdf https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=academic+research+vs.+industrial+research&oq=academic+research+vs.+industrial+research&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.17457j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 I hope this is useful. Bridge2007 (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a severe misunderstanding of how research works in the context of assessing notability. All this text hasn't really done anything to help the case for notability of this fringe BLP.Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete references given don't provide sufficient evidence of sustained detailed coverage of individual. Agricolae (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete As far as I can tell, he doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NPROF. It took longer to determine if WP:GNG is met. My conclusion was that it was not, because it didn't appear to me that there was enough significant independent coverage of him to meet that standard. I labeled my vote as weak in case my language skills were not up to the task. Papaursa (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have followed the thread and read every text and scan to verify the information. I am fluent in Spanish and Portuguese. I could verify that Notability criteria is met WP:GNG with the provided sources. I believe the subject has significant coverage in sources that can be verified to be reliable and independent secondary sources. Delphinidae9 (talk) 23:43, 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 delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 04:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac H. Ferguson[edit]

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

Unsourced for more than a decade; orphan for the same period; creator has no other edits. I think it's someone's genealogical info, nothing more. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if it was referenced, nothing in the article indicates he is noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I ran some searches, but he really looks like a non notable soldier/person.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While a person with this life story (first settler in a town, war service (commanding a company at the unlikely age of 72))may be notable, this doesn't pass WP:V in its current form. In my BEFORE I was able to locate this and this, [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] (seems he was listed on the rolls as 44, despite being 70) backing some of this up and this Stripes piece from which the Wiki article might have been sourced (can't be sure - snippet view - but seems to tick a few missing marks - e.g. Illonis, all be it 1836 and not 1846 - though 1836 is more likely (newly arrived immigrants aren't named commanders if they aren't named Crockett). However, these are all most one-liner / short paragraph mentions - not INDEPTH coverage - and thus this fails SIGCOV. It also seems that an individual with the same name served as an artillery office in the civil war. Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage, no evidence of notability --DannyS712 (talk) 21:09, 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. Admin has already deleted the page under speedy deletion rationale G11. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seamfix[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement and stinks of WP:UPE, AFD'ing as it was a failed PROD. Kb03 (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – nothing in the article establishes this company as notable. Winning some awards doesn't establish notability, since the awards themselves don't appear to be notable either. Google searches turns up a few news stories and some PR, but nothing which makes this company stand out. SJK (talk) 11:16, 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 keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackbirds (South African band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND due to no claim of notability. WP:BEFORE didn't bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per plentiful sources. Not least Grove. Not really clear why one of the very few 1930s South African bands not just to be mentioned but have an entry in Grove is challenged. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: I'll be happy to withdraw if that can be added in as a source. Kirbanzo (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was already in the article when you nominated it. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see many sources in a quick search, [31][32][33][34], etc. It suggests that WP:BEFORE has not been properly conducted. The band appears to be significant in South African music history, and should qualify under WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Hzh (talk) 22:41, 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 delete. Consensus is for deletion as per WP:NOTPROMO. North America1000 04:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ope Banwo[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement and stinks of WP:UPE Kb03 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Kb03 the article is promotional and there seem to be some sort of conflict of interest as it appears that it’s the same person who created the article that is using multiple Wikipedia accounts to edit the said article. However there’s no enough independent news coverage to ascertain that the said subject is notable enough, perhaps again WP:TOOSOON as he fails WP:ENT and WP:NBIO.

Is Nutin (talk) 14:58, 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 keep. Nominator withdrawal due to concerns being addressed. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted (1931 film)[edit]

Convicted (1931 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreliable source (IMDb), and that is the only source. No encyclopedic content, mainly just a cast listing. No sourced claim of notability, therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added some text and refs to the article. Did not check for contemporary reviews, but the film is covered in multiple books. Bakazaka (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the refs added. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:44, 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 10:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topological painting[edit]

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

This is a bit tricky. The article is a sweeping, well-written, well-referenced romp through art history that has one single fundamental failing: it is complete WP:SYNTH.

The term "topological painting" appears to have been applied to Dalí’s painting of that name only, and the author has taken it and run with it - it does not seem to be used in any of the referenced sources. The author then basically presents a chronological discussion of artists that have used, for want of a better expression, playful geometry in their work. They finish up with a rather extended and borderline sourced treatment of a single artist (Igal Vardi) that gives the impression as if the entire article might have been intended just as an extended WP:COATRACK for that section.

This material would make a good review article for an academic-minded art magazine, but I don't think it can make a Wikipedia article; it's a selective art history based on personal criteria. At least some of the Igal Vardi material appears to be new and might be merged to that article. I did not check the article states of all the other artists. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I see that Rosguill has made some similar statements on the article's talk page - sorry, should have checked that out sooner.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Earlier when I suggested redirecting on the talk page I was under the impression that borderline RS had exclusively connected Igal Vardi to the phrase "topological painting", but a quick internet search now suggests that this is not actually the case. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. XOR'easter, Narky Blert, Deacon Vorbis, Johnbod, Kirbanzo, Rosguill ;

1. Topological painting is an innovative style developed by Igal Vardi over the past 30 years, as a painter and as an art theorist. He wrote articles on the topic of topological painting, that accompanied his exhibitions and were published in his book: “Metamorphosis - Painting Along the Way”. To read several of the articles visit Vardi’s art website: www.igalvardi.com.

2. Furthermore, Vardi interpreted Picasso's surrealist period works as topological paintings, and expanded on this in his book: “Viva Picasso - An Aesthetic Interpretation of his Art”.

3. The Wikipedia entry emphasized that the only artist in the history of art who defined some of his paintings as topological painting was Salvador Dali (these were the last works he painted in his lifetime). Topological principles were also clearly applied in the paintings of Cornelis Escher.

4. The entry also includes sources about topology from the mathematics field, but mainly from the field of psychology by the psychoanalyst Jacque Lacan.

5. I can provide documents from Prof. Shlomo Giora Shoham (Israel Prize Laureate), Prof. Moshe Zukerman (philosopher of art), Prof. Haim Hazan (anthropologist) and Prof. Gila Balas (world-renowned art scholar), attesting to Vardi’s innovative style, both theoretical and practical, as “Igal Vardi’s Topological Painting”.

6. As the editors you maintain that everything written in the entry is more suited for an academic article. However, if I may say so, you are mistaken. I say this because the theoretical background presented in the entry is reflected in Vardi’s thirty years of work, based on more than 200 paintings published in his book “Metamorphosis - Painting Along the Way”.

7. Therefore, in my opinion it is justified to publish this entry in Wikipedia under the new entry “Igal Vardi’s Topological Painting”. Ralph747 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph747, if those documents by Shoham, Zukerman, Hazan and Balas discuss "topological painting" have been published in independent, reliable sources, then you can use those as references and establish that the the topic is notable. Have they been published in peer reviewed journals? Personally, I think graphology is a pseudoscience, Vardi a pompous fraud and topological painting a croc of shit, but that is beside the point. We only care about what the sources say. So, where are they? Vexations (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious conclusion from the above, if the sources can be shown, seems to be that an expansion of Igal Vardi may be possible. Not an attempt to universalize a newly coined term by co-opting the entirety of art history. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Elmidae said. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Lacan, the human mind functions psycho-dynamically according to the non-linear dynamic between the three abovementioned registers, at times in a Möbius strip structure. And this is why actual mathematicians don't like Lacan. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. The section on Vardi's work can be preserved by merging it to the article on Igal Vardi.  --Lambiam 17:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, If there is no choice, and the name of the article can not be substituted for ”Igal Vardi's topological painting”, at least the article should be merged with Igal Vardi’s article. Ralph747 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Most of the content has no clear and documentable relationship with Vardi but is original research that would have to be deleted anyway, even if the article is renamed or merged with the article on Vardi. It is like a badly researched essay. Give me a citation from a reliable source for the very first statement of the article that topological painting is a painting style that began with the expressionism school. Obviously, this was made up. Then the first statement of the first section (About), that topology as a branch of mathematics represents reality through distortions. Who says so? Topology does not aim to represent reality, and when someone uses a topological mathematical model as a tool to represent an aspect of reality, it is by ignoring (abstracting away from) distortions. "Distortions" that are not topological include cutting (whether cutting open or cutting away). Since Vardi's paintings typically involve cutting of the image, calling them "topological" is a misnomer. That does not matter inasmuch as it can be reliably sourced that they are called thusly, but it shows that the statements in the article about topology as a branch of mathematics are the misbegotten fruit of original research.  --Lambiam 05:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm not relisting because the nominator is a now indef-blocked sock. Any editor in good standing can renominate the article for deletion. Sandstein 08:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019)[edit]

Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel that it is too early to create an article about events that haven’t taken place yet. Just because the new House has promised to do more investigations doesn’t mean that they actually will - in todays government promises made aren’t always promises kept. PRODed for these reasons, de-PRODed by the author. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 14:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? Is what you are saying is that all Democrats in the House are liars who are too scared of Trump to do anything to hold him accountable? Letters to various government agencies asking for documents to be preserved for future subpoenas have already been sent out. The Chairs of most, if not ALL of the committees in question, have said they would issue these immediately after taking power many times. The assumption that they are all LYING is a fatuous one.

the original deletion requests said: "Personally I am of the opinion that it is a little premature to create a long list of events that are still several months away, if they even happen at all"

First, the word several means: more than two but not many. Is January several months away? No. In fact it is only 35 days away. Therefore adding a new article is timely, as much of what will happen in January has already started. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Arglebargle79 altered the above message after Matthew Wong (PMA) had replied to it. This makes it likely that Matthew's comment "that’s not what I am saying at all..." below may be misread as referring to the comment at the end of Arglebargle79's message. To avoid such possible misunderstanding, Matthew Wong's comment was an answer only to the first paragraph (from "You're kidding..." to "...a fatuous one". (Arglebargle79, changing a post after someone else has responded to it is almost always not a good idea. Instead, post a separate new message.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC) NOTE:JamesBWatson I did not. There was a large section of my post that was removed by others and I was only putting it backArglebargle79 (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Here is your original edit]. Here you can see all the changes made by other editors between that one and your next edit. Nobody removed anything from your post. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]
No, that’s not what I am saying at all. It is clear that you are politically motivated here, and personally I hold strong beliefs here too, but I don’t want to let them interfere. While it is very possible and in fact very likely that the new House will investigate the President’s wrongdoings (or lack thereof), however because the Senate, White House, and Supreme Court are still controlled by Republicans, it is still too early to make a list of events that may happen (or even likely will happen) before they actually happen. Unfortunately, anything can change at the last minute and filibuster something, regardless of which party initiated. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 14:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Arglebargle79: Please don't put words into other editors' mouths. Matthew Wong (PMA) didn't say anything about anyone lying: there are many reasons why people don't in fact do what they said they intended to do other than that they are lying. As for the suggestion that people are "too scared of Trump to do anything to hold him accountable", Matthew didn't say anything that even remotely resembled that. You are likely to considerably reduce the likelihood that what you say in this discussion will be taken seriously by the administrator who closes the discussion if you are seen to be using straw man arguments against things you claim other editors said when anyone who reads their comments can see that they didn't say anything of the sort. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
actually, he did. He said that none of the subpoenas would be issued, and I quote:

"Just because the new House has promised to do more investigations doesn’t mean that they actually will - in todays government promises made aren’t always promises kept."

If the leadership, who at the moment, are preparing to issue subpoenas do not, and are repeatedly saying that they will do so less than two months prior to taking office, then they are lying. That is whats clearly being implied.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking me way out of context here. First of all, the last statement was me being ironic with the President’s latest campaign slogan, which is “Promises Made, Promises Kept”. Additionally, there are many instances in current politics where one group of people will want to do something and will actually attempt to do it (hence they aren’t outright lying), but some sort of red tape will ultimately prevent anything from being done, whether it be division among ones own party, filibusters from the opposing party, or otherwise stalling. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 15:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does NOT recognize irony. Also, you clearly do not understand how the House of Representatives works. The Chairs of the various committees are extremely powerful and when it comes to investigations, and can pretty much do as they please. Filibusters from the opposing party does not happen in the House. The Rules Committee makes the rules for debate on the floor and the Chair makes the rules for the committee. The ranking members, nor other members of the minority cannot prevent anything the chair and the majority want to do. Had they been able to, the many Bengazi investigations would not have taken place.

The Democratic party, including those who oppose Pelosi, are all in favor of issuing subpoenas. What happens afterward is a completely different story. You will notice that I didn't mention anywhere in the article what the reaction by the administration would be or any possible lawsuits. It's a timeline. Those will be added when the time comes. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not a timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019), nor in fact a timeline of anything. At present the content of the page consists virtually entirely of a list of people, not a timeline, and moreover that list is simply a duplication of a list in the article Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. There is no good reason for having a duplication of that list in the form of a second article, especially not in an article with a title which says it is something else. If and when investigations in 2019 are underway we can revisit this and consider whether having a "timeline" article is a good idea, but until that happens there is no basis for having this article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it's the THIRD article in the timeline. Secondly, the investigations of 2019 are currently underway and have been for two years or more. That's right. they're currently underway. So why isn't there a 2017 or 2018 article? Actually, there is. In fact there's a 2016 article and all three have the same list. There are at least a dozen articles on the Russia scandals.

So to repeat: The year is coming to an end. The investigations are ongoing and aren't going to abruptly disappear on December 31. We need an article for the new year because there's going to BE a new year. The articles in the timeline series should have a uniform look. That includes a list of characters at the top plus the other series elements. The listing of events beyond January the third aren't clear. There will be lawsuits over the subpoenas and a bunch of other things. It could be that Whittikar could shut down the investigation and Trump could pardon everybody. Hell, Trump could be like Napoleon III and declare himself king. Notice that THOSE conjectures aren't in the article. What is in the article is what is in the rest of the series and a mention that the New Congress will convene January the third and that the promised subpoenas will be issued. More will come later. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft until it has some unique content. No reason to destroy something that is 100% going to happen. We have all kimds of pages on 2019 sports events and upcoming elections. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, or move to draft for people who are happy to engage in political speculation. — JFG talk 12:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2019 is only 3 weeks away now, the 2018 investigations are still happening and will turn into 2019 investigations - and we are well aware of them in Australia, so they definitely get significant coverage! RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2019 is less than a MONTH away. It's NOT WP:CRYSTAL because of that. 2019 WILL happen and Meuller's office has stated things will go on into the new yeart. Plus the Democrats are in charge as of January, and as I've said before, even if the Republicans in House WANT to prevent any investigations by Adam Schiff or Jerald Nadler, they can't, and if they try, it will be reflected on the timeline. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion of this article, and reasonable policy-based arguments that national coverage reaches the level necessary to support inclusion. bd2412 T 02:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Supply shooting[edit]

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

Ugh. As much as I hate doing this, it doesn't appear to be a significant event that has received wide-spread coverage or even in depth coverage. Mostly just local/state wide and a brief mention on CNN but not much more than what i'd expect to see in a scroller. Praxidicae (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a 'one-note and follow the trial' story only notable to KMOX radio and St. Louis television, not to the rest of the country. NOTNEWS. Nate • (chatter) 00:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep I thought at first this would be indeed just a local news story, but now that we know the suspect was a former pastor for a church with a very complicated history, this isn't going to stay just in St. Louis (and if not for 45/politics monopolizing the news channels, this would easily be their #1 story for the week if we were in a place where politics were boring). There's more to this story, and the first day Ctrl+C of the AP wire about this has changed considerably to plenty of sustained and diverse coverage, and now doesn't meet WP:109PAPERS. I wouldn't usually change my mind on a story like this in the days we have a nom up, but this will be covered for months, even if it has the usual week-after decline between hearings and trial (the article thus does need an update now that a suspect has been located and detained). Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. At present we have wide non-local coverage - e.g. TIME (via AP wire), aciprensa (Spanish), Chicago Tribune. As we can not evaluate future coverage or lasting effects, and present coverage is SIGCOV (with the exception of SUSTAINED which we can't evaluate due to the event being recent) we should err towards keeping the article, per RAPID, until we can evaluate this at a future date.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with Mercy Hospital shooting and Jeffersontown Kroger shooting. Every shooting where 2 or 3 people are killed should not have a Wikipedia article. This is getting a little ridiculous, plus most experts define a mass shooting as at least four killed. BubbleWobble (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We're not removing a hospital shooting or a defined hate crime. This is why we don't have mass nominations for these, so they're talked about on their own merits. Nate • (chatter) 17:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All events of this nature will continue to receive references. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs expansion. Coverage meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - coverage meets WP:NCRIME. Plenty of good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have undone my previous close per discussion on my talk page. Relisting instead so that a clearer consensus can emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, which is a policy. RAPID is misguided, it should be the other way around (cf. WP:DELEY): Do NOT create an article too soon, because there is no deadline. If an event that originally appears to be minor (and shootings with only a few people killed are regrettably quite routine) later turns out to get sustained widespread coverage and/or can be shown to have an impact beyond the initial event, then the moment has come to create an article. Application of RAPID just results in keeping something on the thought that it can always be deleted if it turns out never to become notable (which is the world on its head), but in practice this just means that it gets forgotten and lingers in limbo without anyone editing or even reading it. Anyway, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper and the tendency of some editors to jump upon everything currently in the news to create articles about what may be ephemeral events is quite regrettable... --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SENSATIONAL/WP:NCRIME/WP:ROUTINE. 15,000 or so people get killed by guns every year in the US. There is no long term significance to this shooting over the other 14,999. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one above argues that all murders are notable, but the facts of this case have made the coverage extraordinary. And we are here to guage whether WP:RSes deem a crime notable, not whether we personally think it is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that covered in any of the sources. He's a pastor of a non-standard church, and a gun rights guy, and was in debt. The article is a WP:COATRACK of random facts. There will be routine coverage until they find the guy, routine coverage when they find him, routine coverage at trial if he's not shot dead by then, and in the meantime he'll be used as a routine example of what's wrong with gun culture by a handful of columnists/bloggers on the left, an excuse to buy more guns on the right, blah blah blah, and no one will remember him 3 weeks from then because the new cycle will have moved on. This is all routine stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They found him (detailed coverage of intense 2-day manhunt, tip that helped police identify and locate him.) Judge has denied bail. Discussion in St. Louis at present is about whether Wesley Bell, an anti-death penalty politician who was just elected county prosecutor will seek the death penalty in this case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • today's round of national coverage is about the meticulous police work that went into identifying perp. Many newspapers picked up the AP story, the New York Post ran a reported story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEY - additional notability can come from unexpected angles. In this case, the regional media are giving intense coverage to the question of whether a newly elected, Democratic Party, county prosecutor who won in a dramatic upset victory (part of this year's Blue Wave,) and opposes the death penalty, Wesley Bell, will ask for the death penalty for the killer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs extensive work, and expansion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above like-minded !votes, article needs expansion, easily passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that coverage is ongoing. Formal charges laid in court: murder first degree; sodomy. The Archbishop led a prayer service at the store where murder happened, blessed the store, which reopened today.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:MILL violent crime; sensationalist routine reporting does not change this (WP:NOTNEWS). Recreate if still written about 5 years from now. Sandstein 20:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Wikipedia is not a newspaper—a fundamental policy of an encyclopedia—and this is just current (unfortunate) news; we argue about charges, a trial, and later a possible conviction but those are all routine to a news cycle of a crime. With that understood, coverage cannot be said to be sustained at this time and the same can be said for an obvious lack of lasting impact. Notability simply cannot be established when so much is determined on what may be written about this crime. I suggest deletion, per policy, and to slow our roll on breaking news stories.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie C. White[edit]

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

This person's only claim to notability was reaching an advanced age, that was later reduced from 116 to 102. Article and sources provide no significant information about her life and deeds besides the detective work around her alleged birth date, hence there is nothing to preserve. Perhaps a short paragraph in Longevity claims? That article seems reserved for claims above 120 years old, but I see no reason not to mention notable "younger" claims that were once believed accurate. — JFG talk 11:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a tragic story and a wasted life in an institution but living to 102 is not that unusual. Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed a tragic story about a wasted life, but living to 102 and other people screwing up your age and then running wild with it for awhile do not make someone notable per WP:BIO1E. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable only for single criteria, similar to other few recently nominated subjects. Rzvas (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This might be worth a footnote in an article on the methods and problems of the Guiness Book of World Records, it is not worth including in an encyclopedia as a freestanding article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't believe this person is notable for her longevity. She is notable for being incorrectly label as world oldest person that is what the sources are saying. There are seems to be coverage regarding her forced institutionalization. Valoem talk contrib 18:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Wood (supercentenarian)[edit]

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

This person's only claim to notability was reaching an advanced age. Sources offers no significant detail about her life and deeds. She will soon be too "young" to appear among the top 100 British supercentenarians, because she is already in the last slot there (#100). Nothing to preserve. — JFG talk 10:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 9th oldest person in the UK? Got a kick out of this odd statement "Ethel died suddenly on 19 August 2011, aged 110 years, 215 days" User:EEng might want to use that. Has got to be one of the longest sudden deaths on record. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ASTONISHME#sleep. EEng 12:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. That does seem to fit perfectly with the others. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that being very old is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like the legal status of where she was born, and if she had lived four more months she would have made a longevity record. There is nothing to preserve about this woman, including this WP:PERMASTUB, given that she will soon slip off the list of British supercentenarians. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under NOPAGE, and there's probably no list for her to go to. The geography lesson on Guernsey underscores the stupidity of all these "oldest in X country/region" categorizations. EEng 13:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable only for single criteria, similar to other few recently nominated subjects. Rzvas (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Ethel Wood is notable and deserves an article because she was the oldest supercentenarian born in the 20th in the tiny Channel Island of Guernsey. Guernsey is not a part of the United Kingdom, and she should not be ranked among supercentarians born in the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Start a Gofundme drive for a monument in her name on ye old Balliwick, then. Wikipedia is not a memorial. — JFG talk 20:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What policy or guideline says "oldest supercentenarian born in the 20th century in Guernsey is notable"? CommanderLinx (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Principality of Sealand
Well, John Smith is the oldest supercentenarian in the even tinier Principality of Sealand. Sealand is not a part of the United Kingdom (or anything else) so he should not be ranked among supercentarians born in the United Kingdom (or anywhere else). So he deserves an article too. EEng 14:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reeks of longevity fancruft that strains to pad this article such as "ninth oldest" in the country and the unrelated and unwanted geography lesson. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PERMASTUB and WP:NOPAGE. Off to a fantastic start with source 1 not mentioning her at all. And it gets better with sources 2 and 3 are articles because they're both from Essex which is local coverage because she retired to the area in the 1990s. This article tells us more about Guernsey than it does about her. There is nothing to say about her other than she was born, worked as a teacher, got old and then died. Nothing to preserve and no redirect is needed. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Some of the claims at these longevity articles read like parody. The claim to notability in the lede of this article is: "At the age of 110, Wood was the ninth-oldest verified person who died in the United Kingdom following the death of 112-year-old Margaret Fish on 12 March 2011." Seriously?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shamata (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Not a single one of the links contain the word Shamata in it. This is not the first inappropriate DAb page created by this user. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:24, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Butterfield[edit]

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

This person's only claim to notability was reaching an advanced age and being the world's oldest (known) man for a few months. The article offers no significant detail about his life and deeds, and he is now too "young" to appear among the top 100 British supercentenarians and world's oldest men. Nothing to preserve. — JFG talk 10:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable only for getting old. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like he worked until age 99, and a medical exam shortly before his death compared his brain to a healthy 70-75 year old. There is nothing to preserve about this man, including this WP:PERMASTUB. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable only for single criteria, similar to other few recently nominated subjects. Rzvas (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG as a GRG table and two unlinked articles does not make someone notable. This is a WP:PERMASTUB that has no hope of expanding beyond he was born, worked as a chemist until he was 99, had his brain analysed and died so WP:NOPAGE definitely applies here. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:17, 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 12:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Dean[edit]

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

This person's only claim to notability was reaching an advanced age and being the oldest man in the UK for a few months. The article offers only anecdotal detail about his life and deeds, failing WP:ANYBIO. He is now too "young" to appear among the top 100 British supercentenarians and world's oldest men. Nothing to preserve. — JFG talk 10:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete getting old does not notable make you. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like he might be able to reach age 130, what his grandchildren do, and how he drank some secret elixir of life to make him live forever or at least a really long time. This entry is ridiculous, and there is nothing to preserve about this man, including this WP:PERMASTUB. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable only for single criteria, similar to other few recently nominated subjects. Rzvas (talk) 08:02, 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. czar 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White power sign (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This dab page contains only one legitimate target, Fourteen Words, Thumbs up and Corneliu Zelea Codreanu has no reference to a "white power sign" Give and take is a piped link to Quid Pro Quo which has no reference to white power sign and should not be included. This is not the first time the creator has created inappropriate DAB pages Dom from Paris (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unnecessary and non-compliant dab page. PamD 09:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and PamD: only one valid entry. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as only one valid target, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 22:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Tarrant[edit]

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

This person's only claim to notability was reaching an advanced age and being the oldest man in the UK for a few months. The article offers no significant detail about his life and deeds, and sourcing about the "longest-married couple" is the Daily Mail, which is prohibited. He is now too "young" to appear among the top 100 British supercentenarians and world's oldest men. Nothing to preserve. — JFG talk 10:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like his marriage date in relation to his birthday, his secret to longevity, and a dubious marriage length record. There is nothing to preserve about this man, including this WP:PERMASTUB. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable only for single criteria, similar to other few recently nominated subjects. Rzvas (talk) 08:07, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camochu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the fact that he has never played in a fully professional league that meets the topic specific notability guidelines WP:NFOOTY suggests that we should not presume that he will meet GNG. The sources are 2 passing mentions in routine coverage stories about signings etc, a player profile from his actual club (semi pro) and a player list from when he was a junior. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY never played in a fully professional league, only in Spanish 3rd division not 2nd which is professional. NZFC(talk)(cont) 21:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough for GNG for sure and fails NFOOTY, having only ever played semi-pro, and he is near the end of his career if he is in Australia! Govvy (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per all comments above, fails GNG and NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Spiderone 20:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Faldo[edit]

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

due to WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E HardB (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems coverage is sustained through the end of 2018 - [35], [36], [37].Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Given that there is recent coverage, using WP:SUSTAINED as a rationale is odd, especially when it needs a longer period for such an assessment. Hzh (talk) 23:09, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 05:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burntisland and District Pipe Band[edit]

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

Long-lived band but has never competed at a high level or made any other particular claim to fame. The current article is completely unreferenced and mostly unusable - can always be start again from scratch. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not an admin, but nothing has changed since it was relisted last time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 08:13, 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 soft delete for both articles. WP:REFUND applies for both articles. North America1000 05:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KnowHow2GO[edit]

KnowHow2GO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 2007 PSA campaign is not notable; the only references are press releases. There may be a notable organization or organizations of this name; apart from their own websites I haven't found information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this related organization with the same press-release sources:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not an admin, but nothing has changed since it was relisted last time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 08:11, 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. NOTGUIDE is a strong argument. There is a claim that independent sources exist, but none are presented here or in the article. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A-G requirements[edit]

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

Not Notable. Every college has a list of requirements. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a university enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No policy or guideline says that, therefore this vote is invalid and should be ignored. pbp 19:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep First off, subject IS notable. Nominator has obviously not followed BEFORE...if he had done a 5-second Google search, he would have quickly have found that there are plenty of websites dealing with this that are independent of the CSU and UC systems. Also, some of the arguments for deletion here are quite specious. For example, we've got a claim of WP:NOT even though university enrollment guides is not something listed under WP:NOT. And this isn't just an "every college" situation, these are requirements used by over 30 institutions. Collectively, these admissions requirements are used by more applicants than any other set of admissions requirements in these United States. I frankly find it laughable that somebody would consider deleting a topic that is on a poster in basically every high school classroom in the state. pbp 14:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you're thinking...why not a merge? Well, since this admission requirements serve two institutions, neither makes sense as a merge target. pbp 14:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:NOT there is a sub-section called WP:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a guide. Ajf773 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a stretch, @Ajf773:. None of the sub-examples of NOTGUIDE seem applicable if you ask me. Furthermore, I'd note that most of the subpoints of NOTGUIDE do not forbid content, instead they dictate writing style.pbp 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:54, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Guma[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. References in the article is a non independent source that does not even cover the subject. Nothing in my search comes up as a WP:SIGCOV, WP:SECONDARY, reliable or independent of the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:03, 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 01:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:51, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 05:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garous Abdolmalekian[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The only sources are a translation of one of his poems, and interviews with his translator Idra Novey. Nothing reliable, verifiable, or independent. Cabayi (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: The corresponding fawiki article was nominated for deletion back in March. [The consensus] was to keep it.NightD 18:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:49, 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. North America1000 08:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olena Chekan[edit]

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

I've tried, but I just can't see the notability of this person. She apparently has a minute and uncredited non-speaking part in Solaris (clip available on YouTube, not linking per WP:LINKVIO). Unfortunately I speak neither Russian nor Ukrainian, so please forgive me if I have overlooked substantial in-depth coverage in solid independent reliable sources in either of those languages. I did try looking for sources under "Yelena Chekan" as well as "Olena Chekan". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I cleaned it up by removing all the horrible genealogy stuff but what was left was very light and I'm afraid it doesn't make the grade. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG certainly a family hommage page. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not much help beyond this, but a google search "Олени Чекан" (taken from the Russian and Ukranian Wikipedia articles) returns a significant amount of material. Is any of it reliable? I can't tell. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, She was the actress in more than 20 films, author and performer of more than 10 theatrical monos, a screenwriter of several films, author of a book, television presenter. --Perohanych (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have deleted some of the worst messes from this article before but they keep reappearing. I do believe she is notable (you need to look for Russian/Ukrainian sources; her UK wiki article seems to have been written by independent editors), but her EN wiki article has been hijacked by her son who is intent to pile on anything and everything disregarding any kind of Wikipedia conventions (apparent WP:CIR issues). So to clean up this article, we can either ban the son or delete the article. Renata (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just spoke with the son of Olena Chekan and persuaded him to stop editing the page about his mother. Perohanych (talk) 18:04, 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 01:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel like this article passes notability guidelines. Skirts89 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree per Perohanych, meet WP:NACTOR. 74.50.214.141 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a misuse of WP:NACTOR here which says had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Which of her movies are Wikipedia notable here? None. I have no opinion about the subject and it seems she may meet WP:GNG anyways (though this article needs to be rewritten to go along with the sources), so no !vote for me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Pollins[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source media coverage shown, about a person notable only for winning student film awards. This is not an article-clinching notability claim per WP:CREATIVE, but none of the sourcing here is good enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:05, 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. No consensus after two relists. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B.G. Knocc Out[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, partly completely unreferenced. Nothing found via Google News beyond B.G. Knocc Out speaking about his association with Eazy E - notability is not inherited. Given the content, there are also WP:BLP issues. Huon (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did nominator do WP:BEFORE or just check the current state of the article? A quick set of Google-assisted searches reveals [38][39][40][41][42] and a bit at [43] and [44]. Yes, there's a bit of WP:ROUTINE, but there's enough to think that the article can be expanded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did my BEFORE and commented on it: "Nothing found via Google News beyond B.G. Knocc Out speaking about his association with Eazy E" - like, you know, "B.G. Knocc Out Alleges Eazy-E Was Murdered, Recalls Showdown With Nate Dogg", "B.G. Knocc Out Recalls Nearly Fighting Suge Knight With Eazy-E" or "B.G. Knocc Out Recalls Golf Course Brawl With Nate Dogg". The other two "sources" you provide to me look like a redirect to Facebook and some organization's homepage that doesn't even mention B.G. Knocc Out. AllMusic doesn't have a biography of him. Huon (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe this article is nominated for outright deletion when all I have to do is click on "Find sources: books" and hundreds of print references to this person in published sources in the form of biographies, memoirs, popular music album charts, etc. turn up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.94.113 (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - how about presenting those independent reliable sources you found that cover him in some detail here so we can review them? Huon (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC with releases on two major labels one of which is owned by Universal Music, there is also a lot of coverage to wade through which is a good sign, will do so later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sounds like some more time spent reviewing sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:41, 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. Despite allowing two additional weeks for discussion after Timtempleton's edits, the consensus has not shifted. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory T. Lucier[edit]

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

Less than five sources, including routine business directories, are too thin per WP:NBIO to sustain a Wikipedia biography. The creator disclosed this was a paid job and IMO it probably just didn't have enough material. See "Wikipedia’s Top-Secret 'Hired Guns' Will Make You Matter (For a Price)" for paid model explained and why quality/content failures like this occur. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete should have been speedied. Trash. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing enough quality, in-depth coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, if one separates (per WP:NOTINHERITED) the subject from the one notable company he was CEO of, he lacks a claim to encyclopedic significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mentioned along with NuVasive, Inc. in reliable sources, but that is not considered notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very low quality article. scope_creep (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just added some more sources and removed the press release. The San Diego Union Tribune source calls him "a well known life science executive".[[45]] I know the Life deal he helped broker was huge. I think there's enough now to pass WP:GNG, but I'll look for some more coverage to add tomorrow. Here's more in the meantime - he was considered notable enough that The Boston Globe had a whole article on his compensation in 2009.[[46]] In 2011, he was #12 on Forbe's list of highest paid CEOs.[[47]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a little more info. For the closer, the comment below and of course all above appear to have come before reviewing my edits. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; signficant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing, not independent of his company, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist after major editing done with no further discussion after said edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't want to add it because it will make the article look more like a puff piece to people unfamiliar with the accolade, but Lucier was selected this year by the San Diego Business Journal as one of the San Diego 500. You can read his listing and the qualifications for inclusion here [[48]]. Also, NuVasive, the company for which he's the Chairman of the Board, appears to have enough coverage to demonstrate notability. You can Google them and see the coverage in the San Diego and Dayton, Ohio press. I know notability is not inherited, but taken in context the info does bolster a keep argument. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:37, 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. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retired Racehorse Project[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Much of the content is based on themselves, much of the content based on independent sources (e.g. the entire "Industry Issues" paragraph) isn't about the organization. I asked Nick to take a look at the "ProQuest" sources; he couldn't find any of them on ProQuest. Those sources that I could locate did not cover the organization itself in any detail. Huon (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not meeting WP:ORGCRITE unless the supposedly-cited sources in RS like The Baltimore Sun are actually found and cover the subject in depth. signed, Rosguill talk 16:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources have been provided on the talk page. It seems like the Baltimore Sun piece is really coverage for an event hosted by the subject coupled with some quotes by the organization's founder and thus doesn't seem to meet ORGCRITE. A link to ProQuest search results was also provided, but I cannot access the document. My vote remains unchanged, but will reconsider once the actual content of the ProQuest source is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 01:55, 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 12:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climb Media[edit]

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

It inherits notability from its founder. Fails as per WP:NCORP Dial911 (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm struggling to find any secondary sources for this Spiderone 08:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kireet Khurana, which mentions this topic by name. In general, if a title would make for a useful search phrase, please pursue such alternatives to deletion before nominating an article for deletion. czar 22:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Insufficiently notable for a redirect even, and the article history is 100% spam & not worth preserving. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nz Animation Co.[edit]

2nz Animation Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails as per improved WP:NCORP Dial911 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kireet Khurana, which mentions this topic by name. In general, if a title would make for a useful search phrase, please pursue such alternatives to deletion before nominating an article for deletion. czar 22:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Insufficiently notable for a redirect even, while the article history is not worth preserving. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Seems to have been a member of some indie bands, and toured with some artists, but no independent notability. Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Said singer Isn’t notable as stated above. No single evidence of notability on web search as there is little or no independent news coverage of her, hence she fails WP:MUSICBIO.

Is Nutin 10:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:21, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD Pipes and Drums[edit]

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

No independent notability. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's not enough on its own to turn this into a "keep", but the NYPD Pipes and Drums are the band featured in the video for the Pogues' song "Fairytale of New York" [49], [50]. But really there needs to be some notability shown for the band itself. Richard3120 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, it's certainly more than a routine appearance. There could be a useful article about the band on wikipedia, I'm happy to withdraw the nom and do some work on it if you think it's marginal? Most of the pipe band articles that have been AfDed have been much less notable so there's not much consensus on where the line is for pipe bands. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably keep. Although local, this search of NYTimes [51] archive has WP:SIGCOV going back many decades. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep INDEPTH sourcing available in national and international sources. WP:HEY added a little of it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ran a Proquest news archive search and can see articles from papers across the U.S. and Canada about this band marching in parades, and giving concerts. Some of it is minor, Traveling to give concerts is something bands do, Washington for the Inaugural parade and so forth, could be summarized in a sentence sourced to articles about major gigs. Obits for a long-time band conductor. founding date in article is probably incorrect it seems to be the starting date for a particular conductor, but band appears to have existed already. As I said, this one clearly just needs an editor to write and source it. I'll try to get back to it. access to news archives is really useful here - lots of old articles to comb through.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, cheers for the input!! I'll withdraw the nomination. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 20:04, 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 17:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Parker (information security)[edit]

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

I tidied this up and then got to wondering. Not notable as far as I can see, though it's not my specialist subject. Article has existed for 9 years now and makes no claim of notability, Only references are passing mentions in the media, none of which are about him, and many are almost certainly promotional. Many dead links. Emeraude (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See updates.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.178.184 (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seen them. Now unreferenced entirely. Still no evidence of notability. Emeraude (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly self-promotional Skirts89 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article seems to be promotional in nature, and otherwise not notable. Also doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG guidelines as I didn't find any independent sources. Jebcubed (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article has no sources. Subject doesn't appear notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as PROMO for a non-notable "computer security author, technologist and investor." Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:24, 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 17:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Riudavets[edit]

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. His entries on the List of the verified oldest men and List of Spanish supercentenarians are sufficient. — JFG talk 16:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was the world's oldest man which is far more than "reaching an advanced age" and he also possibly held the world record for time by which a child survived a parent. LE (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable, then there should be significant coverage of it. Nothing currently in the article indicates anything approaching significant coverage. Just living, by itself, is not inherently notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Living for an absolutely extraordinary length of time is inherently notable. LE (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you have said, LE, is grounded in any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and inventing a supposed record to try to create notability says all we need to know about this article and that your vote is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like mundane record speculation and family age milestones. His name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the five lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strip out the horse race stats (hint it is not a contest) and we have nothing but boring bio details padded by the ages at deatb of his non-notable siblings. Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 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. Up to editors to determine whether there is an appropriate redirect target. Sandstein 17:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sakari Momoi[edit]

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. His entry on the List of the verified oldest men is sufficient. — JFG talk 16:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My second choice is to merge/redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians#People.

    Cunard (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I could maybe see a minibio. But he basically got old, said he wanted to live longer, and died. That is the entire article, there's no way that's enough for a standalone page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its a 1Event case - he was reported as the world's oldest man, but no one really knows because there is no central tracting of this. Beyond the repeated report we have nothing substantive. WP:NOPAGE applies. His name belongs on the lists. Legacypac (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaching a certain age is an lifetime accomplishment not 1 event. It is an achievement that takes over 110 years and because it is notable, reliable sources begin covering these people. This is how we determine notability here. In fact there are more billionaires than supercentenarians because to reach such age is more difficult and more notable than earning a billion in net worth. Rarely does NOPAGE applied because most sources do not just state there age, they question their lifestyle to determine how such longevity is achieved. It is only common sense to cover supercentenarians in fact we should have even more articles about them, but this history of deleting supercentenarians has been very destructive to Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 10:31, 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 17:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salustiano Sanchez[edit]

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. His entries on the List of the verified oldest men and List of Spanish supercentenarians are sufficient. — JFG talk 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like he played an instrument while growing up, was partially self-educated, and the standard longevity secret. His name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the three lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:10, 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 to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete this article, but there is also a clear consensus that the list should not exist in its present form, and therefore some substantial repurposing is required. I am tempted to move the page to draft space for this purpose, but I believe that a reasonable consensus can be reached through editing and discussion on the page in mainspace to develop a reasonably acceptable solution. bd2412 T 02:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of moths[edit]

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

There are about 160,000 species of moths. I'm not sure what the purpose of this list of less than 200 serves.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep and rename. The "Moths that are of economic significance" section is a valid list, if it can be sourced in some reasonable way. Pburka (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmanageable and undesireable fractional list, although I suppose that the split-off for pest species, suggested above, might have some utility. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This passes notability - moths and lists of moths has received "significant coverage" as even a brief review of the hits on Google Books shows (e.g., https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FgWGDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=moths&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEqpnUyc7eAhUR3RoKHXCxDQcQ6AEIRjAF#v=onepage&q=moths&f=false ). The list might be unwieldy but then this is handled by sub-headings and, ultimately, if the list grows too long, by splitting the list up. The objection that this is a partial list makes no sense - the author is just listing those with some degree of prominence, something which is endorsed by the style-guide. List of snake genera is a good example of how to handle this kind of subject matter. About the only reasonable objection is that Moths already includes a list, but there is nothing wrong with expanding on it in a separate page. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Waltzing into this discussion with "this passes notability" is a great way of demonstrating that you did not get what the problem is. Of course moths are notable, we have thousands of articles on them. Politicians are also notable, we have thousands of articles on them. Can you guess why we don't have a List of politicians? - As noted, there is an unlistable multitude of species. If you want a structured listing, Category:Moth_taxonomy is all ready for you. -Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The list of politicians point is a WP:WAX argument. Moth Taxonomy might be a good point if you want to argue duplication (in which case the solution would be to merge, not delete) FOARP (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing worth merging here; it is just a list of moths with no justification as to why some are included and others are excluded Spiderone 20:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - way too broad to qualify for a list; either this is a complete list of moths (which would clearly be absurd) or it is an incomplete list of moths (showing bias towards particular species depending on what the article editors prefer) Spiderone 22:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a list being incomplete. The style-guide even encourages you to only include significant examples in a list if including all the examples would result in an overly-long list. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ALL species are notable, hence any selection is subjective, which we do not want. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose as a list of lists of moths. The numerous lists of moths really need to have a top level list. SpinningSpark 22:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The List of lists of moths is really Taxonomy of the Lepidoptera, which also includes the butterflies. A list of just moths would not make sense as even though moths are different from butterflies, they aren't really a separate thing taxonomically. Hope that helps.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not it isn't. All the lists are organised by location, not taxonomy. Except for this one, which should be the top level list. SpinningSpark 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Lists of Lepidoptera by region.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Region =/= taxonomy FOARP (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but this page still contains lists that do not fit into that and are still worth keeping per WP:PRESERVE. That information should be preserved in some form. The largest moths, economic moths etc could be moved to separate pages, which still leaves a role for a "list of lists of moths" (or even "list of lists of lists" of moths). SpinningSpark 08:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "List of notable moths," organized by reason for notability (as it is now). That has encyclopedic value. Especially where there are so many moths, it would help to have a distillation of at least some of the most "important" or "famous" moths, however you want to describe it. Properly sourced, of course. Levivich (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to List of noteworthy moths. I had started out by believing this page should be deleted as it is purely a random list of names chosen from circa 160,000 moth species worldwide and can never fulfil the title of the article, so is utterly pointless in that regard, and goes against WP:LISTDD. That said, in the keystone article, Moth, there is a brief selection of 'Noteworthy moths' so, if renamed, this page could serve as a 'main article' of such selected species. As every moth species is itself notable, its title should be 'noteworthy moths' not 'notable moths' (or possibly List of moths of note?), and each entry that isn't placed in a specific sub-section should have a few words to explain its inclusion. Thus List of moths#Other moths would be redundant unless a reason for noteworthiness were included - there are simply too many pretty or interesting moths (Noctuidae, Sphingidae) for this to be allowed to become a random list of what someone happens to like, and which will forever be misleading if its name is not changed as a result of this discussion process. I'd add that there is value in having a separate Lists of moths page to help users find pages in Category:Lists of moths by location and other topics - but that seems a different issue. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose per SpinningSpark. The current list is indiscriminate. I'm not getting what basis we'd have for separately listing "noteworthy" or "notable" moths, which for one thing would seem to violate our MOS guidelines against self-references in titles, but also all moth species are notable...so again that would be too broad and arbitrary. So it makes sense to me to have only a top level List of lists of moths to index the targeted taxonomic and regional lists, and focused topical lists (those important economically/to agriculture, important to scientific research, etc.) only if there is manageable inclusion criteria. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we had a List of lists of moths, would it include genus articles like Eupterote. There are thousands of such articles, some with just a few species and some with hundreds. Then there are family articles like Eupterotidae and there are over a hundred of those. I'm just trying to get a handle on this.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no. It need only include the top level taxonomic list, Taxonomy of the Lepidoptera, or perhaps the first level down as well. Doing more would just be duplication. SpinningSpark 19:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the topic is already covered at Taxonomy of the Lepidoptera. Reppurposing the list to only include notable moths ordered by reason of their notability wouldn't work. For example here in the UK the Elephant hawk-moth (Deilephila elpenor) is a "large and dramatic species" but by global standards perhaps not. Also what happens when a "large and dramatic" moth is deemed to be of "economic significance", do we list it twice? These categaroies are subjective. Such a list would be based on is editorialsiing/OR and is not workable.--Pontificalibus 14:27, 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 05:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to make a template for your AfD comments, Andrew. "{Opposite of nomination} I don't actually know anything about the topic area. Leave it sit and it will fix itself. AfDIsNotCleanup. Out." - This is getting old. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a template which tells us how to behave in these discussions. It states that "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight ... commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." Andrew D. (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be some merit to more tightly focused lists (moths of economic significance, "noteworthy" moths (whatever that is supposed to mean)), but the present title "List of moths" should not be preserved as a redirect to a more focused list (especially so if multiple such lists are developed). Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for those who want to rename to "List of notable moths", what does that mean? Every scientifically documented species has been presumed notable by practice. Therefore how would the list be reduced to a manageable level? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should never have "notable" in an article title for the very reason that all articles are supposed to be notable topics. SpinningSpark 23:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree "notable" is not the right choice of word. I don't think it's a good idea to try and create a new category of moths, as in, "these are the 'important' moths, or the 'Big Time Moths.'" More like an index to moths. As Spinningspark said, "list of lists of moths." A navigational aid. I'm not sure what to call it or how to organize it. The long title in my mind would be: A List of Some of the Better-Known Moths, Organized According to What They Are Known For. And then you'd have sections like "Very large moths," "Very small moths," "Moths used in commerce," "Moths used in medicine," "Edible moths," or whatever. A distillation of the total list. Levivich (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In which section would you place a very large edible moth used in commerce and medicine? --Pontificalibus 09:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Organising information of this sort can be done in a variety of ways. Lists are better for this than categories because they are more open and flexible. For example, moths might be listed in sortable table, in which there are columns for attributes such as size, usage, genus, &c. Or it might be a list of lists in which there are sub-lists for each of these types. Exploring these alternatives is best done by ordinary editing and experimentation. Deletion would disrupt such activity, contrary to WP:BITE, and so is not helpful or appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't invent problems that don't exist. It's not helpful. I assume that if you actually had an example of such a moth, then you would have linked to its article. In any case, there is not proscription against an item being in more than one list. SpinningSpark 14:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scope far too broad to be workable. Interesting, short sublists (large, important, etc. moths) belong into Moth. Sandstein 20:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Martín-Torres[edit]

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

The user User:Gerrit says this:

As mentioned, there is a conflict of interest issue. The article is almost entirely written by User:Juan_F._Buenestado, who has failed to disclose that he is working directly as a journalist for Martín-Torres. Evidence of this can be seen at the university website. It is very likely that Mr. Buenestado is being paid to edit this article. He has not disclosed this, which is a major problem. I have tagged article and talk page accordingly. Unsurprisingly, the article exclusively mentions positive items (which is why it reads like a cleverly written advert disguising as a biography).

I also find that the article is thin on establishing notability. Reading through Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), the only item that comes close is “2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.”, the only national prize listed is the “Special Prize of the Spanish Research Council”. Is this prize “highly prestigious”? A Google Search for Special Prize of the Spanish Research Council only yields a single result apart from the article in question. Most of the links in the article are either from places he's worked, or research articles. I am not convinced notability has been established, therefore I have tagged the article with not only a notability template, but also a third party sources template.

This article would probably need some independent work to address these issues. Daiyusha (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Google Scholar shows he has been cited 8,426 times, with an h-index of 43
  • The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research - they are named chair at LTU in Sweden
  • The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, as evidenced by work for NASA e.g. principal investigator for instrumentation for the next mission to Mars.
As a general note, COI isn't a reason for deletion. A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. The debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article. See WP:DEL-REASON for valid reasons.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does anyone know what "chaired professor" at Luleå University of Technology actually means, in terms of status? Is it equivalent to a "distinguished professor" or "university professor" elsewhere? Is it equivalent to a named chair without the name? XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: Good question and I have investigated further. This vacancy, for a different specialism defines it and as a result I don't think it is equivalent to a named chair. I have struck my comment above accordingly. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject has demonstrated notability as per WP:NPROF. More inline citations related to his contributions to NASA or to his field are definitely a thing that should happen, though.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The number of citations and h-index are enough to convince me that WP:NPROF is met. It's true some of the papers have a large number of authors, but that's not unheard of, and is not enough to take away his notability. Likewise, the COI has no bearing on his notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 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 delete. Sandstein 17:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism in Transnistria[edit]

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

"Anarchism in Transnistria" has only a cursory existence, which is affirmed even by the article's lede. The only connections of anarchism to Transnistria are incidental:

  • That Jack the Ripper, best known for murders in western Europe, was born in Tiraspol (his article, a FA, does not even use the word "anarchist")
  • A passing mention of Tiraspol in Kropotkin's Mutual Aid
  • That Tiraspol had a branch of the South Russian Group of Anarcho-Syndicalists (SRGAS), a group that is not independently notable

The remaining paragraphs have several sentences about Ukrainian and Romanian individuals wholly unrelated to Transnistria who have minor/incidental connections to Tiraspol. There is no depth of discussion about any inherent connection between Transnistria and anarchism in the sources used throughout the article.

I posted for discussion last May with no reply. There are no worthwhile redirect/merge targets, as none of the commentary is substantial for related articles. czar 16:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. czar 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. czar 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article needs to be improved, but I don't think it warrants deletion. Skirts89 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Really torn on this one, there's a bit of something here and some decent sources backing it up, but there just doesn't seem to be much substance that couldn't be covered elsewhere. Nathan2055talk - contribs 08:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP should work through links, not through copy and paste. Briefly mention the anarchists in Tiraspol, and let interested readers follow those links. -- Oisguad (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 04:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every connection to Tiraspol is incidental—don't think it even warrants mention there. czar 17:46, 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) 09:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Tie[edit]

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

No significant publication in her own right, founder of a new company that has attracted some PR. Might ben otable someday, if the company succeeds. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG. There is in-depth coverage of subject, esp recent from CNN.[1] I will try to improve article with info from, e.g. Forbes[2] and Varsity[3]. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kavilanz, Parija (August 6, 2018). "At 18, she launched a startup. At 22, she's blazing a trail in the VC world". CNN. Retrieved November 27, 2018. In January, Tie moved to Silicon Valley to become the youngest of four partners at the firm. Tie remained on Ranomics' board, but turned over her role as CEO to Wan.
  2. ^ Wilson, Alexandra (October 19, 2018). "These Forbes Under 30 Founders Prove The Future (Of STEM) Is Female". Forbes. Retrieved November 27, 2018. Thiel Fellow raised $1.3 million to construct a database of rare genetic variations and associated disease risk. She is also a partner at Palo Alto-based VC firm Cervin Ventures.
  3. ^ Wang, Sandy (January 19, 2015). "U of T undergrad secures $100,000 for startup". The Varsity. Retrieved November 27, 2018. With $100,000 of funding from San Francisco-based venture capital firm, SOSventures, Tie and her team will travel to San Francisco in February to participate in a 100-day accelerator program to further develop their project.
  • Keep meets BIO. Has received an admittedly controversial - though selective - award, and taken a non-traditional career path resulting in marked success for one of her age and background. Partner with a notable portfolio and budget in a venture firm. Coverage in 10+ secondary sources. More academic output and potential benefit to her field than others with their own Wikipedia entries, such as Adam Munich or Stacey Ferreira.

Tarselli (talk) 17:34, 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 17:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Baines Johnson[edit]

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

Per WP:BIOFAMILY. There is no indication of independent notability. This article exists because the subject gave birth to a man who became president after her death. Surtsicna (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not independently notable, its enough to mention here in her son's article --DannyS712 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 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. Not notable at the moment. Happy to restore to someone's draft space if requested but no editor has yet asked. Fenix down (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Santos Colado[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Player has not played in any fully professional league. RRD (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Needs a cleanup, and the fake stats removed, however [52] considering he just signed up to a fully-pro team in a fully pro league, I am betting he will pass soon. Govvy (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - as per Govvy, WP:TOOSOON. He's contracted to a team in a WP:FPL and stands at least a solid chance to appear in the future. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:36, 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 17:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice UK (Series8)[edit]

The Voice UK (Series8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the other series are have their own page, they simply redirect to The Voice UK. Meatsgains(talk) 02:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with redirect as per nom, because this makes sense. Why'd this series get special treatment if no else does? DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 08:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Draft All the Voice series have pages, see The Voice UK (series 7) through The Voice UK (series 1). However, in saying that, this page is so poorly written it will have to be completelty blown up to be even barley acceptable. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only created this page because I knew that The Voice was going to have an eighth series. If it doesn't meet the criteria for Wiki then maybe someone else could make it better. Delete if you have to though. Thanks --Slindsell15 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing to say yet, since it hasn't taken place. But I have no idea where the OP got the idea that none of the other series have their own articles; they all do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to (or WP:HISTMERGE with?) The Voice UK (series 8) (the "correct" title), and then convert to a redirect, as per others. Can become an article once series 8 actually premieres. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My mistake... as the nominator of this AfD, I'm not quite sure how I thought all the other series were redirects. I do know that The Voice UK (series 8) already redirects to The Voice UK though. I believe that's how I came to that conclusion. Meatsgains(talk) 03:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since the correctly titled version (i.e. with a space between "series" and "8") already exists as a redirect, this version would be implausible and unhelpful to retain in any form. The eighth series will be getting an article once there's actually something more to say about it than "it will happen, the end", but there's no need to jump the gun on it yet. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_28&oldid=1142615351"